WI Jesus directly condemned ...?

WI Jesus Christ, the Messiah, directly condemned certain things that are highly debated even now by theologians. Things like slavery and homosexuality?

I am aware that Theologians can make sense out of any agenda they may be inclined to support - slavery is a great example of this, where many abolitionists used the bible in support of their opposition to slavery, and conversely many slavers did it to protect the institution of slavery. Would it not have been better that Jesus directly condemned it, leaving absolutely no room for compromise (except by extremists on the fringe like fred phelps).

I also pose this question for homosexuality, which also uses the bible to promote differing views. I suspect that a direct condemnation would actually be a good thing for the gay community in the long run, particularly when the scientific knowledge is expanded and many 'Christian' ideals are wholesale rejected.

In some cases a condemnation of homosexuality will just allow more people to justify committing hate crime. But a condemnation on slavery will have huge repercussions in the ancient world and when the New World is discovered. Having such a 'radical' religion may in fact butterfly away its adoption as the official Roman Religion?

Your thoughts please?
 
The problem is that Christianity was a relatively popular religion before the Bible was even assembled. If Jesus condemned things that were too popular in society, those condemnations likely wouldn't even get into the Bible.
 

Keenir

Banned
WI Jesus Christ, the Messiah, directly condemned certain things that are highly debated even now by theologians. Things like slavery and homosexuality?

In some cases a condemnation of homosexuality will just allow more people to justify committing hate crime. But a condemnation on slavery will have huge repercussions in the ancient world and when the New World is discovered. Having such a 'radical' religion may in fact butterfly away its adoption as the official Roman Religion?

Your thoughts please?

so, basically, have it be Jesus and not Paul who said "(don't) free your slave, but have him as your brother in Christ anyway" ?
 
Where does Paul say this?

It's probably a misremembering of Colossians 4:1 - "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven."

It's true Paul didn't explicitly condemn slavery (although he did condemn slave trading) but he didn't endorse it the way that it's being implied either.

As for the original question - the cynic inside me suspects that it wouldn't make any difference. Jesus' frequent and explicit condemnations of accumulating wealth ("it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven", etc.) don't seem to have made much difference over the centuries, and in some circles these days you can even find discussions of "prosperity theology" which seems to straightforwardly invert Jesus' teaching.
 
Agreed. Nations would find ways around condemnations as such. Instead of "slaves" they'd simply have "servants," "serfs," or "peasants." As far as homosexuality goes, it'd be left under the rug.
 

Skokie

Banned
It wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mat. 5:17–20

All of which didn't stop Christians from jettisoning "the law of the prophets" and otherwise torturing and killing the people who followed that law for the past 2000 years.
 
We've done a very efficient job of ignoring Jesus's central thesis of don't ever hurt anyone for any reason. I'm pretty confident we could ignore a specific slavery ban, too.
 
Most of the things Paul said in his letters he basically made up...why attribute Pauline creations to Jesus?


so, basically, have it be Jesus and not Paul who said "(don't) free your slave, but have him as your brother in Christ anyway" ?
 

Susano

Banned
We've done a very efficient job of ignoring Jesus's central thesis of don't ever hurt anyone for any reason. I'm pretty confident we could ignore a specific slavery ban, too.

Hah, good point. The theologians would find clauses and conditions when slavery is allowed, or when its not atcually slavery and stuff. I mean, we do talk about the religion here whose foudner explicitly spoke out against hoarding riches - but whose churches then damn always sided with the rich elite for centuries!
 
Most of the things Paul said in his letters he basically made up...why attribute Pauline creations to Jesus?

The theology of the Apostle Paul, which you say he made up, was based upon the teachings and life of Jesus, that's why his "creations" can appropriatly be attributed to Jesus.

We've done a very efficient job of ignoring Jesus's central thesis of don't ever hurt anyone for any reason. I'm pretty confident we could ignore a specific slavery ban, too.

Jesus' central thesis, was "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength; and your neighbor as yourself."

Why are you debating what a carpenter said or not said 2000 years ago?
Assuming he did exist.

Because of the impact this carpenter has had on the world.
 
Top