Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

@Setanta,

Quote:

So, for example, when make you completely unsubtantiated claim that christians "have little interest in trying to know the nature of reality,"

"When make you?" Are you not the one preaching to me about coherency?

Is that better? I did not change any of the words you used but rather left them as I found them. Wink

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

That's completely coherent. You made the claim that christians "have little interest in trying to learn to know the nature of reality." Apparently, although i would not have thought it, it is possible to be incoherent in understanding. "When you make" is gramatical, logical and coherent. It is hardly my fault that you can't conprehend that. I wasn't "preaching" to you about anything, loon.

This is exactly why i almost never talk to you--you may not be an idiot, but one would never know that from reading what you post. I'm going to go back to my previous, sensible habit, and will now ignore you again.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

"When you make" is gramatical, logical and coherent.

And you are telling me this because?

Quote:

I'm going to go back to my previous, sensible habit, and will now ignore you again.

Goodnight Bubba. Cool

0 Replies

God is the Zeitgeist. Being a Conservative because the facts of life are conservative, as Darwin explained so thoroughly, He is always behind the times and has to be dragged into whatever century or millenium or lighting flash or some other incomprehensible anthropomorphicating concerning the mysterious concept of Time, such as the famous 7 minutes, although I suppose that was calculated using relatively jaded appetites rather than those appertaining to the stage in life at which you gumps became radicalised when it was probably of the order of 7 seconds. When you first worked out that the Pope is an expert camper-up of how to render the human form into a passably dignified appearance and how to rip the linings out of the pockets of the poor and impoverished peasants who had not Majored in an 'Ology, and was making a young man's life more difficult than it need be.

In the old days slavery was in the Zeitie just as "plebs" were. Plebs is a word the great and the good here are exercising their minds upon. The middle-class is a similar term.

Asking why Jesus never condemned slavery is like asking why we never condemn the middle-class now. Completely stupid as is easily proved by the election campaign. A candidate laying a finger on the middle-class is a dead duck.

Asking such an idiotic question is proof of a mindset which only understands one thing. Itself. Its notions of life as Jesus lived it are probably derived from Hollywood.

2 Replies

@spendius,

A vicar in a country town here once overcame the resistance of the more pious members of his congregation to his installing a vending machine in the church porch by saying that he felt it symbolised the feeding of the 5,000.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Spendius, I’ve never been called an idiot in such a complicated way. Thank you for setting that record.

As you might imagine, I disagree with you completely--but I respect your right to call others idiots when you have no better arguments to make.

Asking the question (in the two forms I have) is far from idiotic. It calls attention to the fact that one of the possible responses (the one I think is most likely) is that Jesus (if there was such a person or amalgam of persons) and all of the chroniclers of his ministry were absolutely assured by the god of the Old Testament that there was nothing whatever wrong with slavery. That seems the most likely reason (to me) that they did not do so. Slavery was as moral as getting married in the eyes of the god…so all those people would not think that it was deserving of condemnation.

Sorry you do not see that as important, but I think it says something extremely important about the god. I also am sorry you do not see the value in discussing the issue. I note there are several threads devoted to incest that you might find more fun. You ought to look in on them.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

If you've already made up your mind that "Slavery was as moral as getting married in the eyes of the god" before this thread, then there is no point in arguing is there. No matter who takes part in the discussion, you'll keep on repeating "Slavery was as moral as getting married in the eyes of the god." It gets boring really fast. let's ask more entertaining questions such as why did jesus never condemn gays or did he? Or why jesus never condemned adulteres?
It seems the only people he did condemn were the scribes and pharisees. Why do you think that is?

Now there is an entertaining discussion.

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5115906)
If you've already made up your mind that "Slavery was as moral as getting married in the eyes of the god" before this thread, then there is no point in arguing is there.

No matter who takes part in the discussion, you'll keep on repeating "Slavery was as moral as getting married in the eyes of the god." It gets boring really fast. let's ask more entertaining questions such as why did jesus never condemn gays or did he? Or why jesus never condemned adulteres?
It seems the only people he did condemn were the scribes and pharisees. Why do you think that is?

Now there is an entertaining discussion.

If you think you have a topic that is more interesting than this one, why not just start a thread on that topic...and not bother with this one? Then we can all get together in that thread and have fun in a non-boring thread.

The fact of the matter is that the god of the Old Testament did approve of slavery...he indicated that there was nothing immoral about it.

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you BUY them from among the neighboring nations. You may also BUY them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves YOU MAY OWN AS CHATTELS, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, MAKING THEM PERPETUAL SLAVES. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen." Leviticus 25:44ff

I certainly have not "made my mind up" that it is moral. I think it is one of the most immoral things of which I can conceive. I raise the issue in part to cause us all to consider whether the Bible gives us information about any GOD...information upon which we can rely. (Obviously, I do not think it does.)

Anyway, if you find this topic "boring"...go somewhere else. There are no rules which require that you participate here.

Start a thread on the question you asked...I will visit and give an opinion. Might be very interesting; might fizzle immediately.

0 Replies

The Constitution did not condemn slavery in the states where it was part of
the Zeitgeist. It allowed states to decide for themselves up to the end of the Confederate War. There were rules to return runaway slaves to states which had slavery.

Even after the Confederate War slavery continued in all but name.

PS. I did not "call" the question idiotic. I proved it to be so. One does not "call" somebody crosseyed if they are crosseyed. One simply states the fact.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

The Constitution did not condemn slavery in the states where it was part of
the Zeitgeist. It allowed states to decide for themselves up to the end of the Confederate War. There were rules to return runaway slaves to states which had slavery.

That is very interesting...thank you for sharing.

Quote:

Even after the Confederate War slavery continued in all but name.

Apparently that means something to you. To me it sounds like nonsense. Slavery is slavery...it involves commerce in and ownership of slaves. Slavery ended at some point...there was no further commerce in or ownership of slaves in America. Your "in all but name" is trite.

Quote:

PS. I did not "call" the question idiotic. I proved it to be so. One does not "call" somebody crosseyed if they are crosseyed. One simply states the fact.

You wrote: “Asking such an idiotic question is proof of a mindset…”

So you did “call” it idiotic. And if you want to delude yourself that you proved it to be idiotic, have a ball. But whether you did or did not prove it to be idiotic (which in my opinion you most assuredly did not)…you did call it idiotic.

In any case, thank you for your continuing contributions, Spendius.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

This is a quite simple to see. Bible, Torah, etc obviously were written in context to culture and history. Every social policy benefits some people and not others. It depends on what you define as "inherently evil."

I looked up morality in the dictionary. It says "conforming to the rules of right conduct."
So who decides the rules of right conduct, society? God? gods? the rich? the poor? you?

2 Replies

@Zeke,

Certainly, Frank, you can dispute all day long if you want of who wrote the book.
Good luck on trying to convert christians to atheism or agnosticism, or whatever you believe. Best of luck to you.

1 Reply

@Zeke,

Quote:

Hey, Zeke. Thanks for chiming in.

This is a quite simple to see. Bible, Torah, etc obviously were written in context to culture and history. Every social policy benefits some people and not others. It depends on what you define as "inherently evil."

Except for the “quite simple” part, I agree with your remarks here. There is very little about this that I consider “simple”….and I would use “extremely complex” in its stead.

In any case, I try never to describe anything as inherently evil, because of the difficulties you mention. And it seems as obvious to me as it does to you that the best guess to make about the Bible is that it was written “in context to culture and history.”

But keep in mind that there are people who consider it “the word of” some god. In my opinion, that notion costs society a great deal.

Part of what I am doing in asking this question is to focus on why people consider the writing to be “god” inspired rather than simply the efficient, reasonable, and intelligent “morality” of a people living several thousands of years ago. I am questioning its relevance for use in determining what an efficient, reasonable, and intelligent “morality” should be for us…in effect, what our laws should be.

Quote:

I looked up morality in the dictionary. It says "conforming to the rules of right conduct."
So who decides the rules of right conduct, society? God? gods? the rich? the poor? you?

That is my point, Zeke. How does one decide? I want to limit (as best I can) having those decisions be based on what was considered “right rules of conduct” and “morality” thousands of years ago. Only way to even attempt to impact on that…is to constantly question that several-thousand-year-old morality…to pick out what still is valuable and what ought rightly to be discarded.

It is a discussion worth having. I thank you once again for joining in.

0 Replies

@Zeke,

Quote:

Certainly, Frank, you can dispute all day long if you want of who wrote the book.
Good luck on trying to convert christians to atheism or agnosticism, or whatever you believe. Best of luck to you.

The thing this comment of yours brought to my mind was the old:

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force him to drink.

So...don't try to force him to drink. Try to get him thirsty instead!

0 Replies

That sounds clever, and i know you love to think of yourself as clever, but it's essentially meaningless. The religiously devout consider their "thirst" to be quenched by their religious experience. Once again, this is a futile exercise on your part.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

That sounds clever, and i know you love to think of yourself as clever, but it's essentially meaningless. The religiously devout consider their "thirst" to be quenched by their religious experience. Once again, this is a futile exercise on your part.

The push to end slavery in America was once considered a "futile exercise" , Setanta.

I'm not a quitter...and sustained efforts are only "meaningless" to people who refuse to see meaning in what other do.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

It sure is futile when this is considered--

Quote:

But keep in mind that there are people who consider it “the word of” some god. In my opinion, that notion costs society a great deal.

for the very simple reason that the "costs" to society don't take account of the costs of any alternatives and that is the whole point.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Your conceit is amazing. Millions of Americans were opposed to slavery, and millions of them were willing to put their lives on the line to achieve that goal. Are you really so facile as to believe that you are in the same league? Slavery does not legally exist in the United States, and where it is practiced in the U.S., the motivation is pure and simple greed, with no attempt to justify it religiously. You aren't going to get up a crusade because someone's scripture from thousands of years ago condoned slavery. But more than that, as has been pointed out to you time and again, nothing you are saying will convince the religiously devout. Trying to make yourself look noble over this in fact just makes you look ridiculous. The majority, the overwhelming majority of people in the world believe in some sort of deity. This will not change in your lifetime or mine, not in the lifetimes of the next generation, nor their grandchildren's lifetimes, nor the lifetimes of their grandchildren.

You just make yourself look silly, Frank. What makes you such a relentlessly angry man?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5117493)
Your conceit is amazing. Millions of Americans were opposed to slavery, and millions of them were willing to put their lives on the line to achieve that goal. Are you really so facile as to believe that you are in the same league? Slavery does not legally exist in the United States, and where it is practiced in the U.S., the motivation is pure and simple greed, with no attempt to justify it religiously. You aren't going to get up a crusade because someone's scripture from thousands of years ago condoned slavery. But more than that, as has been pointed out to you time and again, nothing you are saying will convince the religiously devout. Trying to make yourself look noble over this in fact just makes you look ridiculous. The majority, the overwhelming majority of people in the world believe in some sort of deity. This will not change in your lifetime or mine, not in the lifetimes of the next generation, nor their grandchildren's lifetimes, nor the lifetimes of their grandchildren.

You just make yourself look silly, Frank. What makes you such a relentlessly angry man?

Setanta, you are so cute when you are angry it is impossible to feel anything but affection for you.

So you think I am trying to look "noble" but all I am looking is "ridiculous" and silly. And you think I am conceited to the point of amazement.

Thank you for sharing that, Setanta. I appreciate you taking the time to visit as often as you do to tell me what a failure I am. Your commitment to me is something I treasure.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Snide passive-aggressive insults only serve to emphasize what an angry man you are Frank. I'm not concerned with any "failures" on your part. This is a game you play, i don't know why, and i don't care. But it's long since gotten old, tedious and predictable. More than anything else, it doesn't work. It doesn't draw in the christians and it serves none of the ridiculous, noble purposes you attempted to allege.

You should stop being so angry at god and the christians and lighten up.

2 Replies

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know