(August 22, 2021 at 4:59 am)Ravenshire Wrote: You really don't want to go there, Sparky. The words attributed to your jeebus in the new testament about slavery are not what you seem to think they are. He didn't have a single thing to say against slavery.

I guess it's because the colonial slavery of the past 400 years hadn't happened yet.  Note:  Jesus also never commented on thermonuclear war.

Quote:I guess it's because the colonial slavery of the past 400 years hadn't happened yet.  Note:  Jesus also never commented on thermonuclear war.

Yeah because it's not like god could just blanket condemn the ownership of human beings or anything 

(August 22, 2021 at 5:34 am)Mashmont Wrote:

(August 22, 2021 at 4:59 am)Ravenshire Wrote: You really don't want to go there, Sparky. The words attributed to your jeebus in the new testament about slavery are not what you seem to think they are. He didn't have a single thing to say against slavery.

I guess it's because the colonial slavery of the past 400 years hadn't happened yet.  

Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it, Sparky. I said he didn't have a single thing to say against slavery, not that he never spoke on it.

(August 22, 2021 at 5:34 am)Mashmont Wrote: Note:  Jesus also never commented on thermonuclear war.

Red herring much? No one expects your gawd-boy to speak out against something technologically impossible for the time. But, if he's the source of all good, he should have something to say about an evil practice extant in his own fucking culture.

Too bad you're too thick to get this.

(August 22, 2021 at 6:03 am)Ravenshire Wrote:

(August 22, 2021 at 5:34 am)Mashmont Wrote: I guess it's because the colonial slavery of the past 400 years hadn't happened yet.  

Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it, Sparky. I said he didn't have a single thing to say against slavery, not that he never spoke on it.

(August 22, 2021 at 5:34 am)Mashmont Wrote: Note:  Jesus also never commented on thermonuclear war.

Red herring much? No one expects your gawd-boy to speak out against something technologically impossible for the time. But, if he's the source of all good, he should have something to say about an evil practice extant in his own fucking culture.

Too bad you're too thick to get this.

My point was slavery in Jesus time was nothing like the colonial slavery of the past 400 years.  That's why he couldn't comment on it.  Slavery in Jesus' day is what you leftwingers claim Walmart does.  Provides a means of subsistence for people who may not have other options.

(August 22, 2021 at 6:27 am)Mashmont Wrote:

(August 22, 2021 at 6:03 am)Ravenshire Wrote: Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it, Sparky. I said he didn't have a single thing to say against slavery, not that he never spoke on it.

Red herring much? No one expects your gawd-boy to speak out against something technologically impossible for the time. But, if he's the source of all good, he should have something to say about an evil practice extant in his own fucking culture.

Too bad you're too thick to get this.

My point was slavery in Jesus time was nothing like the colonial slavery of the past 400 years.  That's why he couldn't comment on it.  Slavery in Jesus' day is what you leftwingers claim Walmart does.  Provides a means of subsistence for people who may not have other options.

Bullshit. Slavery of the time was ownership of another human being, Even if it were on par with indentured servitude, as you are falsely trying to claim, indentured servitude is also illegal. Any worker at Walmart (or any other legit busuness) is free to simply walk away from that job, ending their employment. Not so for slaves or indentured servants, but you just keep feeding yourself the same old bullshit in defense of your chosen source of morality.

Quote:My point was slavery in Jesus time was nothing like the colonial slavery of the past 400 years.

Irrelevant he could have condemned all slavery period. Also slave owners in the south sure as hell didn't see the distinction when they used the bible to justify owning people.

Quote:  That's why he couldn't comment on it. 

God could have condemned owning people or indenturing them period 

Quote: Slavery in Jesus' day is what you leftwingers claim Walmart does.

Yup he could have condemned owning people or indenturing them period 

Quote:  Provides a means of subsistence for people who may not have other options.

Nope exploiting people for your own benefit which god could have condemned.

Slavery is bad period and god could have condemned it period.

(August 22, 2021 at 6:36 am)Ravenshire Wrote:

(August 22, 2021 at 6:27 am)Mashmont Wrote: My point was slavery in Jesus time was nothing like the colonial slavery of the past 400 years.  That's why he couldn't comment on it.  Slavery in Jesus' day is what you leftwingers claim Walmart does.  Provides a means of subsistence for people who may not have other options.

Bullshit. Slavery of the time was ownership of another human being, Even if it were on par with indentured servitude, as you are falsely trying to claim, indentured servitude is also illegal. Any worker at Walmart (or any other legit busuness) is free to simply walk away from that job, ending their employment. Not so for slaves or indentured servants, but you just keep feeding yourself the same old bullshit in defense of your chosen source of morality.

The Greek word, doulos as used in the Bible can be translated as slave, but also as servant.  They had legal rights,  weren't servants all their lives, and their circumstances weren't based on race.  Often slavery in those times was the alternative to slaughter.  You continue to (intentially) conflate this benign state with the current race-based colonial slavery.

Jesus didn't speak out against a lot of things that did and didn't exist then.  He never specifically mentioned embezzlement, bestiality, arson, or other iniquities.   You're dishonest when you say it means He was immoral for not doing so.

Quote:The Greek word, doulos as used in the Bible can be translated as slave, but also as servant.  They had legal rights,  weren't servants all their lives, and their circumstances weren't based on race.  Often slavery in those times was the alternative to slaughter.  You continue to (intentially) conflate this benign state with the current race-based colonial slavery.

Benign state  

The Gymnastics here are hilarious.

Quote:Jesus didn't speak out against a lot of things that did and didn't exist then.  He never specifically mentioned embezzlement, bestiality, arson, or other iniquities.   You're dishonest when you say it means He was immoral for not doing so.

Yeah, but he could have universally condemned any form of slavery or indentured servitude period. He didn't and that makes him immoral 

The immorality comes from the fact that God is supposedly eternal, so, should know the rules that will be most relevant for humans to follow throughout time on earth. And in parts of his book, he outlines how best to deal with slaves instead of condemning it. That's why it is Christ's responsibility, coming down here to tell us God's will and not correcting the outline that had been given before. If bestiality and arson were specifically allowed and given the stamp of approval by God in his holy book previously, then yes, I would include those in "If Jesus says nothing about these things and doesn't condemn them, then he is immoral because he's giving his implicit approval for the way the law was set up previously".

(August 22, 2021 at 7:25 am)Ten Wrote: The immorality comes from the fact that God is supposedly eternal, so, should know the rules that will be most relevant for humans to follow throughout time on earth. And in parts of his book, he outlines how best to deal with slaves instead of condemning it. That's why it is Christ's responsibility, coming down here to tell us God's will and not correcting the outline that had been given before. If bestiality and arson were specifically allowed and given the stamp of approval by God in his holy book previously, then yes, I would include those in "If Jesus says nothing about these things and doesn't condemn them, then he is immoral because he's giving his implicit approval for the way the law was set up previously".

It's comical how mortal men, who aren't even capable of traveling to the nearest planet deign to dictate proper behavior to the Being who created the infinite universe.

It's sort of like a gnat trying to explain calculus to Isaac Newton.