57
   

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

 
 
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 01:48 am
@Mockingclown,
Well, I could say I meant "he" in the generic sense of the word; but, actually, I assumed you were a guy. Don't ask me why. Embarrassed

Sorry about that. Smile Wink
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 01:57 am
@wmwcjr,
Don't apologise, he's a ******* prick. I'm not going to bother with any of his posts.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 03:17 am
@wmwcjr,
Quote:
Frank, that last post he submitted is, uh, a little dopey, I guess. Well, after all, he is a clown.


The alias does seem to be well-suited, wmwc!
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 05:14 am
Noone seems to want to respond to the exhortations covered in first and second Timothy. These are, after all, included books in the Vulgate so, If the question were broached, Timothy provides some scriptural underpinning at least.

It certainly saves continual useless response to idiots.
anthony1312002
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 05:24 am
@Frank Apisa,
On the surface that might appear to be the case. But if you think about it, we handle matters much in the same way today. For example, if it is well known about a person that they stand for true justice, that everyone receive fair and equal treatment, it would not be necessary for that individual to speak directly to every instance of justice after having made his position clear on other points of injustice. You would already know where he stands.

But here is another thought to consider that the Bible provides regarding Jesus activities on the earth. At John 21:25 this statement is made: "There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose, the world itself could not contain the scrolls written."

Yes, there are many things that Jesus said and did while on the earth that were not recorded. But what was recorded is truly sufficient for us to know where the Son of God stands on issues such as slavery. That to him it is neither moral nor permissible.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 05:31 am
@anthony1312002,
Quote:
That to him it is neither moral nor permissible.
Thats your spin because you want to believe that. it aint whats written in the NEw Testament. Revisionism of textural content is sorta like interpreting whats written on M&Ms. It is what it is. (sorry for the triteness)
0 Replies
 
NSFW (view)
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 07:27 am
@spendius,
How do you get people to behave themselves in the name of Evolution or the Zeitgeist? Which leaves God or the State. Or nothing, which I hardly think a man in your position would desire.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 07:30 am
@spendius,
In fact, if there was no electricity nobody would want any ******* oil. It's just a slimy, horrible, sticky gunk to anybody with no juice.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 08:14 am
@spendius,
Quote:
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;


2 Timothy Chap. 4. V 3.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 09:08 am
@farmerman,

Quote:
Noone seems to want to respond to the exhortations covered in first and second Timothy. These are, after all, included books in the Vulgate so, If the question were broached, Timothy provides some scriptural underpinning at least.


Sorry, FM...my plate was a bit full...and I was tending to it.

The fact that there are so many places where slave masters and slaves were instructed as to how the relationship ought to be conducted...is ample evidence that slavery was not thought to be wrong.

The instructions of the god that slaves could be bought, sold, treated as chattels, and bequeathed to heirs pretty much establishes the same thing.

Thanks for contributing that.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 09:11 am
@anthony1312002,
Quote:
On the surface that might appear to be the case. But if you think about it, we handle matters much in the same way today. For example, if it is well known about a person that they stand for true justice, that everyone receive fair and equal treatment, it would not be necessary for that individual to speak directly to every instance of justice after having made his position clear on other points of injustice. You would already know where he stands.

But here is another thought to consider that the Bible provides regarding Jesus activities on the earth. At John 21:25 this statement is made: "There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose, the world itself could not contain the scrolls written."

Yes, there are many things that Jesus said and did while on the earth that were not recorded. But what was recorded is truly sufficient for us to know where the Son of God stands on issues such as slavery. That to him it is neither moral nor permissible.


Anthony, I appreciate what you are saying here...and I thank you for contributing in the tone you are using.

I think, though, that the preponderance of evidence we have to work with indicates that few, if any, in the Christian community thought there was anything wrong with slavery. The Christian community at the beginning was primarily Jews...and their god said it was moral. The Christian community among the gentiles certainly adopted the father god of the Bible...so they also were convinced there was nothing wrong or immoral with slavery.

There seems to be no getting around that.

The implications of that are another thing. But that, we have not discussed.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 09:12 am
@spendius,
Spendius, I am not really sure what you are babbling about here, but I appreciate you continuing to contribute to this thread.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 10:31 am
It is laughable enough that much of modern historiography is a process by which the 21st century, aping the 20th century, is busily recreating the 15th and 16th centuries, under the Marxist whip, in its own image, but we are in the realms of surreal absurdity when self-evident nincompoops, who can't get round a golf course in under 95 off the ladies' tees nor write their way out of a paper bag, are eagerly, lick-lippingly, attempting the recreate the early 1st century in conditions which can barely be glimpsed let alone imagined by any of us, for no other reason than to justify personal conveniences in the pantsdown department.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 10:43 am
@spendius,
Quote:
It is laughable enough that much of modern historiography is a process by which the 21st century, aping the 20th century, is busily recreating the 15th and 16th centuries, under the Marxist whip, in its own image, but we are in the realms of surreal absurdity when self-evident nincompoops, who can't get round a golf course in under 95 off the ladies' tees nor write their way out of a paper bag, are eagerly, lick-lippingly, attempting the recreate the early 1st century in conditions which can barely be glimpsed let alone imagined by any of us, for no other reason than to justify personal conveniences in the pantsdown department.


I'm glad this was n0t directed at me. I shot an 89 today (tiny bit of rain) from the gray tees, which are pretty far back from the green tees, where most women play. We don't call them "ladies tees" here...they are the forward tees...and the USGA and the PGA are almost begging all golfers to choose the tees that are most consistent with their driving distances.

Yesterday, we had our course tourney (for all the employees at Warrenbrook). It was a Two Man Best-Ball scramble...which my partner Jim and I won by 3 strokes. I also won closest to the pin on the front par three (#9) be getting my drive within 5' 3" of the hole.

Things not going well with you, Spendius? You seem to be more obscure than ever these days, which is quite an accomplishment considering how obscure you are usually.
0 Replies
 
anthony1312002
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 11:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, I must apologize for not broading my scope. You are absolutely correct in your stating that during the time of Jesus ministry that slavery was then an accepted part of daily living. To start, there was a provision in the Mosaic Law that allowed a person who fell upon very hard times and could no longer support himself to sell himself into servitued to a fellow Jew. But there was another interesting provision in the law. This servitude or slavery could last for only 7 years. At the end of 7 years the persons that sold themselves into slavery were to be set free without penalty. Please see Deuteronomy 15:1-9.

Here is another example. In the Bible book of Philemon, the Christian disciple Paul refers to a certain O'nes'imus who served as a slave to a disciple named Philemon. After learning the truth of the Bible O'nes'imus also became a disciple of Christ. From that point forward the relationship between O'nes'imus and Philemon takes an interesting turn. Please see the book of Philemon. The entire book is only 25 verses long and makes for very interesting reading, providing some insight into the type of slavery then in existance.

To be sure the slavery that I think most people are talking about today differs greatly from that which was practiced then. For example, during the reign of the Roman empire slaves could purchase their freedom after meeting certain requirements. A certain Roman governor by the name of Felix, who began his tenure around 52 C.E, was at one time a slave who was able to purchase his freedom.This was also practiced in early Europe as the term, endentured servant was then used. These ones could also, after meeting certain requirements purchase their right to freedom. Taking these factors into account might help to explain why Jesus is not recorded as having spoken out against the slavery of his day.

But the type of slavery that we are sure Jesus will address is that which completely denies a person any opportunity to gain their freedom. Either through a work agreement or by right of purchase. A slavery that is designed to completely strip a person or group of persons of their dignity and self respect. I think that this is the type of slavery that comes to mind to many people today when this subject comes up. And understandablly so as many may not be privy to all of varied ways the word slave or slavery can apply. Thus, to define my answer more accurately, which I apologzie to everyone for not doing so earlier, it is the slavery that completely denegrates, the objective of which is to never allow the person to gain freedom, a slavery that strips a person of all hope, dignity and respect. It is this type of slavery that we are sure Jesus will do away with.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 11:46 am
I think Jesus was gay . . . everything else was secondary to that . . .
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 12:06 pm
@anthony1312002,
Thanks for your reply, Anthony, but you are missing an essential of the biblical representation of slavery.

You mentioned

Quote:
But there was another interesting provision in the law. This servitude or slavery could last for only 7 years. At the end of 7 years the persons that sold themselves into slavery were to be set free without penalty. Please see Deuteronomy 15:1-9.


Fine...but that applied ONLY to Jews who were slaves to Jews. Jews who owned slaves who were non-Jews were slaves forever.

"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

So the fact that the provision exists does not mitigate against the slavery being actually discussed here.

Quote:
Here is another example. In the Bible book of Philemon, the Christian disciple Paul refers to a certain O'nes'imus who served as a slave to a disciple named Philemon. After learning the truth of the Bible O'nes'imus also became a disciple of Christ. From that point forward the relationship between O'nes'imus and Philemon takes an interesting turn. Please see the book of Philemon. The entire book is only 25 verses long and makes for very interesting reading, providing some insight into the type of slavery then in existance.


I have already read Philemon several times...and have discussed it in detail on several occasions on the Internet. I come away from the letter convinced that Paul saw absolutely nothing wrong with slavery. If you see something in the letter that indicates that Paul thought slavery was immoral or prohibited in any way, let's discuss it. I think no such reading can be logically made.

Quote:
To be sure the slavery that I think most people are talking about today differs greatly from that which was practiced then. For example, during the reign of the Roman empire slaves could purchase their freedom after meeting certain requirements. A certain Roman governor by the name of Felix, who began his tenure around 52 C.E, was at one time a slave who was able to purchase his freedom.This was also practiced in early Europe as the term, endentured servant was then used. These ones could also, after meeting certain requirements purchase their right to freedom. Taking these factors into account might help to explain why Jesus is not recorded as having spoken out against the slavery of his day.


The essentials of the slavery are identical. A slave-owner OWNED the slave...could do with it pretty much what he wanted to do...could treat it as a chattel...could separate it from its kin...and could bequeath it to an heir.

The notion that slavery was much different is suspect, Anthony.

Quote:
But the type of slavery that we are sure Jesus will address is that which completely denies a person any opportunity to gain their freedom.


Why on Earth would he??? The god of the Bible...Jesus' father...the god Jesus worshiped...says that there is absolutely nothing wrong with slavery...especially the kind that denies a person any opportunity to gain freedom. Why would he?


Quote:
Thus, to define my answer more accurately, which I apologzie to everyone for not doing so earlier, it is the slavery that completely denegrates, the objective of which is to never allow the person to gain freedom, a slavery that strips a person of all hope, dignity and respect. It is this type of slavery that we are sure Jesus will do away with.


But, Anthony, that is precisely the kind of slavery the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshiped said is completely permissible and is moral.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 04:16 pm
My problem is that I am altogether free of zeal. I find zeal to be a bit crass. I do not dislike zealots. I just don't understand the silly fuckers or, to put it another way, I find it difficult to recognize them as fellow human beings.

And Apisa is nothing if not extraordinarily zealous in pursuit of whatever the **** he is in pursuit of. He's a Puritan par exellence. Calvin would have been proud of him. Like a hunting dog with it's teeth fastened on to a stick with a rag wrapped round it which had been rubbed on a dog fox's hinder parts.


spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 05:15 pm
@spendius,
What Apisa is vaguely suggesting is that he is of that enlightened class of high handicap golfers embracing an enlightened faith which will enlighten not only a few A2kers but enlighten their posterity as well unto the seventh generation or beyond.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 07:27:00