57
   

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Forums: Religion, Slavery, Spirituality And Religion, Debate, Jesus
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 06:53 pm
OMG, you guys are making me dizzy. Serves me right for checking out a thread on religion.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 07:14 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
(2 Corinthians 13:5)" . . . Keep testing whether YOU are in the faith. . ."


Is this your way of acknowledging that it does not read?

Quote:
(2 Corinthians 13:5)" . . . Keep testing whether YOU are in doubt or being cautious or skeptical about what all religions teach or do you have some empirical evidence that sets your God above all the Gods that are no longer worshiped? . . ."
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 09:01 pm
@reasoning logic,
What is your question?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 02:53 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

What is your question?


Wish you had asked me that. My answer would be:

Why do YOU suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 06:15 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Why do YOU suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?
I post this answer for the sake of others who may read this thread. It appears obvious you enjoy the sound of the question too much to accept any answer.

Your question may as well be "If God is all powerful, why has he not acted to end mankind's suffering?" The answer is Jehovah will accomplish all things at the time he appoints.

So, what was Jesus' commission from his father? "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.” (John 18:37) Though Jesus may have had the power, he did not attempt to set up a perfect Jewish state. Note his reaction in this situation: "Hence when the men saw the signs he performed, they began to say: “This is for a certainty the prophet that was to come into the world.” 15 Therefore Jesus, knowing they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain all alone. (John 6:14, 15)

The institution of slavery had the protection of the imperial government. Jesus and the first-century Christians did not take a stand against governmental authority in this matter and advocate a slaves’ revolt. They respected the legal right of others, including fellow Christians, to own slaves, just as Jesus respected the right of the government to levy taxes. (Matthew 22:21)

So, why did Jesus not condemn slavery? It was not time.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 06:31 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Why do YOU suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?
I post this answer for the sake of others who may read this thread. It appears obvious you enjoy the sound of the question too much to accept any answer.

Your question may as well be "If God is all powerful, why has he not acted to end mankind's suffering?" The answer is Jehovah will accomplish all things at the time he appoints.

So, what was Jesus' commission from his father? "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.” (John 18:37) Though Jesus may have had the power, he did not attempt to set up a perfect Jewish state. Note his reaction in this situation: "Hence when the men saw the signs he performed, they began to say: “This is for a certainty the prophet that was to come into the world.” 15 Therefore Jesus, knowing they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain all alone. (John 6:14, 15)

The institution of slavery had the protection of the imperial government. Jesus and the first-century Christians did not take a stand against governmental authority in this matter and advocate a slaves’ revolt. They respected the legal right of others, including fellow Christians, to own slaves, just as Jesus respected the right of the government to levy taxes. (Matthew 22:21)

So, why did Jesus not condemn slavery? It was not time.


Hummm! It was not time to say "Love your enemies" either...yet he did do that. It certainly was not time to suggest, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"...yet he did do that. It most definitely was not time to say, "Turn to him the other cheek"...yet he did do that.

Since you didn't like that question, how about:

Why did Jesus think it was not time to condemn an abomination like slavery?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 06:33 am
@Frank Apisa,
AND SINCE HIS "FATHER"...THE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TOLD HIM SPECIFICALLY THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH SLAVERY...AND THAT PEOPLE WERE MORALLY ALLOWED TO OWN AND SELL SLAVES...

...how come you are not suggesting that might be the actual reason?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 06:36 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Hummm! It was not time to say "Love your enemies" either...yet he did do that. It certainly was not time to suggest, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"...yet he did do that. It most definitely was not time to say, "Turn to him the other cheek"...yet he did do that.
You are the one suggesting it was not time for these other things. How did you get to be judge?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 06:48 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Hummm! It was not time to say "Love your enemies" either...yet he did do that. It certainly was not time to suggest, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"...yet he did do that. It most definitely was not time to say, "Turn to him the other cheek"...yet he did do that.
You are the one suggesting it was not time for these other things. How did you get to be judge?


The same way you got to be judge that it was not time to condemn slavery! By simply pulling the notion out of thin air.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 07:15 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
The same way you got to be judge that it was not time to condemn slavery! By simply pulling the notion out of thin air.


It was time to condemn Christians, and ensure lions were well fed.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 07:21 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The same way you got to be judge that it was not time to condemn slavery! By simply pulling the notion out of thin air.


It was time to condemn Christians, and ensure lions were well fed.


SO MANY CHRISTIANS...SO FEW LIONS!
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 07:27 am
@Frank Apisa,
Just like today.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 07:38 am
@izzythepush,
The more lions, the more christians. Historically, persecutions were a great boost to the new faith.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 07:46 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

The more lions, the more christians. Historically, persecutions were a great boost to the new faith.


Then why aren't you lobbying for more lions?
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 07:57 am
@Frank Apisa,
David Beckham has something to say on the subject.

‘I remember so clearly us going into hospital so Victoria could have Brooklyn. I was eating a Lion bar at the time.’

http://www.concordextra.com/img_uploads/lion-bar-single_1.jpg
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 07:59 am
@neologist,
You might be interested in this neo--

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

It is no use directing it at Apisa because his attention is as inadequate for its length as his understanding is for its content. And his disposition would cause him to fail to approach it, anyway, in a detached and disinterested manner.

His obsession with the silly question, he was banging on with it over 10 years ago on Abuzz, has an easy explanation. Having assumed A2K is populated with half-wits he seeks to align Jesus with approval of slavery: that word being given a specific meaning in his own mind well suited to carry forward his fatuous logic.

By this simple step he aligns the support of slavery with the Church as well as implying that he is a morally superior personage than Jesus ever was.

That is another simple step to aligning the teachings of the Church with the support of slavery, in the sense he means the word, and of broadly hinting that he is the better guide to our moral education.

As he is in agreement with most of the Church's moral teachings it is safe to assume that it is the teachings of the Church on sexual matters which he is specifically addressing and seeking to discredit.

I hardly think you will need an explanation of his motives. It does take a stretch of will power to avoid the dangerous trap of trying to bend intellectual thought to the comforts of one's own justification. A stretch I believe so far beyond his capacities that he has probably never even thought of the possibility and thus is unaware of the necessity of the duty before rising up on the hind legs to preach a morality to the world. A new one too. In the historical context. So new that it may easily be seen as experimental with only the full consequences of it capable of determining its validity or otherwise.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 08:11 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Then why aren't you lobbying for more lions?


The Empire now uses drones instead of lions. Easier to control, although they are having the same perverse effect.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 08:16 am
@spendius,
Quote:
As he is in agreement with most of the Church's moral teachings it is safe to assume that it is the teachings of the Church on sexual matters which he is specifically addressing and seeking to discredit.


Ahhh...still obsessed with me...and still all tied up in knots about sexuality.

Shouldn't be such a problem for you, Spendius. Are you left handed...or right? That really is all YOU have to remember.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 08:18 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Then why aren't you lobbying for more lions?


The Empire now uses drones instead of lions. Easier to control, although they are having the same perverse effect.


Ahhh...drones. And killing so many Christians!

Jeez!
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 08:22 am
@Frank Apisa,
You are a bit dated, Frank. Things have changed since the 3rd century AD, you know?

The new breed of anti-Empire religious nuts are called Muslims. They are the victims-cum-beneficiaries of the modern lions that the drones are...
 

Related Topics

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God? - Question by neologist
We are all like little children who often say: "Mom, Dad, leave me alone, I want to be on my own". - Question by Leaffan
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you? - Discussion by MattDavis
Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict? - Question by maxdancona
Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages? - Discussion by wandeljw
Why People Seek Solace In Gods. - Question by mark noble
Catholic remarried couples should abstain from sex - Question by Tes yeux noirs
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
Religion and Fear - Discussion by TomTomBinks
Does the Bible's account allow for living things to change over time? - Question by anthony1312002
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?
  3. » Page 56
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 03:00:07
▲ ▼