Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (2895)	10/29/2000 10:50:21 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

You may have a moral obligation, but you are immune to suit. My comparison was not meant to suggest that Jesus might be sucessfully sued--only that He, in fact, did have a moral obligation. His silence would have been damning if there was anything in the record to show that the issue was brought up, and there isn't. So His silence is just silence This is a fabulous statement: If your kids don't bring up the subject of drugs or sexual perverts, you simply maintain a mysterious silence?? The millions of slaves that were God's children surely would have appreciated Jesus having put even one word forward on their behalf. The New Testament shows clearly that the Early Christians supported slavery. Why would they not? It was the law of God, and it was a law that was not repudiated by God in the form of Jesus. Many of the Christians that followed for almost two millennia, clearly supported slavery. For some strange reason you apply the lowest possible standard of accountability to the actions of Jesus, when one would think that the very highest standard ought to be attached to the actions of the Son of God. If I said that I loved my neighbour as myself, and then allowed my neighbours to suffer, in the millions, for two millennia, when a simple clear commandment would have prevented it--I would be rightfully condemned as a hypocrite. As far as the love your neighbour slogan. It was around long before Jesus, and in many lands. Jesus did think well enough of it to repeat it, but it was hardly His entire Mission. Jesus wandered around giving moral lessons to people in order to educate them in matters of right and wrong, and in order to show the moral standards that ought to be applied in relationships between and amongst people. He pointedly examined those things that ought not to be condemned, and those that ought. Many of the behaviours he covered were of small importance when compared to the absolutely heinous sin of slavery. He had nothing to say against slavery for the obvious reason: His Father supported it...and so did He. To ignore the obvious is to ignore the obvious. If you are able to do so--and publicly yet, to boot...all power to you.