Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

What it would illustrate for me (not that I know if this is Frank's intention) is an example of how the Bible should not be taken as one's sole moral compass.

For example, if one were opposed to slavery as immoral and it's not covered in the Bible then it's obviosu that they had to think for themselves a bit.

And the next time they try to justify their prejudices through the Bible (say, by condemning homosexuality) they should remember not to skip the "thinking for yourself" part as the Bible is very clearly not an infalliable moral compass on its own.

0 Replies

What Craven said.

Laptop - as I understand your argument re slavery not being established to be wrong, an important reason for your saying this would be that you do not believe in an absolute, received, morality?

Thing is, that christ appeared to (with a lot of mercy thrown in) and that christians, in general, argue for such - or at least argue for such when biblical morality agrees with theirs.

Once again, there is a logical inconsistency in arguing that we cannot be dismayed by jesus' not condemning slavery IF HE IS WHAT HE CLAIMED TO BE (or what subsequent folk have claimed him to be) because there are no moral absolutes.

As a human only, I fully understand why he might not have found it wrong, because he was bound, as we all are, by time and place, to greater and lesser extents., and make no judgment.

But, I do think it is an important point - largely because of its effect on appeals to biblical absoluteness - which is a living, breathing "threat", to me, in some circumstances.

Ie, I do not think this thread is about silly quibbles - though I often enjoy them and find them fun.

0 Replies

IronLionZion,

There is a good description of the times of Jesus, his crucifixicion and his disciples and Jerusalem by the well known man from that time named Josephus Flavius, a Jewish Historian , a contemporary man of his time and a Jewish priest , soldier and a scholar who thought differently from contemporary Hebrew priests.. He is an invaluable eye-witness to a momentous turning point in Judaism, Christianity, and Western civilization. He was well traveled and wrote a lot.

He was born Joseph ben Mattathias in Jerusalem in 37 CE, a few years after the time of Jesus, during the time of the Roman occupation of the Jewish homeland.

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/josephus.gif

In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account:
Here is a small writing by Josephus...

Quote:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

Click Here for link to Writings of Josephus

0 Replies

There's been a lot of to and fro about Josephus' reliability, if you look up the thread a bit, Ruach.

0 Replies

I am aware people do not believe his writings also. I find his writings to be authentic. He was a man of the times he lived in and did report on politics, wars, significant people, places he traveled, almost like a modern news reporter would today. :wink:

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

That's an integral part of Frank's challenge. Simply put, persons who do not assert that slavery is wrong would then fall under the "disconsider the source" category.

That slavery is wrong is the axiom.

If one does not think slavery is wrong their morals are sufficiently different to preclude much useful discussion in the first place.

It's not unreasonable to do so. Compare it to a court of law. One's participation in said court is predicated on their acceptance of the law.

For example, if one does not agree that murder is wrong they can't be a juror on a murder trial.

And for the purpose of this exercise if someone does not think slavery is wrong, their morals are sufficiently different from the rest to make this exercise unworkable.

In short, yes, it presumes that slavery is wrong. And the mere subjectiveness of morals is no refuge. If one really thinks slavery is right, they are of different enough moral fibre that the discussion with them will not be viable.

I think you make an error here and it's made clear in your change in language. Note the two highlighted passages. You move from "does not think it is wrong" to "thinks it is right" Not the same thing.

Is it not possible to take a neutral stance on this? I might well consider slavery wrong now but as I noted before, to project today's morals back in time and make value judgements is ridiculous exercise. This is exactly what is happening here.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

What Craven said.

Laptop - as I understand your argument re slavery not being established to be wrong, an important reason for your saying this would be that you do not believe in an absolute, received, morality?

Correct and for good historical reasons. Morals are whatever suits society at the time.

Quote:

Thing is, that christ appeared to (with a lot of mercy thrown in) and that christians, in general, argue for such - or at least argue for such when biblical morality agrees with theirs.

Once again, there is a logical inconsistency in arguing that we cannot be dismayed by jesus' not condemning slavery IF HE IS WHAT HE CLAIMED TO BE (or what subsequent folk have claimed him to be) because there are no moral absolutes.

Granted but I'm not buying the "Son of God" trick. I'll accept the teacher/rabbi claim and remain unsurprised at what he is reported to have said and not said given the mores of the day.

Quote:

As a human only, I fully understand why he might not have found it wrong, because he was bound, as we all are, by time and place, to greater and lesser extents., and make no judgment.

But, I do think it is an important point - largely because of its effect on appeals to biblical absoluteness - which is a living, breathing "threat", to me, in some circumstances.

Ie, I do not think this thread is about silly quibbles - though I often enjoy them and find them fun.

Threat?

Gracious.

0 Replies

I don't "move". Feel free to rephrase either of the sentences and they'll stand.

I understand how you'd like to think the exercise "ridiculous" as it does not bode well for premises in your religion.

Of course an alternative posibility is that the religion is ridiculous. I find it a whole lot more ridiculous to try to assert that slavery was "right" just because it was accepted. It was certainly morally acceptable in the past, but prevalence of a notion is no validation. Mankind has adopted plenty of idiotic concepts en masse in the past.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I don't "move". Feel free to rephrase either of the sentences and they'll stand.

Hmmm, different from isn't the same as opposite to.

Quote:

I understand how you'd like to think the exercise "ridiculous" as it does not bode well for premises in your religion.

My religion?
Given that I'm an atheist, that would be a neat trick.

Quote:

Of course an alternative posibility is that the religion is ridiculous.

Given that religion requires judgement based on faith rahter than fact, they are all at least faintly ridiculous.

Quote:

I find it a whole lot more ridiculous to try to assert that slavery was "right" just because it was accepted. It was certainly morally acceptable in the past, but prevalence of a notion is no validation. Mankind has adopted plenty of idiotic concepts en masse in the past.

Indeed, but it's more riduculous to assert there are moral absolutes, particularly given the history of said absolutes. That which we hold as moral today will be viewed with contempt tomorrow, for that is the very exercise you are indulging in now.

0 Replies

Laptoploon wrote:

Hmmm, different from isn't the same as opposite to.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If you'd like I can rephrase the two to perfectly correleate, the point was a difference in the words in which it was couched was not necessary to my argument. I can rephrase it if you think inconsistency of the wording was relevant to my argument.

Quote:

My religion?
Given that I'm an atheist, that would be a neat trick.

My bad, I thought you were Ruach. I have been confusing you with Ruach based on your avatar for some time. I do not know why as they are not similar. <shrugs>

Quote:

Indeed, but it's more riduculous to assert there are moral absolutes, particularly given the history of said absolutes. That which we hold as moral today will be viewed with contempt tomorrow, for that is the very exercise you are indulging in now.

Yes, but what you didn't pick up earlier is that the fact that morals are subjective is not an issue to this exercise.

It takes as a starting axiom that slavery is wrong. It's directed at the Christians that think it is wrong.

So if a Christian thinks slavery is wrong, but also thinks the Bible is the sole moral compass a society should use there is a direct incompatibility.

It's not unreasonable to have an exercise that is based on the acceptance of a premise.

To use teh same example again, in a murder trial all participants are required to accept the premise that murder is immoral before participating.

The fact that murder is a moral and therefore subjective issue does not make the murder trial a ridiculous exercise.

So, sure, if someone doesn't think slavery is wrong this would be meaningless to them. But such relics of the past are rare and usually not too reasonable to begin with. But to those who do think slavery is wrong but also see the Bible as an infallible moral compass it is an illustration of the incompatibility of that specific position.

0 Replies

Stupidly I was tackling the question posed at the top of the thread.

0 Replies

Well don't let me stop you. But I do think I am right on the intended end game.

Of course along the way are many diversions:

Did Jesus exist?
Does the Bible have everything he said?
Is the Bible a perfect moral compass?

etc etc

I think Frank might have started a new thread that better focuses on the exercise I outlined.

0 Replies

Laptop - I agree with Craven's assertions re the intent of Frank's question - but, you and I at least, have been sort of shadow-boxing.

We agree on the likely nature of Jesus - and the reasons for his non-condemnation of slavery.

I said "threat" by the way, because I am extremely disturbed by what seems, to me, to be the growing power of fundamentalist christianity in the USA.

I see this as a threat, for instance, to homosexual's rights, to women's rights, to rational education etc.

Not only is this "bad" in my view for people in the US, but where the USA's fundamentalist christians go, ours are usually faithfully following.....

Fundamentalists, whether christian or islamic, believe, despite logical contradictions such as those pointed out here in this thread, in an absolute, received truth - and seek (albeit usually selectively) to impose the thoughts and mores of an earlier millenium on this one....as you know, of course, so I shall shut up....mumble, mumble....

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Well don't let me stop you. But I do think I am right on the intended end game.

Let's put it down to me being a newbie. I read the question, read the posts and responded accordingly. Given that we all carry a certain amount of baggage and only experience teaches what the other is carrying, I think I can be forgiven for not knowing how loaded the question was.

Quote:

Of course along the way are many diversions:

Did Jesus exist?
Does the Bible have everything he said?
Is the Bible a perfect moral compass?

etc etc

I think Frank might have started a new thread that better focuses on the exercise I outlined.

Indeed there were diversions and I was as happy as anyone to tackle them, but I did try to keep my eye on the ball as well. Or at least what I perceived the ball to be.

0 Replies

dlowan,

Good post.

It concerns me that some folk are not only prepared to tell me that they and they alone have a handle on the truth but that they are going to act on that belief.

0 Replies

Heehee - whereas, as we both know, only one of US does!

And it isn't you.....

LOL

Craven was just enjoying debating you, you know..............skulks out of the way.....

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Heehee - whereas, as we both know, only one of US does!

And it isn't you.....

LOL

Ha! So you say - gimme a week whilst I raise a righteous army Twisted Evil

Quote:

Craven was just enjoying debating you, you know..............skulks out of the way.....

Understood. I was just trying to explain where I was coming from.

0 Replies

Ah, I think there may be a misunderstanding. My comment "It concerns me that some folk are not only prepared to tell me that they and they alone have a handle on the truth but that they are going to act on that belief."

Wasn't directed at anyone on here. It was a general comment about fundies.

0 Replies

Oh, I know, and I assume everyone else does too.

0 Replies

Aha, Nancy and I go out for some dining, dancing and reveling -- and I come back to two pages of posts.

Life doesn't get much better!

Steve did ask a pointed question or two to which I will respond -- that I think will show that Craven and dlowan have pretty much caught the spirit of why I have posed the question.

Steve asked:

Quote:

Frank, why have you asked this questiion? Do you think it proves he could not have lived? Or that he had a very distorted sense of moral values? Jesus didnt condemn a whole bunch of stuff. Drug abuse, driving donkeys too fast, excessive incense/co2 emissions what does that mean? We cant speculate on why he didnt say something. We can only guess what he meant about things he did actualy say...and that was obscure enough. As you accept it makes sense to take on board the historical reality of rabbi Jesus, I don't understand the motive behind yur question.

In a broader context, Steve, I question the use of the Bible to justify some of the "morality positions" being espoused here in America.

I have often pointed out that, at best, when dealing with "what is the nature of the Bible" - all we can do is to make guesses. And I think the best way to proceed is to look at individual, discrete aspects of the Bible and then come to the best GUESS based on where the sum of the parts point.

There are some aspects of biblical morality that seems to work much, much better if one assumes (or guesses) them to be the product of the men writing the book -- rather than the GOD who is supposedly inspiring them. The "temporal" aspect of these parts seem more like something humans would come up with than gods.

But the slavery issue has always stuck out a sore thumb to me in this regard.

First we have the god of the Bible saying trafficking in, and ownership of, slaves is okay and moral. And then we have the two principal characters of the offshoot new religion going along with the institution -- never taking an opportunity to condemn the practice. (And they both had big stones -- willingly condemning many things that caused them to be very unpopular.)

It just doesn't seem right. The flavor is wrong. But one never knows, so I take every opportunity to ask people to guess why they suppose both of these things are present.

Folks -- don't for a second think this thing is resolved because slavery was somehow "different" back a few thousand years. Being enslaved has always been one of the basest, most repulsive predicaments any human ever encounters. It was, in those days, often the ultimate threat -- the dreaded fate of the losers in many contests.

The Bible makes no bones about this -- and there are all sorts of passages exhorting slave owners not to indulge in excesses -- which tells us that excessive indulgence was probably prevalent.

And certainly, the second book of the Bible is a rather long condemnation of institutionalized slavery -- even though modern scholars think it extremely unlikely that the slavery spoken of in that book actually ever occurred.

BOTTOM LINE: The best guess, nearly as I can see, is that Jesus -- and Paul after him -- didn't condemn slavery because THEY SIMPLY DID NOT SEE IT AS IMMORAL -- or, even more unfortunately -- AS WRONG.

And while indirectly that is a result of the time in history in which they lived -- it also is the result of scripture.

Christians want to divorce themselves from the god of the Old Testament. They hate to deal with Leviticus and Deuteronomy -- and contrive all sorts of scenarios in order to navigate around dealing with passages from these two books.

BUT...

...the GOD to whom Jesus prayed...

...and the GOD to whom Paul prayed...

...WAS THE god OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

And that god specifically mentioned that there is absolutely nothing wrong with buying, selling, and owning slaves.

Case closed. Or so it seems.

And that represents one more block in the base being built upon which to make meaningful comments about whether or not the Bible should be relied upon for the moral judgments we see presently being made.

Thanks for asking Steve. Thanks for seeing where I'm coming from, Craven and dlowan.

0 Replies

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know