Slavery

[LostinParis]

I asked my (ex)priest why Jesus did not condemn slavery. He replied that the old testament slavery laws were civil laws not religious laws. And that Jesus did not come to create havoc which would have resulted from reforming slavery laws.

Seems legit??

[Geezer]

Apologetics requires imaginative answers. 

[Blood]

Undoubtedly the celibate monks who wrote this pizzle were pro-slavery. That's why the Great Man doesn't condemn it. Lucian of Samosata observed at the time that Christianity was popular among slaves, women, and children, i.e. gullible or illiterate people. Nothing has changed. 

[mwc]

On 8/18/2018 at 1:13 AM, LostinParis said:

I asked my (ex)priest why Jesus did not condemn slavery. He replied that the old testament slavery laws were civil laws not religious laws. And that Jesus did not come to create havoc which would have resulted from reforming slavery laws.

Seems legit??

     That does seem legit.

 

     How much havoc would have been caused by getting rid of slavery?  A lot, right?  Too much for a society to bear I imagine.

 

     Now how much havoc would have been caused by telling that same society that a human was simultaneously the son of, as well as, their god even against their own holy writings?  Probably none.  People would jump right on board with this.  History tells us the Jews loved this idea and just accepted it gladly.  Nothing they liked better than something that sounded pagan.  And eating and drinking, even symbolically, a human?  No problems there either.

 

     So when we weigh these two things we can see that god had no choice but to go with the path of least resistance.  People couldn't handle the impossible concept of no slaves.  So he had to go with introducing foreign theology and practices instead.

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, mwc said:

I asked my (ex)priest why Jesus did not condemn slavery. He replied that the old testament slavery laws were civil laws not religious laws. And that Jesus did not come to create havoc which would have resulted from reforming slavery laws.

Seems legit??

 

FYI for the creeper priest: 

 

Matthew 10:34-37 New International Version (NIV)

³⁴ “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. ³⁵ For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
³⁶     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’^[a]

³⁷ “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

There's another thread about slavery and the bible which I'm going to link here as well: 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Of course they were civil laws.  The entire book of deuteronomy was written by lawyers, didn't you know?

 

And, as an aside, the book was originally called doheronherknees, because of all the raping and such.  It got changed by a medieval priest who had taken his celibacy how way too seriously.

[◊ DestinyTurtle ◊]

Nice that they can cherry-pick what's a "civil law" and what's "god's law". Reminds me of a time I asked a fundamentalist Xian about all the genocide that was condoned in the bible, and the reply was "In those instances it was a good thing because God commanded it!".... as if most civilizations that commit genocide don't think God is on their side...