Christianity's Great Achievments

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ethelred
That one has REALLY got to be satire. The South used the Bible to support slavery. They had a point. The Bible has a lot of instructions on how to treat slaves. Manumission was not one of the instructions.

Reality is never one-sided, but multifaceted. Just as Chrisitanity was used as a justification for slavery (and later Apartheid), it has also been a force for ending those institutions. I cannot condemn Christianity on the one hand for supporting slavery and on the other hand deny that the fiercest abolitionists were motivated by their beliefs in Christianity.

Anyway, Ethelred, just go look at my other thread, Christianites Great Crimes.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Anyway, Ethelred, just go look at my other thread, Christianites Great Crimes.

Speaking of which, did you know that Christians didn't destroy the Library of Alexandria?

[Moral Hazard]

Crusades and Capitalism?

I voted for this option but not because I thought of the Crusades had anything to do with the rise of capitalism, but Calvinism did contribute to the rise of judging someone's worth by how successful they are; which isn't capitalism any way. Basically the early Calvinists believed in predetermination and that material sucess was indication that you were saved, therefore making ambition a virtue rather than a sin, as it had been under the Catholic church. I'm joking, but Ambition is a virtue.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Someone doesn't appear to know his history.

Yes. Not me though. You must be thinking of someone else. Someone that wasn't aware that the Fransicans participated in the torture of Indians by the Conquistadors. They felt that they were better dead than heathen.

The Bible contains no verses that specifically approve of slavery.

Somebody doesn't know what they are talking about. I do though.

You haven't read the Bible. Which is OK if your not a christian. That lets me off but still I know about this one.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Job were all holy men fit to speak with god. All of them owned slaves. Not exactly a sign of disaproval is that.

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

So its OK to beat a slave so hard he dies in a couple of days its OK by the Bible. Just don't beat him so hard he dies on the spot.

Such disaproval.

Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Here the slaver gets to keep the children. If thats not aproval what is.

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Its OK to sell your daughter.

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Well thats pretty clear. You may buy slaves.

What do you mean there is no aproval? How much more specific do you want?

Maybe you were just joking. I can't always tell.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Speaking of which, did you know that Christians didn't destroy the Library of Alexandria?

Did you see me say they did?

I thought not. However they did destroy the replacement for the original Library that Cleopatra revived.

Caesar destroyed the main Library but the Library wasn't just in one place. The other minor site later became the second greatest library of the ancient world.

This seems to be the cause of the confusion. Two Libraries but in the same city at different times. Both great.

[Moral Hazard]

Hey Mr. Narcism he wasn't talking to you but Che, the bolding was a carry over from Che's post.

None of my business, but why throw out an opportunity to insult someone

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Yes. Not me though.

You must have been thinking that I quoted another part of your post. It's ok if you have problems with short term memory and reading comprehension. I won't try to make overly harsh judgements of your intellectual ability.

Somebody doesn't know what they are talking about. I do though.

That remains to be seen.

Such disaproval.

You'll notice that I said nothing disaproval. Did I presume to much about your ability to read English?

FYI, the basis of the arguement that disproves the pro-slavery position (IMO) are Jesus' and St. Paul's general statements concerning love, the equality of all persons, and the "Golden Rule".

Edit:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Hey Mr. Narcism he wasn't talking to you but Che, the bolding was a carry over from Che's post.

It appears that I actually did overestimate the man's intelligence. I'll try not to make that mistake in the future. Thank you for pointing that out to him though, MH.

PS Do you know Logical Realist?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You must have been thinking that I quoted another part of your post. It's ok if you have problems with short term memory and reading comprehension. I won't try to make overly harsh judgements of your intellectual ability.

No I had no such problem. I see you did though.

You'll notice that I said nothing disaproval. Did I presume to much about your ability to read English?

I think I presumed to much about your abilities. I am sorry about that. You said :

The Bible contains no verses that specifically approve of slavery.

I showed that it did. Do you have a severe reading disorder or is your memory unable to recall what you wrote? Perhaps you think that saying its OK to buy slaves is not approval? It is hard to conceive of a more blatant show of aproval than that.

FYI, the basis of the arguement that disproves the pro-slavery position (IMO) are Jesus' and St. Paul's general statements concerning love, the equality of all persons, and the "Golden Rule".

Very nice you have found another contradiction in the Bible. The Bible approved of slavery in those verses I posted. Verses you said were not in the Bible. A later contradiction does not make the original verses vanish.

[SnowFire]

Ethelred: Whether or not you think Christianity supports slavery or not, the point of this thread is great things done in Christianity's name. Much like the old thread was intended to be. Say what you will, but it is historical fact that many of the abolitionists were committed Christians, even if you think them hypocrites.

And I won't get too much into it, but you do realize that the Jewish codes of the time were waaaaaay liberal? In that slaves got released at all? That they had some rudimentary rights and recourses for women? Sure, not much of a justification today, but remember the context. Also remember that a decent amount of Christians, when the New Testament contradicts the Old, go with the New. Yes, some Christians believe that every word even out of context is true in the Bible, but many also realize that there are translation issues as well as simply the fact that divinely inspired authors doesn't mean that they were PERFECT authors.

I voted for Human dignity (a bit arguable, but certainly done in Christ's name), Abolitionism, and music.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ethelred
No I had no such problem. I see you did though.

There, there. It's OK. I know that these sorts of problems can be a sensetive subject but there's no reason to project such negative attitude toward someone else. I'm here to help you.

I showed that it did.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Very nice you have found another contradiction in the Bible. The Bible approved of slavery in those verses I posted. Verses you said were not in the Bible. A later contradiction does not make the original verses vanish.

This paragraph might be of interest or relevent if you were talking to a Biblical Literalist.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SnowFire
Ethelred: Whether or not you think Christianity supports slavery or not, the point of this thread is great things done in Christianity's name. Much like the old thread was intended to be. Say what you will, but it is historical fact that many of the abolitionists were committed Christians, even if you think them hypocrites.

I sure am getting blamed for things I never said. What the heck would happen if I had said them?

I NEVER said ANY of those things. I said the Bible approves of slavery. I said it looked like satire because it did considering the facts of slavery in the US.

And I won't get too much into it, but you do realize that the Jewish codes of the time were waaaaaay liberal?

I don't care if they were the best on Earth at that time. Its still aproval.

In that slaves got released at all?

Only the enslaved Jews. The gentiles were not.

That they had some rudimentary rights and recourses for women? Sure, not much of a justification today, but remember the context.

Which is irrelevant to what I was saying.

Also remember that a decent amount of Christians, when the New Testament contradicts the Old, go with the New. Yes, some Christians believe that every word even out of context is true in the Bible, but many also realize that there are translation issues as well as simply the fact that divinely inspired authors doesn't mean that they were PERFECT authors.

Yes there is a translation issue. Slave was usually translated as servant or bondman. Yes a lot of christians do take the New Testament over the Old Testament. There are also a lot of christians that don't seem to be aware that there is a New Testament when it comes to things like forgivness and the Golden Rule, which by the way is not the exclusive provence of christians. However the claim was that the Bible never approved of slavery. It clearly does have verses approving of slavery.

[Moral Hazard]

PS Do you know Logical Realist?

I'm going to be slightly Narcist ( I really hope I am spelling it right) and assume your talking to me.

The answer is no, the handle is derived from economics term to describe my biggest problem, meaning I can screw up and still have a kinda comfortable safety net to fall back into (as do most middle class Americans)

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
There, there. It's OK. I know that these sorts of problems can be a sensetive subject but there's no reason to project such negative attitude toward someone else. I'm here to help you.

A smiley doesn't change it. You were the one being negative towards a specific person.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Which in no way makes the verses I posted go away. The are still there and they are still aproval of slavery. I can't help it if the Bible contradicts itself. I only pointed to the approval of slavery in the Bible. I leave the contradictions for other discussions.

This paragraph might be of interest or relevent if you were talking to a Biblical Literalist.

Who cares if your a literalist or not? You said the Bible never specificly aproved of slavery. You did not say it disaproved of it. I showed aproval and that was the point.

Trust me on this. I could try that contradiction on a literalist and they would claim there was no conflict. They might try the translation evasion. I can counter that one with the original language which just causes greater refusal to deal with it.

[MrFun]

In antebellum United States, abolitionists used their Christian faith(s) to organize opposition towards the institution of slavery.

In antebellum United States, southern politicians and slave owners used their Christian faith(s) to organize support for the institution of slavery.

At that time in the country's history, it was a matter of who you believed had the more legitimate position on slavery in conjunction with Christianity.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MrFun
Thanks for initiating this thread, Chegitz.

I voted for three things:

1) abolitionism

Abolitionism was not religious backed. It was a political move by Lincoln, who wanted to send all Blacks to either Liberia or South Carolina as a "Black State", in retribution against South Carolina.
It didn't assure Blacks of anything in the way of Equal Rights, and was a farce for the most part.


Your history lesson for the morning.