Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Slavery is a good example of something that was deemed A-okay 2000 years ago but is seen as evil nowadays. Moral codes keep on changing, and that's a good thing, but gods tend to be inflexible. Therefore it's a bad idea to base ones moral code on them gods, unless you want to live your life by the moral standards of the bronze age.

Frank Apisa wrote:

No...there is no answer there.

An actual answer would be formed with a variation of, "Jesus did not condemn slavery because..."

None of that stuff you wrote fits into that.
Stop pretending you have answered...and actually answer the question


Or ignore it...which is probably your best move.

You've denied that my answer was an answer before as well.

Why can't you just admit that you don't want an answer; you only want to keep posing the question.

You don't want to understand what Jesus said about economic wealth, because you just want to think that slavery is bad and wage labor is the cure.

You need to come to terms with why you are concerned about slavery. Why is that, exactly?

Slavery is alive and well, and I am not making light of it, then or now. 

Quote:

Slavery is alive and well, and I am not making light of it, then or now. 

You're making light of it if you compare it to waged labour. I lived in Mauritania where a traditional form of slavery still exists. It's less cruel than chattel slavery but it's still slavery. A Haratin cannot leave his master, like you and I can leave our job. And the master screws his young slaves, too.

Hi Frank! Welcome back. Yes, a master owns his slave's body, not just his productive force or his time, from 9 to 5, but his whole life. And therefore a master can kill his slave too, if he wants to.

Office tyrans are evil but they aren't allowed to shoot down unruly workers on the spot, unlike in the plantation days.

Office tyrans are evil but they aren't allowed to shoot down unruly workers on the spot, unlike in the plantation days.

Quote:

Office tyrans are evil but they aren't allowed to shoot down unruly workers on the spot, unlike in the plantation days.

I could say it was you who is making light of the wage slave.
And you are being absurd about the behavior of the slave owner.
The slave owner is a selfish prick who isn’t stupid enough to arbitrarily kill his own investment.
The wage slave driver could give a **** less about the worker, it costs them nothing to replace them.
I’m not making light of either slave, but you are.

The worst form of slavery it the kind which forces you to be your own slave master. I know because I’ve served as both kinds.

Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Hi Frank! Welcome back. Yes, a master owns his slave's body, not just his productive force or his time, from 9 to 5, but his whole life. And therefore a master can kill his slave too, if he wants to.

Office tyrans are evil but they aren't allowed to shoot down unruly workers on the spot, unlike in the plantation days.

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:

Slavery is alive and well, and I am not making light of it, then or now. 

You're making light of it if you compare it to waged labour. I lived in Mauritania where a traditional form of slavery still exists. It's less cruel than chattel slavery but it's still slavery. A Haratin cannot leave his master, like you and I can leave our job. And the master screws his young slaves, too.

People always make this same argument, but all it does is ignore the ability to control people in various ways that wage-labor allows. Feudal slavery may have been more brutal, but modern wage-labor is not devoid of coercive tactics.

Just think of examples of what happens if you quit your job and walk away. Do you get a bad reference and/or no reference, which prevents you from getting another job that you want, for example?

Now think about what would happen if employers didn't check references and people could irresponsibly quit any job at any moment they didn't want to do a certain task or duty.

People would be taking money from their employer to stand around until some hard work needed to be done, and then they would walk away and essentially steal the employer's money while shifting the burden to someone else to do the hard work.

Things like burden-shifting and gambling, etc. amount to slavery in capitalism because people have to work for money that other people get for free or by easy work. So you can tell yourself everyone who does all the hard labor in the restaurants and hotels and stores, etc. where you spend your money is free to leave those jobs if they don't like them, but how free are they, really?

Olivier5 wrote:

Hi Frank! Welcome back. Yes, a master owns his slave's body, not just his productive force or his time, from 9 to 5, but his whole life. And therefore a master can kill his slave too, if he wants to.

Office tyrans are evil but they aren't allowed to shoot down unruly workers on the spot, unlike in the plantation days.

When you argue about the difference between modern wage labor and pre-modern slavery, you're missing the point.

When Jesus told the rich man to give up all his possessions and follow Him, He was saying that we are all slaves to the world, to materialism and material desires. So if you just argue that slavery is worse than wage labor, you're missing the point of what Jesus was saying about material riches in general, which is that they cause unhappiness even as they bring pleasure.

Jesus could have told the rich man to just live as richly as he possibly could, as long as he didn't own any slaves; but He didn't.