He’s probably certain of it because the Christian God is a work of fiction*, which makes it awfully difficult for it to be the father of anybody. But a more scriptural reason to doubt that Jesus had a hotline to heaven is because he made failed predictions, notably the one about his returning within the lifetime of his generation. And speaking of which…
You criticize Der Trihs for asserting a fairly reasonably opinion, and then you start telling us Jesus’s motivations? What what?
Based on my admittedly spotty knowledge of the bible, Jesus was of the opinion that he was going to be coming back in just a short while and hitched to his wagon would be the kingdom of God in heaven on earth. Slavery would be abolished worldwide by fiat as the new world order set in. So why bother wasting time on it now?
Or alternatively maybe it didn’t cross his mind that slavery was a bad thing. He seemed to be of the opinion that we were all subservient, to his God, so relatively speaking what’s a little more or less? And who knows, maybe we’ll all have slaves in heaven. Or at least all the cool people will.
I know you’re an agnostic but this isn’t the abstract deist pre-universe creator god we’re talking about here - it’s Mr. Omnimax Interventive Special Creator Mighty Miracleworker himself. He’s more disprovable than the FSM**.
** Okay, the FSM is undisprovable by definition. Say the IPU instead.
Ok, well. But Jesus’s religion that time was restricted to the Jews. It’s not hard to interpret “love thy neighbor” as “love thy fellow countryman” or “love thy fellow ethnicity” (and fuck the rest).
I’m not saying you couldn’t interpret it otherwise, it’s just not all that explicit. Except for the Samaritan. Samaritans were bastards, except for one or two.
If you take the time to research the socio-cultural and political climate at the time, Jesus was radical for the very reasons you’re talking about. That was the status quo at the time, and Jesus was not the status quo.
“For you have heard it said and eye for an eye, but I tell you, LOVE YOUR ENEMY AND DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HURT YOU.”
Well…St. Paul didn’t think Jesus saw anything wrong with slavery…and if anyone would have gotten that message…Paul certainly would have been one.
If Paul could not get the message that something was wrong with slavery becasue Jesus spoke of love (in larger ideas) what on Earth would make you assume others would?
Jesus DID NOT condemn slavery. Didn’t even suggest it was slightly wrong.
Jesus came to set the slaves free, that is the reason He came. So the slaves can come home to God, the helpless have a way out.
Our world system is based on slavery. People are as much slaves today as they were back then. Jesus did come to set us free from that, but knew that for many it would be a process, on that for some would mean dieing as slaves.
One example we have drug addicts, these people have turned to drugs to release some pain in their life and became a slave to the drug. The state holds out these people as a reason to tax, so the state can provide a minimal level of existence to these people (slaves), all the while by setting up a system where mental institutions and prisons, all with very well paid staff, hold these people in bondage. The state lives very well off of these people, the state benefits very well because of these people.
Jesus came to heal and cast out demons, threatening the very foundation of state (and religious) authority, by freeing the slaves. It is the core work of His church today
to free the people at the bottom, but it is the very life blood of the world system, a underclass - so this is the front lines of great war between good and evil.
“Be cool to each other” is a very easy message but not terribly meaningful. Everyone’s person version of “nice” is different. If you look at life before Jesus and life after Jesus, the people weren’t particularly more nor less sinful in either direction. You’d think that after even a single century, God would have gotten the idea that sweeping generalities doesn’t work and sent down a second messenger.
Heck, why not just keep sending them? Why wait until the Age of Enlightenment, 1700 years later, to impart this wisdom, and do so in a way that seems entirely devoid of divine intervention?
Yes, and it was answered. I’m sure Der Trihs will return and clarify it for you though. While I’m not as…forward about my views of religion as he is I certainly agree with him in this case. I would never put “It appears as though” before finishing a sentence about Christ not being the son of God or having any supernatural powers. There is scant historical evidence that Christ even existed and I don’t believe in the supernatural. So, there ya go.
It does seem somewhat strange that Christ didn’t condemn slavery. He certainly sold his religion to those of lesser means with his statement that the meek shall inherit the Earth. As others have said before me, I suspect this is because the early Christians were an apocalyptic religion and it just didn’t matter. If you expect the end of the world is coming soon then why bother with slavery at all? Hell, maybe it’s because he didn’t view slavery as immoral.
To set himself apart from the legalese laden culture of the time. Keep it simple and basic.
Also, as far as I’m concerned, Paul was Roman puppet that used Jesus’ teachings to create a new religion to control the people, so his opinion matters little to me. Paul was also used to justify Nazi Germany (submit to your governments, etc etc)
Also, there were probably a lot of things Jesus said not recorded. Perhaps it was never written down since it was likely one of his more unpopular ideas. It’s likely he did speak to it and later it was taken out, due to being bad for business.
Those are all just guesses.
I also think true spirituality comes for searching for answers, not being spoon fed. In that sense, perhaps commenting on every single blessed issue would have cheapened the teachings of Jesus.
Also, raised a Jew, he would have believed in the transmigration of souls. The idea that our souls are reborn into a life designed off the sins of our past life, continually going through this until our soul is pure and fit for reunion with God. Perhaps Jesus thought these people had earned their fate from past lives.
Frank apisa, I’ve noticed in your short history you’re long on enthusiasm. But you appear to be a mile wide and an inch deep.
I just read a fantastic biography on Teddy Roosevelt, and last year read all of Lincoln’s writings. Both men are [rightfully] considered extremely progressive on race relations and civil rights------- “lions” of American history.
Yet some of their comments --------reflected against modern sensibilities and values -------make both men look like screaming racists.
And so Oveja Slayer’s words are absolutely on point. Jesus’s, Paul’s (et al) views on slavery must be put into the context of the times they lived in; and not the least of which how slavery was practiced, and the views held by slaves and slave owners.
Taking (a portion, actually) of history out of it’s context is a silly parlor game played on message boards. And I suspect that many of the more informed posters will take a pass on these threads.
Matthew 5:5 and he goes on and on about the poor and down trodden. Blessed are the poor, the hungry, those who mourn, and those who are persecuted (for their righteousness).
I can really see how this message would appeal to certain segments of society.
Well, how are the members supposed to keep slaves if they were supposed to give up their wealth?
You say “Paul certainly would have been one”? Why? He was never a disciple during the original movement, he’s a later convert. So unless you actually believe his vision really was Jesus and he was imparted knowledge through magical means then what basis do you have to claim this?