English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Granted, it was a norm of the time. But *many* other holy men, predating Christ by hundreds of years, spoke up against the immorality of humans owning other humans.

All Jesus did was to legislate that we treat our slaves "morally" which implicitly endorsed it. (The word translated "servent" in your bible is "slave" in the greek.)

So - why do you think Jesus didn't speak up to say it was wrong?

2006-12-18 12:37:46 · 26 answers · asked by Laptop Jesus 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

READ my question Terri. He didn't say a word AGAINST slavery. He merely gave regulations about how to treat slaves. I said that.

2006-12-18 12:51:10 · update #1

26 answers

Because he wanted to keep his slaves, lol!

2006-12-18 12:40:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

Maybe because it is not wrong. In our society we have decided that slavery is wrong, mostly because of the terrible abuse of slavery in America a couple of hundred years ago. However slavery without abuse is never presented as wrong in the Bible,and was used to deal with many social issues that we struggle with today. Unemployment - a person could become a slave to meet their needs in time of financial problems. Bankruptcy - Slavery was the answer. Crimes, slavery would allow someone to pay back what they had stolen, POW's were incorporated into society instead of prison camps. The list goes on. It is just that we think we have all the answers in the 21st century and they were wrong if they did not do it the way we do it. God teaches that the Bible has the answers and we are the ones that are off a little.

2006-12-18 12:45:02 · answer #2 · answered by oldguy63 7 · 2 2

Because Jesus was Two Thieves Pilate crucified to punish the Biblical Jews and the Bible is a part of this Wonderful Hoax of the crucifixion as is Jesus.

2006-12-18 12:48:48 · answer #3 · answered by mythkiller-zuba 6 · 0 0

Slave can also be interpreted employee. Today, with modern employment laws, employee contracts are standardized by employment legislation, while self-employment contracts are much less standard, governed by the Business Corporations Act and a myrad of other legislation.

This is not to say that one is preferable or superior to the other. A self-employed person supplies goods and services under a negotiated outcome based contract (contract for services), and an employee supplies services or makes goods under a service where needed contract (contract of service).

So you could just say "Treat your employees and contractors fairly and with kindness."

* In fact, even the CEO of a large corporation is a servant. One of the latest management buzz words is "Servant Leadership".
They must have been reading the Gospel of Mark.

** There are some negative forms of slavery in our modern society. Zero downpayment mortgages being one.
This allows people to bid up the price of, for example, houses, to the highest payment they can afford over 30 years. It could be argued that this is a form of slavery, especially with new personal bankrupcy laws (USA)that reduce the risk for banks. People can be saddled with a mortgage for 30 years or more, even though they have lost their homes! In my opinion, this is usury!

2006-12-18 13:10:19 · answer #4 · answered by Jimmy Dean 3 · 0 1

They did not have perpetual slavery like we had here pre civil war. They worked off debt more like indentured servitude and in Jewish Law every 7 years they gave freedom but if servant did not want to be free then he would put a ring in his nose and the master had to let him stay.
Like then if you didn't pay master card then you would have to work for them til payed but meanwhile they supported you and provide food and clothing and housing and after 7 years you could leave no matter how much more you owed.
They slavery in the US and other colonies kidnapped Africans and then bred them like beef and there was no law to protect families of slaves or a promise of freedom after paid debt as it was the master and people who brought them to be sold that are the debtors.
Big Big Difference. If you will notice he addresses problems with Jews and that was not the problem then that it was before the civil war.

2006-12-18 13:01:22 · answer #5 · answered by bess 4 · 0 1

There was nothing wrong with that type of slavery they had in those days. Slaves had rights, they could attain their freedom, they were to be taken care of, it certainly was nothing like the racial slavery we once had of say, in the American south. There is just no comparison.

But the bible condemns slavery, and Christianity has condemned it repeatedly over the centuries. You can't blame the Church because the world does not listen. Jesus does say it's wrong, and speaks through His church like he promised.

The Catholic Church unhesitatingly condemned racial slavery as soon as it began. In 1435, six decades before Columbus sailed, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the Canary Islands, and ordered their European masters to manumit the enslaved within 15 days, under pain of excommunication. In 1537, Pope Paul III condemned the enslavement of West Indian and South American natives, and explicitly attributed that evil, "unheard of before now," to "the enemy of the human race," Satan.

Papal condemnations of slavery were repeated by Popes Gregory XIV (1591), Urban VIII (1639), Innocent XI (1686), Benedict XIV (1741), and Piux VII (1815). In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI wrote,

"We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort... that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples."

Pope Leo XIII (1890), too, condemned slavery, and so did the Second Vatican Council (1965).

2006-12-18 12:55:51 · answer #6 · answered by Br. Dymphna S.F.O 4 · 0 0

It may be that slavery was a much different term than what we think of today. People were slaves to another man in those days because they did something (like steal from that person or hurt them in some way). They had to pay back whatever they did with servitude to another person for a certain amount of time. So, Jesus telling them to be kind to the one serving (keeping in mind that the person did something to hurt you and your family) is pretty radical.

2006-12-18 12:44:56 · answer #7 · answered by ScottyJae 5 · 1 1

Jesus did say a word about slavery ... In Luke 7:2 he heals a slave, showing that he was just as worthy as anyone else. He heals another slave in luke 22:50, saying he is not to blame for his masters demands.

2006-12-18 12:47:15 · answer #8 · answered by Terri 5 · 0 1

History teacher here and slavery in those days was not "paying off a debt." They were under the ROMAN EMPIRE. Remember that? Remember the Spartacus revolution? Don't rewrite the facts to make Jesus look better.

2006-12-18 12:46:55 · answer #9 · answered by Black Parade Billie 5 · 1 0

He came to set everyoen free, the slave, the rich dude, the serial killer, Saddam hussane, but no one really understands what he did just because he did not set a fire underneath the roman behinds. By the way where is the roman empire today??? Is it still the great empire it was back then. I guess thats what you get for crucifying the savior.

2006-12-18 12:46:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The mark of a false prophet in the OT was if he prophesied something that didn't come to past. Daniel not only prophesied the Messiah, but he prophesied the date of his appearance in Jerusalem. It is the precise date Yeshua rode in on the colt. If you reject Jesus, you must also reject those that prophesied of him, that would be just about every prophet in the OT. Also, Jesus did not say "let us follow other gods you have not known". Jesus glorified the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

2016-05-23 05:53:08 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers