Why didn't Jesus condemn slavery?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no the reasons that the Mosiac law was more humane is simply because of Laws
designed to protect the rights of a slave, in Rome a slave had no rights whatsoever and
could at the whim of his owner be subject to all manner of cruelty, this fact escapes the
notice of the anti religionists and soundly refutes their anti Biblical claims, for clearly
the two forms are not one and the same.

If i beat my girlfriend less severley than the man down the road who beats his wife, does that mean what i'm doing is ok?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It carries with it a moral obligation on the part of the owner, can you think of any other
system of slavery which does that, no neither can I, thanks for demonstrating this fact,
couldn't have done it without you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It carries with it a moral obligation on the part of the owner, can you think of any other
system of slavery which does that, no neither can I, thanks for demonstrating this fact,
couldn't have done it without you.


When I talk about Christianity completely lacking morality I want you to know that you are going to be
who and what I am talking about. [or one of the many many examples thereof]


I will say it again...

The fact that you could OWN a HUMAN and force them to work for you and BEAT THEM and RAPE THEM
means that Mosaic law is NOT humane or moral and can't be justified in any context.


Cretin.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
If i beat my girlfriend less severley than the man down the road who beats his wife, does that mean what i'm doing is ok?

Is your girlfriend your slave? no, well , lets not be silly.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Is your girlfriend your slave? no, well , lets not be silly.

Ah so it would be ok if he beat his slave girl less than the man down the street...


When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

I would like to again bring your attention back to this part that says a man can sell his daughter as a slave.
And that it is not only permissible but expected that the man who buys her will sleep with her and she can't
refuse on pain of being beaten (possibly to death).

This is what you are trying to claim is justified and moral...

Originally posted by googlefudge
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]It carries with it a moral obligation on the part of the owner, can you think of any other
system of slavery which does that, no neither can I, thanks for demonstrating this fact,
couldn't have done it without you.


When I talk about Christianity completely lacking morality I want you to know th ...[text shortened]... that Mosaic law is NOT humane or moral and can't be justified in any context.[/b]


Cretin.[/b]

shouting it, putting it in large print, having it stamped upon your forehead isn't going to
make it any more convincing, the fact of the matter is, the Mosiac Law is the only Law
which carries with it a moral obligation on the part of the owner and when we compare
this to the much worse Roman tradition, its readily discernible that the Mosaic law was
vastly superior in every way.

Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law, which i have now stated for the third
time, you seem to be having difficulties distinguishing between the two, therefore, to
base a christians morality upon the mandates of the Mosaic Law is a nonsense, but we
know from the rest of your posts that its about as much as you are able to muster.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ah so it would be ok if he beat his slave girl less than the man down the street...


When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

I would like to again bring your attention back g beaten (possibly to death).

This is what you are trying to claim is justified and moral...

What of it? within the context of the nation of Israel it was permitted, so what?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Is your girlfriend your slave? no, well , lets not be silly.

Irrelevant. Your argument is that because there were worse practices than Biblical slavery that makes it okay.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Irrelevant. Your argument is that because there were worse practices than Biblical slavery that makes it okay.

No I am saying that it was a lesser evil.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No I am saying that it was a lesser evil.

Are you saying Biblical slavery was evil?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Are you saying Biblical slavery was evil?

It depends upon the circumstances, naturally if one volunteers to be a slave of his master indefinitely it cannot be said to be
evil, can it, on the other hand if a person is forced through circumstance to submit to slavery to survive then its an evil.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law, which i have now stated for the third
time,

I AM NOT SAYING THAT MOSAIC LAW STILL APPLIES WHICH YOU WOULD KNOW
IF YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS YOU CRETIN.


So your 'answer' as per usual doesn't actually answer the question you were
actually asked.

The thread title is "Why didn't Jesus condemn slavery?"

Which is NEW TESTAMENT and not about Mosaic law.

And the new testament doesn't condemn or ban slavery in fact it endorses it again.
First because JC never actually says that Mosaic Law no longer applies and there is
disagreement between the various Christian denominations as to whether or not it
does but he flat out talks about slavery without condemning it.

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.
If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping
another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that
they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required
from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)


Also as I have said before and you have ignored every time you still worship the same god
as the one that condoned Mosaic law and the character of that god is thus demonstrated
by the nature of mosaic law.


And more to the point whether or not Mosaic law applies today you keep arguing that it was
moral for those laws to exist and apply back then even if they don't now and saying that these
laws don't apply any more is not any sort of defence to arguments about their morality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It would seem so wouldn't it? Yet there slavery is, in the law of the prophets. Yet another clear contradiction in the Bible and in Jesus' words showing that neither is infallible.

Seems like you are directing this to me, but I'm at a loss as to why. I'm well aware that the teachings of Jesus are not logically reconcilable with much of the OT and NT and have been advocating that fact for quite some time.


BTW, it's the "law and the prophets".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What of it? within the context of the nation of Israel it was permitted, so what?

The 'so what' is that slavery and rape is barbaric and wrong I don't care what century you are in.

And your god allegedly codified such practices into law.


The fact that you could sell your daughter into slavery to another man who was both free to have
sex with her against her will and expected to have sex with her and if not satisfied could sell her
to another man or could take her as his wife (again without her consent) or marry her off to his son
(again without her consent) and if she didn't cooperate she could be beaten, possibly to death,
is barbaric and immoral.

And you say 'so what?'...

These are the people who founded your religion and they were despicable, ignorant, sexist, racist,
genocidal, bigoted barbarians and you say 'so what?'


These are your foundations as recorded in your own holy book.

These are god's chosen people.

These are gods laws.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It depends upon the circumstances, naturally if one volunteers to be a slave of his master indefinitely it cannot be said to be
evil, can it, on the other hand if a person is forced through circumstance to submit to slavery to survive then its an evil.

Do you recognize that G75 was wrong when he stated the following?
"The Bible does not approve of the kind of slavery your probably thinking of...It was only a slavery to repay a debt you could not repay but could be repaid with time and then you were set free. There were many laws set up by God to protect the slaves from any kind of cruelty of anykind."

Originally posted by googlefudge
The 'so what' is that slavery and rape is barbaric and wrong I don't care what century you are in.

And your god allegedly codified such practices into law.


The fact that you could sell your daughter into slavery to another man who was both free to have
sex with her against her will and expected to have sex with her and if not satisfied could se ...[text shortened]... corded in your own holy book.

These are god's chosen people.

These are gods laws.

i think its a failure on your part to discern the kind of slavery we are referring to in the
Biblical context, indeed you will now explain why if a person wishes through his own
violation to remain with his present owner, that its evil.