Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

JESUS had an in board fish finder on his boat and hed often have his dudes lower their nets and bring up big hauls of cichlids for market.
The Bible doesn't mention fish finders. Does that mean they existed or not? Simon Peter had a slave you know. You can find this in at last 2 accounts in the Gospels. Pete was the Underboss and Jesus was the Capo di tutti Capi

Quote:

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

Possibly. I deal with the question on behalf of those who might wish to avoid being led up the garden path by absurd over-simplifications which have no other intention than that of trying to rationalise and render respectable various applications of the underpants down condition without any reference to the possibility of them being adopted by everybody after them being so strenuously recommended by yourself.

Every minute has been a blast. Right, Frank?

One reason why is that when you state "It honestly says something about whether or not we should use the book as the basis for our ethical behavior...for our laws." you don't trouble to establish or even suggest what we should use as a basis for our ethical behaviour instead.

One reason why is that when you state "It honestly says something about whether or not we should use the book as the basis for our ethical behavior...for our laws." you don't trouble to establish or even suggest what we should use as a basis for our ethical behaviour instead. The North Koreans use something else and so have many others. So many in fact that you have a wide range to choose from in selecting alternatives.

That you claim, or seem to claim, that Jesus did not condemn slavery in the world around him says nothing at all. And I'm wary of people who use the word "honestly". It implies that if they don't use the word they are being dishonest or that they might be. That they should take the trouble to emphasise how honest they are when we ought to take it for granted suggests a nervousness about the matter.

The question is fatuous. It is completely and utterly nonsensical.

It is interesting only in the sense of wondering what your motives are in asking it. And of those who take your question seriously in a cod dispassionate pursuit of the truth on the frontiers of knowledge.

How about the Decameron?

But it has been discussed here for 10 years...and you have been a particpant for much of that time.

Quote:

But it has been discussed here for 10 years...and you have been a particpant for much of that time.

I don't recall being. Maybe a year.

You used the word "ethical" above and you don't know what Jesus considered ethical regarding slavery. The alternative then looks like it might have been to save other Jews, as opposed to prisoners of war, dying of starvation. In which case slavery would have been an ethical solution to the facts as they existed.

The only interest I have is to expose the motive behind asking the silly, anachronistic question.

And you don't answer the question about your alternative source of our ethics.

Ourselves, Spendius. I think we should decide what we consider moral and ethical using today's information.

Okay...so why did he not make that case? And why is there no record of Jesus ever condemning slavery?

Well I can't help I'm afraid. I have no idea what ethical system we should adopt as an alternative to Christianity.

Quote:

Ourselves, Spendius. I think we should decide what we consider moral and ethical using today's information.

Well I can't help I'm afraid. I have no idea what ethical system we should adopt as an alternative to Christianity. It would be as daft as trying to redesign a pheasant.

So if you have some ideas let's hear them. Keeping on rabbiting about it with no beef is infantile.

Think of the things that would help make society function better...and base an ethical and moral system on that.



Okay...so why did he not make that case? And why is there no record of Jesus ever condemning slavery?

If you won't be told it makes you asking the question even more fatuous than it was at the start. And I have told you. What do you ask a question for if you have no intention of accepting any answers you are given?

Get it ******* straight eh? We don't know anything about Jesus except what the record states and I don't expect Jesus was anticipating such a record being made at all. So there is no record because a movement was afoot which intended converting the Gentiles in order to stop, or at least inhibit, them giving the Jews a good ******* over all the time and as slavery was an established institution among the gentiles of fundamental economic importance, like energy is to us, a new religion, which appealed to slaves most of all, would be persecuted out of existence if it condemned slavery from the outset and slavery of the Classical form might still be with us and you would never have heard of Jesus.

It was a Fabian style slave revolt after the violent revolt led to every road out of Rome being lined with crucified slaves. It was impolitic to condemn slavery at the time the record was written.

Quote:

Well I can't help I'm afraid. I have no idea what ethical system we should adopt as an alternative to Christianity.

What do you think about adopting a logically reasoned alternative?

What do you think about adopting a logically reasoned alternative?

Jesus supposedly was god.

Well...if your intellect and sensibilities is not up to helping...stay the hell out of the way.

And one of the last things Jesus worried about...was being impolitic.

We can't go around with a logically reasoned alternative unless we have some idea what it consists of. Although I expect fools like Apisa will disagree and claim that we can go around with a logically reasoned alternative without knowing what it is.