Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

The main thing about wanking is that it removes, or defuses, or inhibits the monopoly on male sexual relief which ought to be enjoyed by women. Wanking produces a take-it-or-leave-it attitude to their charms along the lines Philip Larkin and Kingsley Amis delineated whereby one might get the relief over quickly, not be required to listen to the wittering of women as part of the foreplay and allows all of one's income to be spent on oneself.

Obviously misogyny in its most radical form. As a growing number of sophisticated women have discovered, penile restraint is the antidote. A future ethic I forsee is all men subjected to mandatory penile restraint which is only relaxed occasionally and then only as a reward for the satisfactory performance of certain difficult rituals.

Now that the Church's teaching on the subject has fallen into desuetude penile restraint might be the only way forward for the female sex if it is to avoid joining us in equality at the coal face, the front line and trawling the icy oceans.

Frank Harris claimed that wanking, or a nocturnal emission, (the real thing which wankers disqualify themselves from experiencing), took 2 inches off his high jump, produced dark bags under his eyes and the general physical decline associated with golf handicaps above 2. The advantage being that it took his mind off girls and allowed him to concentrate on Greek poetry translations.

I have been consulted in the pub by three or four young lads who were aware of my reputation on how they go about getting a girlfriend. I told them all to knock off wanking and the rest would follow automatically. As wankers their standards were too high for what women in their class had to offer.

It's a good joke of Flaubert's to make Spendius's conception occur on the docks when his father, A Greek rhetorician, disembarked after a long trip by sea and was immediately connected to a Campagnian prostitute of the lowest rank. A wanker could have waited until he got into Rome and the scented baths of the hetairai.

I bet Apisa played hard to get.

I recommend that you cease reading my posts whenever you have a project on the stocks which you are trying to get done before Nancy gets home.

The reason your post is not filled with typos is that you are not laughing uncontrollably but are only pretending to be for effect. Another Houdini punch. Like the red-light one that proceeded it. Your stock-in-trade.

I wouldn't be surprised if the project is not just another piece of scenery wheeled on for the occasion.

I've been reading Oswald Spengler's essay entitled Historic Pseudomorphosis and particularly that section relating to Jesus and the morphology of early Christianity in its Magian setting.

Is there a word which means ten times more fatuous than fatuous?

Just admit you are lost for words and need to resort to these repetitive childish gambits to save face with that segment of A2K which is notorious for its stupidity.

The question was fatuous. New Jersey woman hating, street corner cred up against the mightiest culture the world has ever seen.

I'm only using a hoe. The spade is in reserve.

I wasn't giving those lads tips. I was telling them the facts of life.

What other tunes do you know?

well slavery has always existed, in one way or another, jesus came to give a message, even he said that people would think he brought peace and happiness but he was actually bringing the fire and war to this world, now the reason why he never spoke out against it, it's because he didn't want to become an activist he didn't come here to change the way everything was being ruled but he brought a message how to get out of that sort of life and find peace and happiness, but he did say that who ever possesses servants or at that time "slaves" they should be treated well and when the patron's life expire he or her slaves should be put in freedom even though they could also be given to patron's relatives as gift, he didn't judge the life everyone was given he was judging their behavior, manners and way of being, he also said if anyone ever wanted to become the best person among their people he was suppose to start first as the servant of everyone just like he did, he didn't fight slavery but he sure defeated it

but he did say that who ever possesses servants or at that time "slaves" they should be treated well and when the patron's life expire he or her slaves should be put in freedom even though they could also be given to patron's relatives as gift,

Really. I must have missed that. When did he do it?

Quote:

Really. I must have missed that. When did he do it?

When HE SURE DID DEFEAT IT. Which His message does do.

But that is something you daren't accept because your position, which is ridiculous for a few other reasons as well, falls to the ground in a heap of dust.

The inward feelings of Jesus are inaccessible to us now. And especially to someone whose ignorance on the subject can only be matched by his arrogance.

Slavery was Caesar's domain. Jesus was God's agent, or evolution's agent, to try to correct the unholy mess that the human race was at the time. Maybe still is.

God was ashamed of what He had created. Or, if you prefer, because evolution has no capacity to be ashamed of itself Jesus, who understood evolution on a level Darwin couldn't conceive, became its spokesperson and died a ghastly death for his trouble.

You probably whinge when your boiled eggs ate too soft for your liking. How you dare attempt to smear Jesus is incomprehensible to me.

Let's see you smear the Founding Fathers for encouraging slavery of the kind we know something about. Something a bit riskier than smearing a long dead historical figure of the highest importance.

Man up for that.

It seems to me that those who are sympathetic to your smear are the same ones who have most faith in the Founding Fathers. It is they who use the Constitution to underpin their arguments.

Why did you single out Jesus? His message is that of any intelligent child as he comes to know more about the fucked up world he is inheriting and feels it to be alien.

A necessary condition of a smear, even one as old and as absurd as yours, is that it can be denied being a smear and sail under the banner of pure, disinterested intellectual pursuit.

How am I being ignorant and arrogant when I accept that the inward feelings of Jesus are inaccessible for us now and you are claiming that they are not inaccessible to you?

And do us a favour eh? We have got the picture that my posts are hilarious. There's no need to continually remind us. Doing so is nether an argument nor an answer to any point. And I think it is faked, hollow laughter. Psychological, self-administered synapse toning. Empty bag decor.

. But I have not smeared Jesus.

Quote:

. But I have not smeared Jesus.

What was the point of the question then?

You could have asked--"Why do you suppose that slavery was abolished in Christian societies?"

It took a long time but that is because of the power of the historical pseudomorphosis.

Anyway--slaves are nowhere near as efficient as eager volunteers who whistle while they work. Snow White in charge of the dwarfs.

Actually, I wanted to know WHY PEOPLE SUPPOSE Jesus did not condemn slavery.