57
   

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Forums: Religion, Slavery, Spirituality And Religion, Debate, Jesus
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 01:56 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Actually, the difference between slavery and working for minimum wage while being forced to pay mortgage is pretty negligible.


When I read a statement like the one above I find myself crying out for a working time machine to send the author back to see how closely his theory is to reality.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 02:18 pm
@Cyracuz,
Under the system Jesus lived under slaves could rise to high offices of state and of influence. And did so.

I very much doubt that anyone on a minimum wage job today will ever manage either.

I will nominate this thread as the silliest thread on the site.

I think that the modern equivalent of the word "slave" in the Roman Empire is "commoner". In both cases the institutions serve to prevent pollution of the blood lines by those who might not share the loyalty to the established system. Not a biological pollution.

More a marriage custom serving to preserve tradition.

The exhibition of merit in any slave of the Romans was a path to fame, fortune and influence and to partake of the benefits of Empire and also the risks. It can fairly be argued that the most dangerous position in long periods of the Empire was that of Emperor and his adherents and slaves shared the risk in large measure. And it was sticky too.

Apisa is simply trying to prove, to himself, that certain infractions of the Christian code of sexual conduct, not all of them mind you, are unimportant. Hence the founder of the Christian religion has to be shafted even if the most useless, uneducated and banal anachronisms have to be used to do the job.

The joke is that there are perfectly respectable and scientific reasons why those aspects of the code which go further than the law, not only are unimportant but a positive drawback to the welfare of society.

The scientific reasons have not yet been peer-reviewed properly. a task for thologians, as most of the movers and shakers are infractionating like ******* rabbits. And they don't want their slaves to imitate them.

Nevertheless, the promoters of those sensible reasons must throw up their hands in alarm and dismay at seeing all their good work, if such it is, undone by a nincompoop with an ex-itchy dick and a truly naff manner with the translation of institutions over 2,000 years. Which, as we all know, have been through the hands of generations of spin doctors.

That the category, slave, in modern society goes under the title of Hard Working Taxpayers Up And Down The Land, (or From Sea To Shinin' Sea), is nether here nor there.

"Love thy neighbour" and "do as you would be done to" is what freed the slaves. And martyred ignominiously for suggesting it. And those catchy slogans are the only route to free the WTUADTLs of today. Or those of the future.

Jesus condemned slavery in all its many guises. Comprehensively! 100%.

Hence this is the silliest thread on A2K. It seeks to be working us back to red in tooth and claw. The only way to discredit "silliest" is to maintain that a journey back to red in tooth and claw is not silly.

History teaches that movers and shakers are always the same. A sort of hydra-headed, insatiable monster. What the US Constitution was designed to slay.



0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 02:27 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Actually, the difference between slavery and working for minimum wage while being forced to pay mortgage is pretty negligible.


When I read a statement like the one above I find myself crying out for a working time machine to send the author back to see how closely his theory is to reality.


Um hum.

Cyracuz is not considering the buying and selling...breaking wife from husband...children from parents...and bequeathing the slaves from fathers to sons as chattels.

But who cares about that, right. Just minor stuff. The makings of a negligible difference.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 04:55 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Cyracuz is not considering the buying and selling...breaking wife from husband...children from parents...and bequeathing the slaves from fathers to sons as chattels.


Yes. And husbands leaving wives and families for years at a time to earn their upkeep never happens today. And poor families today never sell their own children simply because they don't have enough to keep them alive.
Rich people forcing poor people to do all kinds of things is unheard of today. Only today it's not called using force. It's called giving someone a choice between their family dying of hunger or doing what they are told...



Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 04:59 pm
@BillRM,
Maybe you could come with me, Bill.

What's the difference between owning someone and owning everything they need so that you can control them completely? It amounts to the same thing. One is the master, another is the slave.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 05:02 pm
@Cyracuz,
In places like Bhopal cyr.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 05:24 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Cyracuz is not considering the buying and selling...breaking wife from husband...children from parents...and bequeathing the slaves from fathers to sons as chattels.


Yes. And husbands leaving wives and families for years at a time to earn their upkeep never happens today. And poor families today never sell their own children simply because they don't have enough to keep them alive.
Rich people forcing poor people to do all kinds of things is unheard of today. Only today it's not called using force. It's called giving someone a choice between their family dying of hunger or doing what they are told...






Yeah...those things happen. But if you are seeking equivalency between the way they happen among the less fortunate today....versus the way they happened to slaves...you are stretching things much too far in my opinion.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 05:25 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Maybe you could come with me, Bill.

What's the difference between owning someone and owning everything they need so that you can control them completely? It amounts to the same thing. One is the master, another is the slave.


The slave...WAS owned completely. The thing you are trying to equate to it...not so. But you are entitled to think it to be.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 05:27 pm
@Frank Apisa,
In any case, if you want to start a thread entitled, "Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned exploitation of the working class?"...

...do so.

I will be happy to post.

Anything to get away from this thread that never seems to end.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 06:10 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
By the way...I disagree completely with the notion that the differences between slavery and minimum wage jobs are negligible.


As expected.

But
If you are born poor and without talent you are destined for a life of labor and servitude, same as the old slaves.
If you are born poor and with talent you may rise to great heights, same as the old slaves. Good slaves were treasured and well cared for and lived lives of comfort.

Also, in ancient Rome it was not unheard of that a free man enter slavery voluntarily. They could sell themselves or a family member into slavery.

Today it is not unheard of for poor and desperate people to commit crimes aiming to get caught, because in jail they will at least be fed and dry.

Most of us think more long term than that, and enter into agreements of a slightly different kind. We do not sell ourselves entirely. Instead we sell our hours. We call them jobs, and most of us hate them.
And for most people, the amount of hours they need to sell in order to survive barely leaves enough time for sleeping.


Or consider it from another angle.
Imagine having slaves and then telling them: "You are now free to spend your time however you wish under these conditions:

You may not leave the master's property.

Everything you need is here, but everything has a price which must be paid to the master.

The master will pay the slaves to work if they wish it. If they do not work they will not get money and will not be able to buy the master's food.

Imagine having a plantation in the seventeenth century and setting those conditions for your slaves, and then set the worth of their labor so that every waking hour went into it unless they were to starve... Do you think their everyday lives would be notably different?

Maybe they could work themselves harder, in order to work up some money so they could take time off, and maybe go visit the other side of the plantation and lounge by the pond all day.

Negligible. Going even further we could say that slavery was never abolished. it was just reinvented in a new and improved version.

It was industrialized.






Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 06:18 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
But if you are seeking equivalency between the way they happen among the less fortunate today....versus the way they happened to slaves...you are stretching things much too far in my opinion.


What if you consider the conditions of life for a modern industry worker in some clothes factory in Asia versus the conditions of life for a slave?

They work all day under conditions you and me would find unacceptable in those factories in Asia, and their only other choice is to starve on the street. It is slavery in all but name.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 07:09 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
By the way...I disagree completely with the notion that the differences between slavery and minimum wage jobs are negligible.


As expected.

But
If you are born poor and without talent you are destined for a life of labor and servitude, same as the old slaves.
If you are born poor and with talent you may rise to great heights, same as the old slaves. Good slaves were treasured and well cared for and lived lives of comfort.

Also, in ancient Rome it was not unheard of that a free man enter slavery voluntarily. They could sell themselves or a family member into slavery.

Today it is not unheard of for poor and desperate people to commit crimes aiming to get caught, because in jail they will at least be fed and dry.

Most of us think more long term than that, and enter into agreements of a slightly different kind. We do not sell ourselves entirely. Instead we sell our hours. We call them jobs, and most of us hate them.
And for most people, the amount of hours they need to sell in order to survive barely leaves enough time for sleeping.


Or consider it from another angle.
Imagine having slaves and then telling them: "You are now free to spend your time however you wish under these conditions:

You may not leave the master's property.

Everything you need is here, but everything has a price which must be paid to the master.

The master will pay the slaves to work if they wish it. If they do not work they will not get money and will not be able to buy the master's food.

Imagine having a plantation in the seventeenth century and setting those conditions for your slaves, and then set the worth of their labor so that every waking hour went into it unless they were to starve... Do you think their everyday lives would be notably different?

Maybe they could work themselves harder, in order to work up some money so they could take time off, and maybe go visit the other side of the plantation and lounge by the pond all day.

Negligible. Going even further we could say that slavery was never abolished. it was just reinvented in a new and improved version.

It was industrialized.









So...why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 07:11 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
But if you are seeking equivalency between the way they happen among the less fortunate today....versus the way they happened to slaves...you are stretching things much too far in my opinion.


What if you consider the conditions of life for a modern industry worker in some clothes factory in Asia versus the conditions of life for a slave?

They work all day under conditions you and me would find unacceptable in those factories in Asia, and their only other choice is to starve on the street. It is slavery in all but name.


Obviously you are going to maintain that...no matter what. So...maintain it.

In any case, why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery...whether of the kind that existed back then or the kind you are saying is de facto slavery today?
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 07:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Maybe he did, and no one wrote it down.

Or maybe he did, and that council in Nicaea conveniently omitted it, seeing as Constantine and his bishops probably had loads of slaves.

Or maybe there never was a Jesus, in which case it is entirely understandable that he never condemned slavery.

Or maybe slavery was so common in those days, so ingrained in the social structure that it simply wasn't seen, even by Jesus, as a good act to abolish slavery. It would plunge civilization into chaos. And at that time, just as now, it was the most grand civilization the world had ever seen.

Or maybe God condones slavery.

Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 11:48 pm
Quote:
Frank Apisa asked: So...why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

You pointed out earlier that Jesus said he didn't come to overturn the Old T laws.
Okay mate, here's an Old T law for you.Smile-

"He that steals a man and sells him, or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death " (Exodus 21:16; Deut. 24:7).
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 02:57 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Maybe he did, and no one wrote it down.


Maybe. So change the question to reflect that...as I have said a half dozens times in this thread before.

Quote:
Or maybe he did, and that council in Nicaea conveniently omitted it, seeing as Constantine and his bishops probably had loads of slaves.


Maybe...although that would make him a rather ineffective god. But...maybe. That has also been offered before.
Quote:

Or maybe there never was a Jesus, in which case it is entirely understandable that he never condemned slavery.


Fine with me. So offer it...as others already have.

Quote:
Or maybe slavery was so common in those days, so ingrained in the social structure that it simply wasn't seen, even by Jesus, as a good act to abolish slavery. It would plunge civilization into chaos. And at that time, just as now, it was the most grand civilization the world had ever seen.


Variations on that are the most likely scenario...and I have offered it from the beginning. Perhaps Jesus thought there was nothing wrong with slavery...which to my way of thinking is the most likely scenario.

What is your point?

Quote:

Or maybe God condones slavery.




The god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshiped...most certainly does.

That has also been mentioned dozens of times in the thread.

What is your point?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 02:58 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa asked: So...why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

You pointed out earlier that Jesus said he didn't come to overturn the Old T laws.
Okay mate, here's an Old T law for you.Smile-

"He that steals a man and sells him, or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death " (Exodus 21:16; Deut. 24:7).



And a penny saved is a penny earned.

But what does that have to do with anything?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 08:47 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Variations on that are the most likely scenario...and I have offered it from the beginning. Perhaps Jesus thought there was nothing wrong with slavery...which to my way of thinking is the most likely scenario.


Wait, what?

The most likely? I find it far more likely that everything we know about Jesus is false, or at the very least inaccurate. The figure has been used as a political tool by men with ulterior motives so much that to believe that any story we know about Jesus is accurate is rather naive. To my way of thinking.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 09:09 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Variations on that are the most likely scenario...and I have offered it from the beginning. Perhaps Jesus thought there was nothing wrong with slavery...which to my way of thinking is the most likely scenario.


Wait, what?

The most likely? I find it far more likely that everything we know about Jesus is false, or at the very least inaccurate.


Okay...and thank you for sharing that.



Quote:
The figure has been used as a political tool by men with ulterior motives so much that to believe that any story we know about Jesus is accurate is rather naive. To my way of thinking.


To put too much stock in it is naive. To lend too much credence to some of the specifics is also.

To dismiss it as easily as some, like you, do...is just as naive.

Obviously there was a movement...a very successful one. Whether it was the result of what it says it was...is still up in the air...and probably will never be resolved.

At least, that is my opinion.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 10:31 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Obviously there was a movement...a very successful one. Whether it was the result of what it says it was...is still up in the air...and probably will never be resolved.


Personally I believe that there was a wise man with an extraordinary charisma and a head for philosophy, who formed his own beliefs and philosophies based on what he knew of Judaism and Hellenism. A man similar to the Buddha, perhaps.
Then he gained followers and students of his philosophy. Men less deep seeing than himself, who adopted his philosophies and beliefs as best they could.
But so appealing was this new world view that more and more people embraced it even though persecution of those who did so was wide spread. Perhaps that was a motivating factor for people. Perhaps they saw how hard the old religious authorities came down on those who embraced the new and thought that if they tried that hard to stop it there had to be a reason for it. My bet is a lot of people got curious about it for that reason alone.

Just idle speculation, of course. But I think it is pretty safe to say that whatever the events behind the origins of Christianity truly were, it didn't involve divine intervention.
 

Related Topics

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God? - Question by neologist
We are all like little children who often say: "Mom, Dad, leave me alone, I want to be on my own". - Question by Leaffan
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you? - Discussion by MattDavis
Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict? - Question by maxdancona
Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages? - Discussion by wandeljw
Why People Seek Solace In Gods. - Question by mark noble
Catholic remarried couples should abstain from sex - Question by Tes yeux noirs
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
Religion and Fear - Discussion by TomTomBinks
Does the Bible's account allow for living things to change over time? - Question by anthony1312002
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?
  3. » Page 82
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 11:13:14
▲ ▼