Why didn't Jesus condemn slavery?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So here it is some 2000 years later and you can see how well THAT worked out.

To deny the beneficial aspects of the Christian faith upon society is a mistake. I do realize you have no respect for those of faith, but on average those of faith are more likely to help those in need.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are assuming that JC existed at all and that any of the words alleged to have been
uttered by him ever actually were.

I see no basis for assuming that.


As you say all the evidence points to the bible being written by men and not a deity in which
case it is more than possible that the central character was invented and never really existed ...[text shortened]... ter (actually Potter probably has more) it seems presumptuous to assume that he existed.

You are sounding crazy now. I guess in your thought it is the biggest conspiracy
ever devised among men to create a religious cult. They not only come up
with a false crucifixion and resurrection story, but made sure they had an
empty tomb to make it more credible. Then they somehow created a negative
photographic image of a man on the type of linen used for burial even with
a duplicate image of the man's face on a face cloth that show the same details
of torture and beating and crucifixion of the madeup Christ figure they wrote
about. But you are so wise that it has not fooled you. With all your wisdom,
why don't you show the scientist and theologians how it was all done?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are sounding crazy now. I guess in your thought it is the biggest conspiracy
ever devised among men to create a religious cult. They not only come up
with a false crucifixion and resurrection story, but made sure they had an
empty tomb to make it more credible. Then they somehow created a negative
photographic image of a man on the type of linen u With all your wisdom,
why don't you show the scientist and theologians how it was all done?

what you're speaking is far removed from reality. they didn't have to create an empty tomb, only the story of one. and no burial facecloth and bandages exists that can be connected to this character.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
what you're speaking is far removed from reality. they didn't have to create an empty tomb, only the story of one. and no burial facecloth and bandages exists that can be connected to this character.

It is clear that you are very ignorant and uneducated on the matter.

Originally posted by whodey
To deny the beneficial aspects of the Christian faith upon society is a mistake. I do realize you have no respect for those of faith, but on average those of faith are more likely to help those in need.

So it was ok for the biblical justification of slavery for almost all of the last 2000 years? You can't just dismiss something like that with platitudes. There is something seriously wrong with all the Abrahamic religions, something that smells 100% man made. You seriously think a god would condone slavery? I mean a real god.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So it was ok for the biblical justification of slavery for almost all of the last 2000 years? You can't just dismiss something like that with platitudes. There is something seriously wrong with all the Abrahamic religions, something that smells 100% man made. You seriously think a god would condone slavery? I mean a real god.

Actually the justification for slavery was not biblical, but can be directly traced to social
Darwinism, indeed Darwinian principles were applied to many fields, such as
economics and eugenics and used to justify racism, imperialism and a whole host of
rather nasty occurrences that you dont seem to mention. Strange that, very strange
indeed. When will you materialists fess up to the harm that your doctrines have been
directly responsible for?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually the justification for slavery was not biblical, but can be directly traced to social
Darwinism, indeed Darwinian principles were applied to many fields, such as
economics and eugenics and used to justify racism, imperialism and a whole host of
rather nasty occurrences that you dont seem to mention. Strange that, very strange
indeed. ...[text shortened]... l you materialists fess up to the harm that your doctrines have been
directly responsible for?

Yes slavery was based on the idiotic distortions of the work of a biologist 6000+ years before he was born....

You moron.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually the justification for slavery was not biblical, but can be directly traced to social
Darwinism, indeed Darwinian principles were applied to many fields, such as
economics and eugenics and used to justify racism, imperialism and a whole host of
rather nasty occurrences that you dont seem to mention. Strange that, very strange
indeed. ...[text shortened]... l you materialists fess up to the harm that your doctrines have been
directly responsible for?

Darwinian principles, as you call them, are based on observations of the natural world. The natural world which your God created, maybe you should take up your complaint with him.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually the justification for slavery was not biblical, but can be directly traced to social
Darwinism, indeed Darwinian principles were applied to many fields, such as
economics and eugenics and used to justify racism, imperialism and a whole host of
rather nasty occurrences that you dont seem to mention. Strange that, very strange
indeed. ...[text shortened]... l you materialists fess up to the harm that your doctrines have been
directly responsible for?

Try this one on for size:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

Originally posted by sonhouse
So it was ok for the biblical justification of slavery for almost all of the last 2000 years? You can't just dismiss something like that with platitudes. There is something seriously wrong with all the Abrahamic religions, something that smells 100% man made. You seriously think a god would condone slavery? I mean a real god.

I would compare the Mosaic laws on divorce with slavery. The Israelites were afforded the chance to divorce, however, Christ commented on this and said it was not God's best for mankind and that it was only a provision due to the hardness of man's heart. In the garden of eden, there was no slavery and no divorce. This came after the fall and is part of the cost of sin. In fact, as I have said, sin is equated with slavery throughout the Bible. Such slavery takes many forms, including the literal one you speak of.

So Christ came to change the heart of mankind and soften their hearts. This is the key to ending all forms of slavery to sin.

As a side note, slaves in the Bible were different than the slavery we are accustomed to hearing about in the US. These slaves were not targeted by race, and were allowed to go free after so many years of service. It was looked upon as a means of survival, much like surviving a bad marriage by allowing them to divorce.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Darwinian principles, as you call them, are based on observations of the natural world. The natural world which your God created, maybe you should take up your complaint with him.

Actually the stuff he is talking about is based on gross misunderstandings and distortions of Darwin's theories
that are totally unjustified and fallacious and were used by people who were already into 'racial superiority'
and the like before they latched onto these distortions of what Darwin's work was about as pseudo-scientific
justifications for what they were doing.

Blaming this on Darwin or his theories is like blaming the people who sell 'healing crystals' with 'vibrational energy'
and 'quantum' on theoretical physicists.
The fact that people took a few snippets of sentences he printed out of context, misunderstood them, and then
applied these fallacious ideas is not Darwin's fault.

In fact these people were great fans of and used Linnaean Taxonomy which Darwin himself debunked.


So while the work of Darwin and others was indeed based on observation of the natural world the stuff RC is
talking about is not.

And we have had this discussion before when I (and others) pointed out exactly why what he was saying was wrong
so the fact that he has brought it up again just shows (again) how dishonest he is.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes slavery was based on the idiotic distortions of the work of a biologist 6000+ years before he was born....

You moron.

Oh dear you must be getting used to failing by now, one may read how Spencer not
only opposed provision for the poor, but because of his adherence to the materialistic
ideology, which suppressed the faculty of conscience, thought that it was beneficial for
humanity, the same ideology which materialists like you are now professing. Why dont
you admit that the Darwinian principles which you believe and advocate have been
responsible for the most heinous crimes against mankind, which make any reference to
Biblical slavery pall in to insignificance by comparison, why don't you admit it? If
anyone knows the meaning of the term moronic, i guess you da man!

Originally posted by sonhouse
Try this one on for size:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

try fessing up for size!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh dear you must be getting used to failing by now, one may read how Spencer not
only opposed provision for the poor, but because of his adherence to the materialistic
ideology, which suppressed the faculty of conscience, thought that it was beneficial for
humanity, the same ideology which materialists like you are now professing. Why dont
y ...[text shortened]... why don't you admit it? If
anyone knows the meaning of the term moronic, i guess you da man!

Spencer who?


You are a liar and are lying again.

You have no credibility here.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Spencer who?


You are a liar and are lying again.

You have no credibility here.

my goodness you need an education like all get out!

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.asp

i want you to retract you assertion of lying, simply because you do not agree with the
assertion or are ignorant of the details, does not make me a liar, in fact, its about the
weakest argument i think one can make, but then again, you need to resort to
something, lets see so far, name calling, which i laugh at, and secondly the now
obligatory alleged distortion of truth, LOL, i mock your unsubstantiated opinions!


weak, really weak!