Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

@ehBeth,

Quote:

I suspect you think we're all too dim to notice what you think are marvellously sly digs.

I doubt that, but I am impressed that you take the time to stand up for Setanta. My "digs" will never be as mean-spirited and anger sponsored as Setanta's regular litany of personal insults.

1 Reply

My "digs" will never be as mean-spirited and anger sponsored as xxxxx's regular litany of personal insults.

the words that have been keeping feuds alive for centuries...

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Nor you, apparently. I kinda have to respond...this is my thread. You can stop any time, but you are unable to do so.

In that regard you have put me in a win/win situation. If you stick around, I get to enjoy what you are going through. If you leave, I will miss the fun, but you will be gone.

Amazing that you were able to do that. Wink

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Allow me an AMEN to that.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Quote:

My "digs" will never be as mean-spirited and anger sponsored as xxxxx's regular litany of personal insults.

the words that have been keeping feuds alive for centuries...

This is a thread I started to discuss a particular subject. If there is a feud, it is not of my making...and if my responses to Setanta keep it "alive"...that simply is what is, Rockhead.

I'm enjoying it immensely. Surely you are also, right?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I am bemused.

thanks for asking...

2 Replies

@Rockhead,

Yeah, I am bemused at times myself. I hear it is going around. Wink

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Quote:

I am bemused.

There's no need to be Rockie. It's simple. It's just talking for talking's sake to try to repress the fact that no alternatives to Christianity are on offer when it's obvious that challenges to Christian thinking require alternatives in intelligent discourse and equally obvious that requests for alternatives have appeared on the thread.

It's a species of Ignore which idiotically assumes that nobody is noticing that is what is going on.

I've read that Tangier is a city where it's okay to let it all hang out on the rumpy-pumpy front. Bill Burroughs lived there for four years. It's one alternative to Christian attitudes.

The idea of Jesus not condemning slavery is a mere stalking horse. A free and easy on the rumpy-pumpy front is the actual subject. The demotion in the social cachet stakes associated with wanking, shagging spayed females, adultery, homosexuality and abortion is the reason they won't come clean. They are ashamed of their own agenda.

Freudian and Reichian psychoanalysis attacks Christianity properly. The neurotic character armour type stuff.

2 Replies

@spendius,

I'm a different definition of bemused, spendi...

1 Reply

@spendius,

So, Spendius, why do you suppose Jesus (or the people who wrote about Jesus) never condemned slavery?

My supposition, which I have offered several times, is that Jesus (or they) did not think there was anything whatever "wrong" with slavery. They had the word of the god they worshiped on that. There was nothing to condemn as far as they were concerned.

What do you think? Do you disagree with my supposition on the issue?

Does anyone else here disagree with it?

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Quote:

I'm a different definition of bemused, spendi...

There's nothing to it Rockie. Apisa thinks he will be supported by wankers, shaggers of spayed females, licensed or otherwise, adulterers, homosexuals and those who have had a hand in an abortion, or a number of them, and with such a constituency he expects to be popular and his intellectual capacities highly admired and esteemed.

His obvious, in your face, refusal to answer the questions I posed is positive proof of his yellow-bellied, cowardly, white feather approach to these matters and his general all-round anti-intellectualism.

His anachronism is pitiful but he is a golf fanatic so I suppose we ought to make allowances in view of the fact that such persons require a flag to help them locate the position of the hole.

2 Replies

@spendius,

I think maybe you don't understand what positive proof is, saucy ol' chap...

not that I support any of the arguments presented thus far.

other than the one about pissing matches...

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Nothing to do with Setanta.

It's got to do with what I've been watching since your return.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Why do you suppose Jesus didn't condemned slavery?

Why do you suppose he never spoke out against it?

We do not know if there was a Jesus but we can be sure that there was this idea about how to be a moral person and it seemed to be an idea the spread like a virus around the Mediterranean sea at about the same time Jesus was supposed to have existed.

To the best of my knowledge this idea did condemn slavery and that was why the first Christians lost their lives. The ruling sociopaths could not kill off all of the Christians so they taught a delusional version of it and the real Christians could not compete without being killed.

So yes I would say that we probably did get our Jesus morals from the therapeutea but what better place to get them than from moral philosophers? The therapeutea were the first Jews or people that I am aware of, that are recorded in history, as saying "slavery was wrong.

I know you see setanta as being angry but the language "words" that he uses, "could they be seen more as sociopathic "antisocial" than angry?

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

RL, knock the sociopaths nonsense on the head. When Rome caught fire, the Christians provided Nero with a convenient scapegoat. It was that more than anything else that lead to their persecution.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

Nothing to do with Setanta.

It's got to do with what I've been watching since your return.

Sure, Beth. Because I have been very, very rude and seek out situations where I can insult people and Setanta has been a model of proper decorum and civility?

C'mon!

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

We do not know if there was a Jesus but we can be sure that there was this idea about how to be a moral person and it seemed to be an idea the spread like a virus around the Mediterranean sea at about the same time Jesus was supposed to have existed.

To the best of my knowledge this idea did condemn slavery and that was why the first Christians lost their lives. The ruling sociopaths could not kill off all of the Christians so they taught a delusional version of it and the real Christians could not compete without being killed.

I agree we do not know if Jesus, the person, existed, but there obviously was a Rabbi or group of them who taught a modified version of morality...which lead to the writings passed down to us. But I am not persuaded of the rest of your thesis here. I see no indication that the Church fathers condemned slavery...and the man who became one of, if not "the" leading Church father, Paul, specifically condoned it.

Quote:

So yes I would say that we probably did get our Jesus morals from the therapeutea but what better place to get them than from moral philosophers? The therapeutea were the first Jews or people that I am aware of, that are recorded in history, as saying "slavery was wrong.

I am unaware of this...but I would appreciate some citations if you can furnish them.

Quote:

I know you see setanta as being angry but the language "words" that he uses, "could they be seen more as sociopathic "antisocial" than angry?

I guess I could go with that.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

There's nothing to it Rockie. Apisa thinks he will be supported by wankers, shaggers of spayed females, licensed or otherwise, adulterers,

You need a licence to shag a 'spayed female?' Well that's a layer of bureaucracy that can be done away with right now.

1 Reply

It was standard practice for a very long time to massacre the able bodied males after a siege. The women and children were carried off into slavery. Which was the humane thing to do because without the men the women and children would have perished in ghastly circumstances.

The idea that the women and children be granted citizenship in the victor's society is as far fetched as is granting citizenship now to illegal immigrants. Thus a category was invented: slaves. In time the slaves were gradually assimilated into the victor's society just as the slaves in north America have been.

That's why the question here is anachronistic. It uses the modern emotional attitude to the word "slavery" and applies it to conditions over 2,000 years ago with the sole purpose of discrediting Jesus, the founder of our culture, and by extension discrediting the religious beliefs and moral imperatives of long standing and without offering even a hint of any alternative.

It's street vandalism and as "rude" as rude gets.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You need a licence to shag a 'spayed female?' Well that's a layer of bureaucracy that can be done away with right now.

Well-- that is at least an alternative. Aldous Huxley institutionalised the idea in BNW but he found it necessary to have "love" condemned so the bureaucracy was still required just as the Communists seek to undermine the parent/child relationship.

0 Replies

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know