Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

The notion of "atheist" has been in existence since ancient Greek times…and there is little reason to suppose it did not predate that period.

Ancient Greek is the form of the Greek language used during the periods of time spanning the c. 9th – 6th century BC,

The word atheist has been used since gods first came into being.

Modern, western philosophical thought considers atheism to mean non-belief in the Christian God.

I assume the reason to be that any other definition opens the door to all sorts of insignificant wittering which can only be explained from a materialist point of view by the idea that the witterer receives sensual pleasure from the sound, or other manifestations, of his or her own expressions.

Quote:

The thread is not fatuous other than in the head of someone who has problems with the issue.

Crude forms of patting oneself on the back, such as that play-pen nonsense, do nothing, I repeat--nothing--as in **** all- to prove that the question we have been asked is not only not fatuous but doesn't inhabit the region where asymptotic fatuity thrives and breeds.

Answer the argument eh? Man up. Blurting is for schoolgirls.

Quote:

The notion of "atheist" has been in existence since ancient Greek times…and there is little reason to suppose it did not predate that period.

Quote:

Ancient Greek is the form of the Greek language used during the periods of time spanning the c. 9th – 6th century BC,

I will be honest and admit that I was unaware of that.

The notion yes but the word?

Quote:

The word atheist has been used since gods first came into being.

Actually, the reason some of us disagree is because the other definition allows for the absurdity of classifying babies as atheists on a whim.

Another fruity piece of fluff. Did you wear a boa while writing it?

Gotta wonder why a genius like you chooses what you consider to be a fatuous thread to spend so much time.

I considered what you wrote...and made the change that apparently you considered important. Why not go with what I wrote?

I was asserted to be in a bra the other day. Are directoire knickers (slightly foxed) outside of you twee comfort zone?

What Apisa has been coming to in his glory days is the reason for the existence of the thread.

Nobody would be daft enough to single out Jesus for not condemning slavery out of the multitude of those who have also failed in that respect if it wasn't for the fact that He was the founder of Christianity which severely censures certain infractions of its code of sexual manners and good taste which it can be readily presumed Apisa has experience of.

There is no proof that Jesus didn't condemn slavery anyway.

Nobody would be daft enough to single out Jesus for not condemning slavery out of the multitude of those who have also failed in that respect if it wasn't for the fact that He was the founder of Christianity...

. . . Very early on this was discussed...and I modified the question to: Why, if Jesus did condemn slavery, did the people who recorded what he thought was important not mention that he did.

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . . Very early on this was discussed...and I modified the question to: Why, if Jesus did condemn slavery, did the people who recorded what he thought was important not mention that he did.

Yeah.
But that's been answered, Frank.

Apparently Spendius was not conscious when it was.

Quote:

Apparently Spendius was not conscious when it was.

It was me who answered it.

I doubt that seriously...in fact, I doubt it actually was answered.

But if it was...and if you remember discussing it the MANY TIMES it was discussed, why on Earth would you write "There is no proof that Jesus didn't condemn slavery anyway? "

spendius wrote:

Quote:

I doubt that seriously...in fact, I doubt it actually was answered.

It is not possible for it to be answered to your satisfaction. You have too much emotional energy invested. You're never going to admit that only a complete fool who grossly underestimates the intelligence of his audience would ask such a fatuous question.

If it is such a fatuous question...why do you spend so much time dealing with it? Are you a fool?

Quote:

Quote:

But if it was...and if you remember discussing it the MANY TIMES it was discussed, why on Earth would you write "There is no proof that Jesus didn't condemn slavery anyway? "

I probably wrote that because there is no proof that Jesus didn't condemn slavery.

]

I have written dozens of times that there is no proof that Jesus did not condemn slavery. I’ve even acknowledged that there may never have been a single individual Jesus…that the Jesus story may be a compilation of various people’s philosophies.

And I certainly have indicated that the question can be changed.

http://able2know.org/topic/17906-4#post-532450 (This was back 10 years ago in this thread.)

If it is such a fatuous question...why do you spend so much time dealing with it? Are you a fool?