Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

As you may have noticed, I'm staying out of that one. He's got enough on his plate without that!

What about tumescence?

I assumed that was what Frank was talking about. Though why he had to share that with the rest of us remains a mystery.

And here I thought he was talking about how the thread resurrected after nearly 2 weeks.

I'm so ashamed. . . . .

Maybe not

Funny, we just talked about that in my history class.

Slavery or tumescence?

Resurrection.

That wasn't a history class Loggie. It was a load of bullshit. We pretend it was history so that history teachers don't swell the massed ranks of the unemployed.

It wasn't the main curriculum. It was a tangent I kind of brought up, although I was shut down pretty quickly by my more...theist classmates.

Jesus simply trusted to our own freewill and decent commonsense not to want to own slaves, call it a test.

It just won't die.

I think this thread is a vampire.

I think I will re-name it: Edward Cullen.

Even worse, Frank. I just bumped it back up to my first page.

BTW, The Jets just beat the Saints. Do you follow NFL?

The Saints drew against Stoke who only got a point because of a freak goal.

Google "Saints" and this is number one.

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/

I follow it very closely.

Jets done good! Saints were screw-ups. Hope the Giants keep winning.

I'll root for the Jints except Dec 15

A test that cost the lives of more than 620,000 soldiers. THANK YOU JESUS

Despite the institution that has been built up around Jesus today, during his time this was not so. Jesus was a simple carpenter and accepted the cultural status quo with the exception of cleansing the Temple of money changers in his "Father's" House. He often said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Clearly the slaves belong to Caesar and if he had spoken out against this system he would have been thrown in jail; He would not have been able to continue his work of prophesying.

Hi Lustig, Jesus was referring to what would happen to a slave that knew the consequences of his/her actions compared to one that wasn't so educated (beat) or whatever consequence they were given. Notice that he really didn't condone or oppose. He was just stating what would have happened. This is not avocation of slavery at all. As to why he didn't stand up and say stop doing this, its evil, well, If he were to say that about our political system now when everyone is starving and the rich get richer do you think that any steps forward would have been made? It has taken many centuries for us to really understand just how wrong it is to enslave anyone. Our biggest hurdle now that most societies understand this--- is the rights of women compared to men's around the world. This is modern day slavery in religious context. Hope this helped some <3

He certainly did though. Wives were servants. He was very outspoken about the stoning of Mary by people who weren't authoritative enough to even do so. I don't think there were slaves. The Hebrews were "free" so to speak, but it was Roman rule, they were, being nice to Hebrews but Hebrews weren't totally equal, they were like, Native Americans. I think slavery was outlawed at the time; there weren't any gladiators either (actually I'm probably wrong about that, but considering God later saves gladiators who are Christians he is "speaking out" then. Why are Christians "becoming equal" "with powers" with Greek masters if he isn't against slavery? The good Christian cannot be eaten in the gladiator pit, nor consumed by flame; gladiators who are less than slaves. There he has freed a slave because that's what it took to free a slave, often.)

Greek slavery wasn't the same evil, though; probably an 'invalid point' but Greek slavery was different, and it wasn't as evil as modern slavery. A Greek slave could become free, and could often learn.

I think that Jesus wasn't speaking out against Institutions but God Law too, a point; he wasn't a human man. It was really beneath him to comment on man's institutions but those of God, His; unlike book "Zealot" eye roll .

He is spreading his message of peace, where it really seems to suggest he is against slavery too then, or war.

well a master would in fact, according to historical record, sometimes torture his slave, but this slave later became a citizen, or even free, and was a philosopher and they were both the same race. So he learned, too. It's not the same evil and it doesn't seem to be a major disturbing phenomena unlike modern slavery.

Stoic philosophy came out of torture, between slaves and masters.

No...he most certainly did not.