Laptoploon wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:
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.
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.
I've pulled these two quotes because you seem to be tap dancing again.
If, as you suggest, that "
Being enslaved has always been one of the basest, most repulsive predicaments any human ever encounters." how could moral men (for I assume you take Jesus and Paul as such
"SIMPLY DID NOT SEE IT AS IMMORAL" or "
AS WRONG"
Oh, Laptop, how disappointing. I was beginning to think this was going to be a really interesting and challenging encounter - and then you go and post something as silly and ill conceived as this drivel.
OkayÂ…let's take this thing apart.
Suppose for the sake of explanation that I accept the correction you mentioned in your second paragraph about death being the ultimate threat rather than slavery (I don't -- but I'll get to that later) -- then my statement would read:
"Being killed 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."
And your reaction to it would read:
Quote:If, as you suggest, that "Being killed has always been one of the basest, most repulsive predicaments any human ever encounters." how could moral men (for I assume you take Jesus and Paul as such "SIMPLY DID NOT SEE IT AS IMMORAL" or "AS WRONG"
Easily!
The fact that thing "x" is base and is a repulsive predicament -- has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a person CAN or HAS TO conceive of it as moral or right.
You, Laptop, are saying that being killed was in fact base and repulsive -- and for sure it was back then - YET there is no denying that it was considered moral/just/right by moral men back then.
So once we have established that it is possible for an item "x" to be both base and a repulsive predicament -- AND to be considered moral and right...the question you so carelessly put to me is answered. And substituting slavery (whether you see it as worse or not as bad as death) for death really does not change that dynamic.
Your contention that it could not be both is faulty logic. (Actually, not logic at all.)
Quote:You are projecting today's mores back into a different era.
No I am not.
I am simply pointing out that the Bible -- and damn near all the literature we have -- indicates that slaves have never appreciated being slaves -- and this pseudo intellectual snake oil you are trying to sell here on this issue stinks of red herring.
No need for any kind of projection here at all.
Quote:Slavery wasn't the "ultimate threat" Death was.
Up for grabs...but most of the stuff I've read indicates that most men back in those days would rather have died valiantly in battle than suffer the ignominy of slavery. In fact, in Roman times, I think there is ample indication that military men captured and enslaved would, if at all possible, opt for the gladiatorial games -- with a chance of an honorable death to end their ignoble slavery.
You just like being contentious -- so you are asserting alternatively to what I asserted. Just another example of that petty streak you show so often.
Quote: Battles routinely ended with all prisoners forfeiting their lives and often in brutal and sadistic ways, slavery was, in many ways, a bit of a result.
Slow down a bit, Laptop. This sentence makes no sense.
Quote:Really, you can't have it both ways. You can't suggest that slavery has always been wrong and moreover, everyone has always known it was wrong, then in the next breath state that is was not seen as wrong.
Well, that is not quite what I said or wrote or inferred, but in any case...
...as I argued up above, you can. But in order to see that, you would have to (as we sometimes put it here in America) pull your head out of your ass -- something you seem reluctant to do.
Give it a try.
I think you will find that you can actually give another person's opinions reasonable consideration and still be the insufferable, arrogant, condescending boor you apparently find it necessary to be.
If a peson does not believe God or Jesus then he certaintly will not see that there is scripture pertaining to slavery and how to treat slaves and how to not treat slaves. That is a persons decision. But it would be ignorant to not see that social change DOES NOT occur overnight, usually it takes at least a generation for a social change. Lincoln forced the South into social change with the Civil War and the slaves were freed but it still took 150 years for black slave descendants to be seen as more than a slave. With equality. NT slaves were not treated as badly as Western slaves. When NT slaves became a bond servant, they could own things and start a business, have a family. Western slaves were stripped of anything that even looked like humanity. Why 