Sin wise, slavery is a big sin and to think Jesus would forget about a big sin, if he was against it, would be strange. No?
The only way I can justify the lack of mention is that slavery in that day is what we would call a social safety net today. Slaves of that day were the bottom of the classes just as the welfare recipients today are at the bottom of our classes.
Why would anybody be stuck working for minimum wage? Less than one percent of adults work for minimum wage. And they are are free to quit and accept a job that pays better.
A lot of things from 2,000+ years ago do not apply to the now, yet much still does. I find it more efficient to ignore the social ongoings of yesteryear in favor of receiving the value of the Message itself.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm
In 2017, 80.4 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.3 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 542,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
True by todays context, but in the old days, slavery is what we would today call welfare as both terms show those who are of our lowest class. I went a little longer on this just above.
By my interpretation, the Message is but a continuation of the Golden Rule. I have no need to consider the society where this latest iteration of, “Treat others as you would have them treat you,” though I do understand and appreciate the benefits of such mental exercises; because without a contrasting reference, there wouldn’t be much room to grow, much less any direction for it.
You have a better chance of convincing a Buddhist that Buddha was fictional. Or a Muslim that Muhammed was fictional than you will of convincing a Christian that Christ was fictional. You’re wasting your time.
BTW, have you ever tried to tell a Muslim that Muhammed wasn’t real?
I agree with you. I think all religions will hold on to their fictional beliefs to the bitter end. The idea of ‘faith’ the continued belief in something regardless of proof is a genius way to continue membership in the club(s).
This discussion is a good example, the use of a fictional character to possibly justify something like slavery. You can’t really prove it, you just have to have ‘faith’.
The scribes may have known this and that is why scriptures tell Christians that if they wish to perfect their wisdom, they have to get out of the Christian ideology and seek elsewhere.
They knew the bible was deficient in perfecting wisdom and were telling Christians to be esoteric ecumenists like Gnostic Christians were, as they were the intelligentsia in those days.
Prove it to whom? I don’t think that anybody feels obligated to justify their faith to a third party. And why should they? Is it anybody else’s business?
Of course. God gave man reason and free will. Don’t use either of them or God will damn you for all time. Then why the ■■■■ did God give us these to begin with? Oops. There I went using reason again. Guess I’m a lost cause.
No it isn’t. So why are they advertising it and insulting others by their one-upmanship and insults of their being saved while telling others they cannot be unless they too have the same faith in the same god and not faith in some other god?