Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Quote:

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

I think that Jesus did condemn slavery, well in a round about way.
I think that what the majority of us call Jesus was actually a moral philosophy that was widespread before the Jesus character of the bible existed. It just happened that the church forced into the minds of the people their version of it. A version that allowed the status quo to continue.

So why did the advancers of this particular moral philosophy not do anything significant about slavery until just a150 years ago?

Quote:

So why did the advancers of this particular moral philosophy not do anything significant about slavery until just a150 years ago?

I think that they did from what I read in history...

... but the status quo could only handle a little at a time.

It is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than it is for the status quo to accept morality.

Can you name three specific things they did to eliminate slavery?

They "professed an art of healing superior to that practiced in the cities" Philo notes, and the reader must be reminded of the reputation as a healer Saint Anthony possessed among his 4th-century contemporaries, who flocked out from Alexandria to reach him.

On the seventh day the Therapeutae met in a meeting house, the men on one side of an open partition, the women modestly on the other, to hear discourses. Once in seven weeks they meet for a night-long vigil after a banquet where they served one another, for "they are not waited on by slaves, because they deem any possession of servants whatever to be contrary to nature. For she has begotten all men alike free"

It is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than it is for the status quo to accept morality.



I do not understand this.

Oh, no, Spendius. You are funny as the Three Stooges...and you are only one!

Do you have any idea of why he didn't...or if he did, why the people who reported what he said did not mention it?

reasoning logic wrote:

It is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than it is for the status quo to accept morality.

I do not understand this.

Frank Apisa wrote:


reasoning logic wrote:

It is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than it is for the status quo to accept morality.



I do not understand this.



That's because it doesn't make sense, RL probably doesn't understand it either, but thinks it sound impressive. The status quo is the situation we're in, we don't afford situations concepts like understanding. It's not like he said the establishment, populace or even proletariat or bourgeoisie.

Quote:

Can you name three specific things they did to eliminate slavery?

No, I can only think of one and it is they eliminated slavery from among themselves, I can only guess that at that time if it was spoken about outright there may have been a price to pay.

Quote:

They "professed an art of healing superior to that practiced in the cities" Philo notes, and the reader must be reminded of the reputation as a healer Saint Anthony possessed among his 4th-century contemporaries, who flocked out from Alexandria to reach him.

On the seventh day the Therapeutae met in a meeting house, the men on one side of an open partition, the women modestly on the other, to hear discourses. Once in seven weeks they meet for a night-long vigil after a banquet where they served one another, for "they are not waited on by slaves, because they deem any possession of servants whatever to be contrary to nature. For she has begotten all men alike free"

Quote:

It is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than it is for the status quo to accept morality.



I do not understand this.

If you were brought up in a society where you inherited 1,000 slaves and you were taught that they were your inheritance from God you may have a hard time seeing the immorality in front of you.

Quote:

Do you have any idea of why he didn't...or if he did, why the people who reported what he said did not mention it?

I have explained both points. You haven't disagreed. You have contented yourself with asserting that the explanations were comical.

You're floundering. That's a word derived from the antics of a flounder which has been landed on the pier by a little lad with a maggot on a bent pin on a hot day.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:


reasoning logic wrote:

It is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than it is for the status quo to accept morality.



I do not understand this.



That's because it doesn't make sense, RL probably doesn't understand it either, but thinks it sound impressive. The status quo is the situation we're in, we don't afford situations concepts like understanding. It's not like he said the establishment, populace or even proletariat or bourgeoisie.

I did exaggerate a bit to make it easy to understand but the truth is that the problem did not only exist with the upper class but even some of the more common folks who where able to take advantage of what slavery brought to them did not want to let go of it.
Immorality seems to be the least thing that is thought about.

Who is the "they?"

If you were brought up in a society where you inherited 1,000 slaves and you were taught that they were your inheritance from God you may have a hard time seeing the immorality in front of you.



?

Quote:

Who is the "they?"

A Jewish sect The therapeutea or possibly essence.

Quote:

If you were brought up in a society where you inherited 1,000 slaves and you were taught that they were your inheritance from God you may have a hard time seeing the immorality in front of you.



?

If you had 1,000 slaves and this was how you were brought up "Would you want to set them free? Who would do all of the things you wanted done?

I know it is over kill but it seems to me that these things are easier to see on a different scale.

I think you haven't!

Quote:

I think you haven't!

Obviously. You asked us why did we suppose JNCS and some of us have offered responses which you reject.

Can you give us a hint of what sort of response we might make that you would accept?

Try this one----Jesus was well into the Totem aspects of life, as are children, as I said, and ecstatics, and you are into the Taboo. As such He would not give two fucks about slavery of the type He knew, as I told you, and you are very concerned about the matter. Because you are concerned is proof of your Taboo inclinations. And you are consistent on the Gun and Zimmerman threads in the same way.

For an explanation of Totem and Taboo I refer you to Spengler's essay on the Magian Soul in The Decline of the West. Jesus was full blown Magian. Considered an evil demon by most Magian sects of the Sycretism. Crucified as one.

A few years ago the editor of The Spectator wrote that he would have been in the mob howling "crucify Him". Pilate, being on the Taboo side of things as befits a bureaucrat, was baffled but to get the ranting crowd out of his chambers was more important than a raggedy-arsed, wild-eyed rabble rouser because his dinner was ready.

You have got yourself into a lather through thinking you understand these matters.

What conclusions do you expect us to arrive at if we assume JNCS.

It just happened that the church forced into the minds of the people their version of it. A version that allowed the status quo to continue.

Obviously Jesus would not find anything wrong with slavery...because the god he worshiped said there was nothing wrong with it.

Right?