Is Michelle Bachman pro-slavery?

npr.org/2011/08/09/139084313 … t=1&f=1001

It’s hard to truly follow the Bible and not be pro-slavery.

Jesus did not promote slavery. He was not pro-slavery.

And? There’s a fair bit of the Bible outside of Jesus.

Bachmann claims to be a Christian. The New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. Slavery is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

bible doesn’t say you are supposed to have slaves, rather it discusses how you should treat slaves if you have slaves. it was typical in those times and so reasonable that people weren’t told not to because they would have refused any teaching no matter how valuable if it refused them what they thought was necessary to function.

As for MB…yeah…sounds like she is capable of being prejudice, if not of blacks or those that should be slaves, then of those that are not believers… but then who knows, i’m sure anyone in support of her will claim that is all BS…or otherwise actually not care…

Bachman is pro whatever her advisers want her to be pro for. And I’m sure that’s not slavery.

Yes, I couldn’t run my big plantation without all the people I have chained up down in the basement.

What about you felix, where you you keep all of your slaves?

I can’t determine it from that article, but she should be asked questions.

But the Bible is not simply conservative - in its time - it changed and challenged norms - monotheism itself was a challenge. Jesus challenges norms. Even the OT challenges norms. There was no reason why God could not have challenged slavery. Since it did not the Bible absolutely encourages it.

Odd he didn’t challenge it, especially given the OT supported it and he was not afraid to update the OT.

That would be under the assumption that God can actually do “anything” which it does not say in the bible…it actually doesn’t even say he is all-powerful…at least I don’t know of a place it says such…If God wasn’t then how can one assume that… but then I did not say it was simply conservative, I only pointed out the mater of slavery, I recognize that it challenges norms, but there is a limit to any norms that can be challenged, and what people accept…besides the people are supposed to have free-will, for them to be controllable entirely by God by means of perfect description or logic then would they still have free-will?

Winston church hill smoked cigars, it doesn’t say in the bible that Jesus was perfect…well it might allude to such in the later parts of the new testament…but most of the stuff after the “gospels of Jesus” was generated by the same people that did the crusades…

This would be beyond not perfect. He is enraged the money lenderers are in the temple, but is not bothered by slavery?

You want my personal take…Jesus was wrong to be enraged…one can see empirically that such lead to him being crucified (one should learn from their teachers mistakes), but then i would think that such would have been left to be as it was “wrong” in the first place, as far as slavery he didn’t mention it…but he didn’t support it…I would think again it was one of those things that it was pointless to try to fight at the time, (it took a civil war to change it in America, not some dude speaking righteously) The thing is that the bible was written by humans, humans are flawed, even if God tells, or rather inspires or influences, someone everything that can be told/understood, and not destroy someone, that human will still be likely to fuck something up. Jesus was not perfect, Jesus was a human, I would say that Jesus lacked heavy resistance to the will of God, free-will but chose to work with God in so far as God influence was acceptable and could be understood…

he took on sexism, one could argue, and in general he took on the idea of punishing others - both via turn the other cheek, but also through demanding people ransack themselves and only if they were pure should they ‘throw the first stone’. Responding with violence to violence and punishing others even if one is not perfect run about as deep in homo sapiens as anything, deeper I would say than slavery since I am quite sure they predate slavery and we can see it in other social mammals.

It is one thing to take those on but it is plausible that he would have been under pressure such that speaking up on those things would not have resulted fairly…likewise it is plausible that he did but such was not recorded or not accepted and thus not spread into the recorded history (which was recorded so long after, it is reasonable to think stuff was lost other than that anyways) But further I wouldn’t necessarily expect Jesus to have known it was bad. It could have been something he thought was normal or ok. but I tend to think it was rather just something that he either did not put much effort into fighting, did but was lost, or didn’t because it was pointless or at least thought to be pointless…

I’d argue that there is plenty of support for slavery in the NT. Granted, it is from Corinthians and heretics reject the Pauline transmission . . . . but they are heretics, so who the fuck cares?

Son of God, raising the dead, walking on water, willing to die painfully, get pissed off at some things, pisses off those in power…

seems to me given his temperment and powers he could have objected to anything at all.

As far as it not being recorded, well, sure. Unless we are both mystic Christians we cannot argue over non-scriptural actions of Jesus.