Recommended Posts

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??

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PLEASE EXCUSE THE ANNOYING COMMERCIAL BREAKS IN THE CONVERSATION:

As with everything these days, the cost of keeping the Ex-C forum up and running has been rising. Inflation? In part, but the primary reason is this: As participation in the forums grows, costs increase. The Ex-C forums will remain free of charge to everyone, but if you believe this little corner of the Internet provides value to you or others, and you feel inclined to help keep us online, please consider making a one-time donation or becoming a regular contributor. Contribution options appear under the "Upgrade" link above, and can be accessed by clicking here.

Oh, and as an incentive (no, you won't be given any bogus promises of eternal bliss), if you do become a regular contributor by signing up for any monthly or yearly patron package, this annoying ADVO will disappear.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled conversation...



Apologetics requires imaginative answers. ;)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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... 😕

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now