Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
No, that's reductive. You are making the issue more superficial than it is, and by doing so obfuscating the whole point of the comparison.
So a further explanation why you have difficulty following context - you don't accept context what you don't want to accept. You want context to be what you want it to be, rather than what is.

Quote:
You seem to have plenty of faith in your own authority to decide what a discussion is or isn't about, but I don't have to submit to your authority because you're not God.
Uh, you introduced the context, not me - by asking the question what's the difference between God & Maths.

Then, when you didn't like the factual differences, you decided you wanted to change the context, trying to change the topic to the existence of God, or to similarities between the two (and by so doing, allowing you to avoid the factual differences).

Some of those similarities, we agree on to a large degree, but they aren't the context, and as you are engaging in avoidance, I won't engage in your attempt to change context while you continue to avoid, as moving on to discuss such with you will only serve to encourage you to continue to engage in behaviours of avoidance.

To restate slightly differently so there is no confusion for you - some of your thoughts during your attempt to change context, I even I agree with (I've acknowledged several), but I won't move on to discuss them with you while you continue to engage in avoidance behaviours, because it only encourages you to avoid inconvenient concepts and facts.

As a further note - just to clarify - the above is stated as a generalised value of mine. So, specifically, in relation to the existence of God, or not - I am not interested in that debate. In my view, as I've previously stated - each is entitled to their own view, (and in my view) so long as it is well thought through. The areas I've engaged you in, have been when your thoughts aren't well thought through...which includes when you engage in avoidance etc.

I tried discussing substantive ideas with you. All you want to do is argue about yourself and the person you're in discussion with.

I just don't think you are capable of higher reasoning; only legalistic/gossip type back-and-forth.

Go find some other playmate for that nonsense. I am only interested in substantive discussion.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

I tried discussing substantive ideas with you. All you want to do is argue about yourself and the person you're in discussion with.

I just don't think you are capable of higher reasoning; only legalistic/gossip type back-and-forth.

Go find some other playmate for that nonsense. I am only interested in substantive discussion.

Read:
- Living doesn't like the factual differences vikorr gave (in answer to the question Living asked - the difference between God & Maths)
- Living is only interested in discussing things that support Living's beliefs
- Living avoids factual differences (given in answer to his question on differences), then justifies this to himself by saying "I don't think you are capable of higher reasoning'

...which last avoids explanation provided by vikorr as to way he doesn't engage in 'other discussions' with Living until Living stops avoiding...

If you don't want to play, the answer is simple - either:
- stop pretending you have (honestly) tested & understand your moral footing; or
- stop pretending you believe in avoiding self deception, or
- stop engaging in avoidance (and thereby deceiving yourself)

By way of example, throughout this whole discussion - you still haven't outright stated 'the being of God can't be sensed by our 5 senses' (touch, sight, taste, smell, and sound)...though you have very grudgingly alluded to, then backtracked. As I've mentioned before, every Christian I've ever known admits this...so your aversion isn't just bizarre - it's existing in a fantasy land of some sort.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

By way of example, throughout this whole discussion - you still haven't outright stated 'the being of God can't be sensed by our 5 senses' (touch, sight, taste, smell, and sound)...though you have very grudgingly alluded to, then backtracked. As I've mentioned before, every Christian I've ever known admits this...so your aversion isn't just bizarre - it's existing in a fantasy land of some sort.

Energy animates everything of the universe. The wind blows, the sun shines, the energy powers every living thing, all the weather processes, and every bit of energy that animates our bodies and minds.

In what part of all that do you think God is absent? Answer: you see God absent in all of it because to you it's all just random chaos. For you to perceive God, you would need to see an entity, like a human, tree, star, galaxy, or whatever. You can't fathom that God is beyond all those things you perceive and yet His Holy Spirit is acting throughout the universe like the electrical current that keeps all your electronics running.

In an earlier post, I asked you to define what constitutes an entity, because when you talk about perceiving something with your senses, you only mean things that you can circumscribe as an entity with your limited mind's eye. You can feel a gust of wind, for example, but you can't circumscribe it or even see it. You see it blow the trees or dust or whatever, but you can't see the wind itself. You can only infer its energy from the effects that energy manifests. Yet you have no trouble believing in wind.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

I believe that we have at least 5 separate senses not just sight.
Work with that for a while .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I believe that we have at least 5 separate senses not just sight.
Work with that for a while .

You're not entering this discussion for any reason other than to cause difficulty.

If you have something interesting to stimulate thoughtful discussion, say it.

Otherwise avoid it because you're just going to break down into anti-religion ridicule and that's not going to add anything the discussion except for you who's going to enjoy spouting your negativity at your favorite scapegoat.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

In what part of all that do you think God is absent? Answer: you see God absent in all of it because to you it's all just random chaos. For you to perceive God, you would need to see an entity, like a human, tree, star, galaxy, or whatever. You can't fathom that God is beyond all those things you perceive and yet His Holy Spirit is acting throughout the universe like the electrical current that keeps all your electronics running.

This is the sort of response where you don't want to see what you don't want to see.

For example - I have no drama saying that God could be the universe. But that is pure supposition on my part, and on the part of any Christian - for it is not anywhere in the Bible, and by implication of 'created the heavens and the earth' - his being had to exist before hand, so it is extremely unlikely that this world is the being of God. That said, I don't know of any Christian that truly believes in this 'definition' though I do know ones who have considered it a possibility.

This is a discussion we could have, but it is not what the discussion was about - it was about the differences between Maths & God.

Nor is the discussion about if he is absent in any way - it is about the differences between God & Maths, and I have not used the word absent (which would imply his awareness is absent, which no one has claimed here)

Quote:

define what constitutes an entity

And yet we are talking about a being. An entity includes anything that is not a being. The use of the word entity obfuscates.

And even if you want this sort of supposition to be the being of God (which again is very dubious at best according to the Bible, seeing he created it, meaning his being existed beforehand), the literal fact is that nature cannot physically talk to you with the voice of God...so stretch your supposition as far as you like...There still exists in this area, a difference between God & maths.

But using your example - it relies on supposition (even with it's flaws - ie. your supposition can't speak with the voice of God), while maths does not rely on supposition to be true.

You should know these things. It should not be something that causes you to avoid & object so persistently. It is just deluding yourself.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

For example - I have no drama saying that God could be the universe. But that is pure supposition on my part, and on the part of any Christian - for it is not anywhere in the Bible,

It's axiomatic in the principle of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. The universe is conceivable as a single unified whole because of monotheism. Otherwise you just have different gods for different aspects, such as one of the heavens, one of the oceans, one of the land, one of the wind, one for wisdom, one for spring, etc. etc.

Quote:

and by implication of 'created the heavens and the earth' - his being had to exist before hand, so it is extremely unlikely that this world is the being of God. That said, I don't know of any Christian that truly believes in this 'definition' though I do know ones who have considered it a possibility.

Well, that's just it: there is always further antecedent causation. So if you recognize that, then you just have to recognize the impossibility of humans reaching an ultimate perspective/authority/perfection; so there you have the reason to look beyond humanity to something higher, more powerful, and more perfect. In fact, once you recognize that the human imagination has the capacity to imagine ideals that can't actually happen in practice, then you realize that there is this capacity of the universe to know itself in a more perfect form.

So now you can say that the capacity to imagine humanity in a form that is beyond its ability to achieve in practice doesn't prove that such a level of perfection actually exists, but that just depends on how you understand what it means to exist. You may be thinking, for example, that things outside the mind are more real than things you can imagine within your mind; but then you have the problem that the brain is a complex pattern of molecules and energy the same as the external universe is made up of complex patterns of molecules and energy, so the things we experience happening from inside our brains are not really different from the thing that we experience from outside through our senses. It's hard to grasp that from a materialist perspective, but it is similar to the fact that you can experience the same thing or better listening to audio through headphones as you can be listening to sound coming through the air from farther away. You just have to analyze more carefully what it means for things to exist and interact, without bias toward external or internal events.

Quote:

This is a discussion we could have, but it is not what the discussion was about - it was about the differences between Maths & God.

No, that was just an example. If you want to go back into that one, explain your point, but my point was that what's true is true and you can't make a lie true by telling yourself it is true in a different context (unless of course it truly is true in that context).

E.g. let's say you want to have a Dionysian orgy so you tell yourself that ancient Greek polytheism legitimated that. The question then becomes whether you actually believe in that ancient Greek theology or whether you are just embracing it pragmatically to rationalize pursuing an indulgence that you know is wrong on another level. Some people are honestly deceived that their morality is right, and they are just in a process of figuring out a higher truth, but if you are picking and choosing religions and gods and shirking your deeper awareness that there is right and wrong beyond what you can rationalize due to desire, then that is something different.

To go back to the math example, sometimes you do a problem and you honestly think you did it right until you get it back from the teacher and see that you did it wrong. That's different than if you just make up some rationalization to claim that something is right when you don't really believe it's right, but you just think you can BS your way through it. Sophism or sophistry is what it's called, I believe.

Quote:

define what constitutes an entity

And yet we are talking about a being. An entity includes anything that is not a being. The use of the word entity obfuscates.[/quote]
Ok, then first you have to unpack your definition of what is and is not a 'being,' and why. As soon as you find out your definition biases you in a certain way, you can look beyond your bias.

Quote:

And even if you want this sort of supposition to be the being of God (which again is very dubious at best according to the Bible, seeing he created it, meaning his being existed beforehand), the literal fact is that nature cannot physically talk to you with the voice of God...so stretch your supposition as far as you like...There still exists in this area, a difference between God & maths.

It's not stretching. All you have to do is ask yourself what the people who wrote the Bible were doing in order to receive the information they wrote. Were they just thinking in whatever way they wanted, or were they struggling to figure out the truest things to say and explain from their best efforts to do so? In order to communicate with God, or rather to allow God to communicate with you, you have to really struggle with holiness. It's not the same as just BSing yourself that whatever you write you can attribute that to Holy Spirit and thus claim it is God speaking through you. It is about sincerely seeking truth and then wanting to share it with others when you discover it. To return to the math example, when you figure out that math renders true answers, you have confidence/faith that you have discovered something that is true so how can you imagine that something that is really true could be in conflict with any authority in the universe. If the sky really is blue, why would God disagree with you that it's blue?

Quote:

But using your example - it relies on supposition (even with it's flaws - ie. your supposition can't speak with the voice of God), while maths does not rely on supposition to be true.

When you submit your solution to a math problem to the teacher for grading without really knowing if it's true, you might supposed you got it right but you don't really know. If, on the other hand, you know what you're doing, then you're not supposing it's true because you really know, for example, that 211+39=250. There's no supposition there because you are totally convinced you have the right answer.

Quote:

You should know these things. It should not be something that causes you to avoid & object so persistently. It is just deluding yourself.

Most things you say like this in your posts are just fluff. Stringing together a bunch of words like, "should" "avoid," 'object," "persistently," "deluding yourself," etc. just sounds like generic attack rhetoric you would throw at anyone you're trying to push into a defensive reaction.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

If you have something interesting to stimulate thoughtful discussion, say it

I said that we have 5 senses not just sight. Youve hung your entire "case" on being able to "See" . when all 5 senses dont register anything at all, it looks like strong evience against a premise

1 Reply

@livinglava,

when everything posed by these spiritualists they are always evience-free. Why is that??

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
If you have something interesting to stimulate thoughtful discussion, say it
I said that e have 5 wnses not just ight. Youve hung your entire "case" on being able to "See" . when all 5 senses dont register anything at all, it looks like strong evience against a premise

This example I gave of the wind is a good way to illustrate how you perceive God with the senses:

Quote:

In an earlier post, I asked you to define what constitutes an entity, because when you talk about perceiving something with your senses, you only mean things that you can circumscribe as an entity with your limited mind's eye. You can feel a gust of wind, for example, but you can't circumscribe it or even see it. You see it blow the trees or dust or whatever, but you can't see the wind itself. You can only infer its energy from the effects that energy manifests. Yet you have no trouble believing in wind.

You don't actually see the wind, but you see its effects.

When you talk about geology, it's the same. You see the layers in the canyon, or the different types of minerals and you can extrapolate how they formed by understanding the chemical processes that it would take to form them, but you don't actually witness the geological process that formed them because that process took place over extremely long time-spans.

And yet you know that there was a geological process that occurred over that long time span, and the rocks you found communicated their history to you by you having learned to 'speak their language' by studying the processes of rock formation and the physics/chemistry that makes it clear to you how it happened at a mechanical level.

Basically you can say that God communicates with you through geological understanding how He created the geological formations you understand by studying them. It's not arrogant to describe it in this way; it's just recognizing that there is a larger power that goes way beyond what humans can do/control, so there is a higher power involved in shaping nature, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, etc.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

when everything posed by these spiritualists they are always evience-free. Why is that??

You're generalizing about people by labeling them 'spiritualists.' I can't speak for everyone you're lumping together. I can give my own perspective on what is meant by a specific claim, but that might not be exactly what was meant.

I can tell you that 'spiritual' is used in a lot of different ways, but spirituality really is just a general word for inner experience. Even people who don't consider themselves 'spiritual,' have inner experiences. Some people talk in terms of chakras, so when someone says they have a 'gut feeling,' or something 'hurts their heart,' or something doesn't make sense "in their mind," they are talking about different levels of inner experience, which some people talk about using the term, 'chakras,' but just like when you want to use certain scientific terms and other people don't want to jump into using the same terminology because they don't have enough experience with it to feel really comfortable with it, you also might not feel comfortable with using the term, 'chakra,' to talk about where you experience a certain feeling or thought within your body.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

It's axiomatic in the principle of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. The universe is conceivable as a single unified whole because of monotheism. Otherwise you just have different gods for different aspects, such as one of the heavens, one of the oceans, one of the land, one of the wind, one for wisdom, one for spring, etc. etc.

The principle of omnipotence, omniscience? A 'principle' that can't be tested? (it can be argued, but not tested).

The second sentence doesn't have a necessary relationship to the first sentence. Do you see any atheist thinking they need a god for each season? Obviously not, so the first sentence doesn't have a necessary tie to the second.

Quote:

So if you recognize that, then you just have to recognize the impossibility of humans reaching an ultimate perspective/authority/perfection; so there you have the reason to look beyond humanity to something higher, more powerful, and more perfect

One doesn't need to recognise anything other than the incredible bread of different perspectives to recognise the red...which does not necessitate the following that you said.

Quote:

In fact, once you recognize that the human imagination has the capacity to imagine ideals that can't actually happen in practice

Something that I previously said (in the difference to maths & God) that you objected to...but have now said twice, in different ways...

As I said - it's impossible to get away from this human ability.

Quote:

, then you realize that there is this capacity of the universe to know itself in a more perfect form.

This part could mean a number of different things, depending on how you define 'know' (appears to mean 'in the mind of a higher intelligence'). The first part of the sentence (2nd last quote to this) doesn't necessitate this second part (quote above).

You are making a lot of ties that simply don't need to exist.

Quote:

No, that was just an example. If you want to go back into that one, explain your point, but my point was that what's true is true and you can't make a lie true by telling yourself it is true in a different context (unless of course it truly is true in that context).

Here's the issue - No matter what conversation we've had, you've engaged in avoidance in every substantial one of them. You so frequently engage in behaviours of avoidance (etc), that having a sensible/logical conversation is impossible while you continue to engage in such. The only thing left, is to keep pulling you up on such behaviours.

Even now you continue to desire to avoid acknowledging the differences between Maths and God...and it renders so many of your responses illogical (like your frequently inaccurate beliefs in my motivations, or your accusations of 'you're avoiding' things I have never avoided)..all because you can't bring yourself to acknowledge obvious facts. It so very obviously affects the logic of your beliefs, but you seem to think it doesn't.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
It's axiomatic in the principle of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. The universe is conceivable as a single unified whole because of monotheism. Otherwise you just have different gods for different aspects, such as one of the heavens, one of the oceans, one of the land, one of the wind, one for wisdom, one for spring, etc. etc.
The principle of omnipotence, omniscience? A 'principle' that can't be tested? (it can be argued, but not tested).

I said it is axiomatic. It's like the universe, can you test that there's a universe? You just take it as an axiom that the universe exists in its entirety. Likewise, you assume that there is omnipotence in the universe for everything to happen. If there wasn't the power to make everything happen that happens, then it wouldn't happen, would it? There's no proving or disproving because it is just a way of understanding things that occur.

Quote:

The second sentence doesn't have a necessary relationship to the first sentence. Do you see any atheist thinking they need a god for each season? Obviously not, so the first sentence doesn't have a necessary tie to the second.

Atheists make an issue out of whether or not to attribute agency to nature. That's their whole deal, but that's not even really interesting. It's far more interesting to reflect on whether you can experience the same 'power' of nature (if you want to use an impersonal term for God) in causing the heavens as the oceans as the wind and the land, seasons, etc. Talking about nature and really everything in terms of God is just a way of talking about power.

Atheists don't like thinking of the power of the universe and nature in the same way as they think of human beings because they want to radically differentiate human beings from the rest of the universe that created them/us, but the reality is they we emerged from the natural universe just as every other species, planet, moon, star, galaxy, etc. did.

So we are no more or less like everything else in the universe to the universe that created it, but somehow we have trouble seeing that the things that we discover in ourselves and humanity generally are products and reflections of more general aspects of the power of the universe.

Quote:

Quote:
So if you recognize that, then you just have to recognize the impossibility of humans reaching an ultimate perspective/authority/perfection[/color]; so there you have the reason to look beyond humanity to something higher, more powerful, and more perfect
One doesn't need to recognise anything other than the incredible bread of different perspectives to recognise the red...which does not necessitate the following that you said.

You're not looking deeply at those different perspectives, then, or else you would see more universal aspects behind them.

As I said before, you avoid going to that deeper level because you want to see the diversity of superficiality as penultimate. You want to keep looking into the kaleidoscope and seeing a unique image instead of recognizing how the kaleidoscope works and generates a steady stream of always-new images by how it functions, and so each image is the same at the deeper level of how it was created.

Quote:

In fact, once you recognize that the human imagination has the capacity to imagine ideals that can't actually happen in practice

Something that I previously said (in the difference to maths & God) that you objected to...but have now said twice, in different ways...

As I said - it's impossible to get away from this human ability.[/quote]
Math operates in the realm of imaginary ideals. If you really add two and two apples, you might count four apples in total but each apple is slightly different, so you could compare two different sets of four apples and find one set weighs more than the other, etc. Yet, still we have the capacity to think in terms of 4=4, so that is something that the universe has as a latent potential, i.e. the potential to represent/think in terms of perfect/ideal forms that don't actually exist in reality. So when you see God as something that doesn't exist in reality, it is because you are only looking at the reality beyond the one that made it possible for your mind to imagine perfection/God/etc..

Quote:

, then you realize that there is this capacity of the universe to know itself in a more perfect form.

This part could mean a number of different things, depending on how you define 'know' (appears to mean 'in the mind of a higher intelligence'). The first part of the sentence (2nd last quote to this) doesn't necessitate this second part (quote above).[/quote]
You are part of the universe, and you have the capacity to know the universe, do you not? So you are the universe knowing itself through you.

Quote:

Here's the issue - No matter what conversation we've had, you've engaged in avoidance in every substantial one of them. You so frequently engage in behaviours of avoidance (etc), that having a sensible/logical conversation is impossible while you continue to engage in such. The only thing left, is to keep pulling you up on such behaviours.

I've told you this before, but you just don't seem to understand that there is no validity in you 'pulling me up on such behaviors." You are claiming to be policing a law that you haven't convinced me I should agree with. To me you just twist abstract ideas like (in)consistency and hypocrisy to fit your personal values, so while I do believe in universal values, I don't think you have reached that level, so your values are just superficial, like telling me my clothes don't match or fit with each other stylistically, as if there's something more than personal aesthetics that make that relevant.

Quote:

Even now you continue to desire to avoid acknowledging the differences between Maths and God...and it renders so many of your responses illogical (like your frequently inaccurate beliefs in my motivations, or your accusations of 'you're avoiding' things I have never avoided)..all because you can't bring yourself to acknowledge obvious facts. It so very obviously affects the logic of your beliefs, but you seem to think it doesn't.

You can remain ignorant by dismissing things I say, but that doesn't validate your POV. If you can't understand what I'm explaining well enough to respond to it except to say that I'm changing the subject or otherwise deviating from your POV, then stop responding to my posts. You just waste my time and keystrokes by pretending to be thinking long enough to get me explaining; and then you just start mindless refuting explanations without even showing that you understand them, which I suspect you simply don't.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

I've told you this before, but you just don't seem to understand that there is no validity in you 'pulling me up on such behaviors."

I had written replies before this...but upon reaching this, realised you are happy to continue your behaviours of avoidance, and determined to lie to yourself yourself. Your self deceit makes much more sense now.

Pretending that you have any grounding in logic though, when determinedly engaging in self deceit is just that - pretending. You will always run into problems with people who engage in honesty with themselves (which logic rests upon).

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why do you suppose Jesus didn't condemned slavery?

Why do you suppose he never spoke out against it?

Because there is nothing wrong with slavery.

Now when we hear the word slavery it leaves a bad taste in our mouth, because of the very bad slavery condition that was in America, and currently in other parts of the world. But slavery was never set up to be the way it is today.

If i owed a debt to someone, i could pay off that debt by becoming a slave to that person. Slavery outlined in the Bible was a good thing, not a bad thing.
When there was a war the losers would become slaves to the winners instead of sending the enemy to their deaths, or concentration camps, or detaining them indefinitely. If Slavery, done by Biblical principles, existed today there would be 90% less homeless people in the world. they would rather sell themselves into slavery, get food, and shelter, provided to them, and in many cases get paid, can have spouses, and kids, and their own place to live.

Slavery done by Biblical guidelines, would be a great thing for the entire World. Every slave was to be released from slavery after 7 years, and all debts no matter what they owed are wiped clean. If they decided to stay with that Master for another 7 years, it was their free will choice to do so.

When i talk about slavery, i am not talking about any RACE whatsoever.

The problem is, people did NOT treat their slaves according to the guidelines given in the Bible, they did not release them after 7 years. Well they did, the Christians would release them, and then recapture them as a free person, only to enslave them again, thinking all is right and they did not disobey the Bible because they did release them after 7 years. Slaves were treated subhuman. That is wrong and is against God. So when Americans started making slaves by force because of the color of their skin and would not release any of them from their service, something had to be done, that is wrong and evil and should have never been done if people were treating their slaves by the guidelines given by the Word of God.

It is no different today. God plainly and clearly told farmers to plant their fields for 6 years and on the 7th year let the land REST. But this too people ignored and did NOT do as the guideline in Scriptures taught. They planted every year and never gave the land REST. Crops started to fail miserably, so then pesticides are introduced, fertilizers are introduced to promote plants on steroids, and now we are suffering the consequences of using those things and people die. All because we chose to NOT obey the guidelines given to us via Scriptures on how to plant.

We no longer have slavery, which would have been a good thing, because humans did NOT treat their slaves according to what is outlined in the Bible, and now in America it is abolished.

Please note; Slavery in all of the world right now is evil. Why? Because they are NOT treating their slaves according to the guidelines given in Scriptures.

Slavery, according to the guidelines in Scriptures is NOT evil.
Slavery, that is devoid of rules outlined in the Bible concerning slavery, is most certainly evil.

Now because i have revealed this Truth, let the stone throwing begin.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

My question is aimed at trying to get some ideas of why people in A2K SUPPOSE Jesus did not.

Jesus nor any Disciple or Apostle ever condemned it, because it was not a bad thing. That is the answer. and it is True.

0 Replies

@Steve 41oo,

Steve wrote:

Why do you suppose George Washington never condemned slavery?

Because throughout all ancient history it was not a bad thing, leave it to the last days generation to abuse slaves and not release them when they were suppose to be released, and did not treat them the way they were suppose to be treated.

Believe it or not, you are a slave now. Do we not choose to be slaves to those we agree to work for? They tell us what to do, we do it, they tell us to work, we work, they tell us to go home we go home. They tell us to do this, we do this, they tell us to do that, we do that. Laws were made to protect the workers from unfair treatment.

If Laws would have been made to protect unfair treatment of slaves in America, we would not have had to have a civil war to cause slavery to cease. If Slavery in America existed today. Slaves of all color would be treated fairly and decently, and their would be laws made to protect all slaves.

Again, Slavery was never condemned because it was NOT a bad thing, it was a good thing. But wicked people made it into something bad and wicked. And we see the results of wicked people and how they treat slaves and make slaves all over the world.

0 Replies

@DiscipleDave,

Good one Dave. And welcome to a2k.

0 Replies

@DiscipleDave,

DiscipleDave wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Why do you suppose Jesus didn't condemned slavery?

Why do you suppose he never spoke out against it?

Because there is nothing wrong with slavery.

Now when we hear the word slavery it leaves a bad taste in our mouth, because of the very bad slavery condition that was in America, and currently in other parts of the world. But slavery was never set up to be the way it is today.

If i owed a debt to someone, i could pay off that debt by becoming a slave to that person. Slavery outlined in the Bible was a good thing, not a bad thing.
When there was a war the losers would become slaves to the winners instead of sending the enemy to their deaths, or concentration camps, or detaining them indefinitely. If Slavery, done by Biblical principles, existed today there would be 90% less homeless people in the world. they would rather sell themselves into slavery, get food, and shelter, provided to them, and in many cases get paid, can have spouses, and kids, and their own place to live.

Slavery done by Biblical guidelines, would be a great thing for the entire World. Every slave was to be released from slavery after 7 years, and all debts no matter what they owed are wiped clean. If they decided to stay with that Master for another 7 years, it was their free will choice to do so.

When i talk about slavery, i am not talking about any RACE whatsoever.

The problem is, people did NOT treat their slaves according to the guidelines given in the Bible, they did not release them after 7 years. Well they did, the Christians would release them, and then recapture them as a free person, only to enslave them again, thinking all is right and they did not disobey the Bible because they did release them after 7 years. Slaves were treated subhuman. That is wrong and is against God. So when Americans started making slaves by force because of the color of their skin and would not release any of them from their service, something had to be done, that is wrong and evil and should have never been done if people were treating their slaves by the guidelines given by the Word of God.

It is no different today. God plainly and clearly told farmers to plant their fields for 6 years and on the 7th year let the land REST. But this too people ignored and did NOT do as the guideline in Scriptures taught. They planted every year and never gave the land REST. Crops started to fail miserably, so then pesticides are introduced, fertilizers are introduced to promote plants on steroids, and now we are suffering the consequences of using those things and people die. All because we chose to NOT obey the guidelines given to us via Scriptures on how to plant.

We no longer have slavery, which would have been a good thing, because humans did NOT treat their slaves according to what is outlined in the Bible, and now in America it is abolished.

Please note; Slavery in all of the world right now is evil. Why? Because they are NOT treating their slaves according to the guidelines given in Scriptures.

Slavery, according to the guidelines in Scriptures is NOT evil.
Slavery, that is devoid of rules outlined in the Bible concerning slavery, is most certainly evil.

Now because i have revealed this Truth, let the stone throwing begin.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/6e3479f57f825bb3fc503b7f301b85f0ffc0c603/259_0_2877_1727/master/2877.jpg?width=445&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=ab1088ea197dda85b63dd4a5da3ba161

I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I cannot buy that nonsense...at least, not the way you wrote it.

Slavery was, and always has been, a very BAD thing...for the slave. Having one's spouse or kids sold to someone else is not a pleasant thing. Not sure why you think it was.

The Bible DOES NOT instruct that every slave must be released after 7 years...just the Hebrews who were enslaved. The others could be kept slaves forever. (Leviticus 25:44ff)

Slavery, as outlined in the Bible, is as disgusting as any other slavery, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for thinking otherwise.

1 Reply

Slavery. What does it mean to the young liberal who just graduated with a PhD in Italian Literature, or the McDonald's cashier supporting a pregnant wife?
They both complain that they feel like slaves, one to student debt and the other to a dead end job, and they might actually be worse off than some who Frank considers slaves.

0 Replies

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know