Catholic Church has skeptic arrested for explaining miracle

[Kidlicious]

Indentured servitude was preferred over wage labor.

[kentonio]

But why would I expect Imran to own up to this historical fact? Also the Church was opposed to slavery in the Americas. All I have to do is quote the folks who were there who wrote on this issue, and they all say the same thing - they were trying to preserve the native americans.

God hates liars.

"We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery

We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit

[giblets]

Muslims ran the slave trade. They would enslave blacks, Christians, anybody they could get their hands on. Look at Malta. If you had the misfortune of getting captured by Muslims you were enslaved for the rest of your life. Look at Russia. The slaving of Christians was huge there. Same with Spain.

But why would I expect Imran to own up to this historical fact? Also the Church was opposed to slavery in the Americas. All I have to do is quote the folks who were there who wrote on this issue, and they all say the same thing - they were trying to preserve the native americans.

1. Considering that Imran is a Christian, why should he be expected to "own up" to something Muslims did? What the hell is wrong with you?
2. How does the fact that some people were enslaved by Muslims make it any less wrong for Christians to enslave people?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Like I said, 1 John 5:19. No, he did not come as a King like that. That's how the Jews expected him to come. That's why they sang praises to him when he entered Jeruselum and waved palm leaves. But he didn't come as a King like that. The early christians and apostles didn't believe that. This is a believe that many christians today have made up.

Way to fall for the lies of inner spirituality Christianity - designed to prevent Christians from actually changing this world. He came as Ruler of Heaven and Earth. The Messiah, the Annointed One. What exactly do you think "Lord" means, Kid? It is to Jesus we owe our allegiance, not the kings of the world, for He is the one true King and Caesar is simply trying to take his seat. As for the early Christians & apostles, why do you think they were killed? For trying to start a new religion? No, Rome had tons of them. It was because they claimed Jesus was the true King, not Caesar! Way to un-revolutionize Jesus's message . The confusion as to which type of King was due to the fact that the Jews expected him to come as a VIOLENT CONQUERER, using warfare to defeat the enemies of Isreal. They didn't expect the King to come with peace and forgiveness and sevice and sacrifice. That makes him no less of a King, but one who fights (Satan & Earthly empires and wickedness) in a different way.

Remember the Lord's Prayer:

"Your will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven"

We are called to effect God's purpose on Earth, not to remove ourselves from it.

Here Imran. John 18:36, Jesus replied, "My kingdom doesn't originate from this world. If it did, my gaurds would fight so that I wouldn't have been arrested by the Jews. My kingdom isn't from here." If that doesn't do it for you you have a closed mind.

Look at that word "originate". Jesus's Kingdom originates from Heaven, but it is to COME to Earth (Your Kingdom Come). Read your Revelation, the New Jerusalem shall come from Heaven onto Earth and a new Heaven and a new Earth shall arise and the dead will rise and we shall be living together with God again as in Eden.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I doubt that Jesus ever really claimed to be a king, since "king" is a German title and doesn't appear to have been used until around 300 AD. I wonder what the actual word was?

Messiah. Which means "Annointed One" - or King as in David:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

In the Hebrew Bible a messiah (or mashiach) is a king or High Priest traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil.[1] However, messiahs were not exclusively Jewish kings, and the Hebrew Bible refers to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, as a messiah. Following the death of Simon bar Kokhba, a messiah came to be a Jewish king who would rule at the end of history.

[Imran Siddiqui]

John 18:36 uses basileia.

Interestingly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_God

The word “kingdom” is a translation of the Greek word basileia which in turn is a translation of the words malkuth (Hebrew) and malkutha (Aramaic). According to C. H. Dodd, the common translation of malkuth with basileia in Greek and hence kingdom in English is problematic. A translation with “kingship,” "kingly rule," “reign”, “queen”, or “sovereignty” should be preferred.[10] The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that the word basileia can be translated as "kingship," "kingdom" or "reign".[11] In contrast, the Hebrew word "malkuth", has a very physical world meaning, implying that the translation "kingdom" may be understood as both realm and a temporal kingdom.[citation needed]

Eusebius identified basileia with monarchy while Augustine foresaw a merger of the church and basileia.[26] Aquinas ignores the concept and it was relatively little discussed by Christian theologians until Johannes Cocceius (1660) and Hermann Samuel Reimarus in the 18th century, during what has become known as the "first quest" for the historical Jesus.[27][28]

I think one of the main issues is that we forget that Jesus was a Jew and lived in a Hebrew context. We tend to be more Greek focused (the New Testament being in Greek, written by Hellenized Jews had a great impact), which leads us to see things in ways Jesus and his disciples would not have seen them. This has led to things like people beliving that the body and spirit are seperable (which is very Platonic viewpoint and common in Greek thought), which is completely contrary to Jewish beliefs which holds that body and spirit are forever fuzed (read how Adam was created in Genesis 2).

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Considering that Imran is a Christian, why should he be expected to "own up" to something Muslims did?

Imran like many people never calls out Islam and covers up for it whenever he gets a chance. Example A here. Yes, Muslims ran the slave trade. Their religion says it's perfectly ok to have as many slaves as you can get. They've been doing it for a long time.

2. How does the fact that some people were enslaved by Muslims make it any less wrong for Christians to enslave people?

It doesn't. The fact that they bought their slaves from Muslims is significant. Oddly, you won't see Imran make this point anywhere.

[MikeH]

You're right Ben. All religions are equally bad.

[Ben Kenobi]

All I have to do is quote the folks who were there who wrote on this issue, and they all say the same thing - they were trying to preserve the native americans

in the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas deduced that slavery was a sin, and a series of popes upheld his position, beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537.

As usual the haters here leave out Sublimus Dei. Why? Because it destroys their position utterly.


Let's see what it actually says:

On 29 May 1537, Pope Paul III issued the encyclical, Sublimus Dei, condemning slavery and the slave trade. Here it is in is entirety:

To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction.

The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office 'Go ye and teach all nations.' He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith.

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.

Truth!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not sure how one Papal Bull means that the others did not exist. At one point the other Bulls were issued and slavery was accepted, regardless of changes in policy afterwards or differences beforehand.

In this time you minimize it, not try to whitewash it.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think one of the main issues is that we forget that Jesus was a Jew and lived in a Hebrew context. We tend to be more Greek focused (the New Testament being in Greek, written by Hellenized Jews had a great impact), which leads us to see things in ways Jesus and his disciples would not have seen them. This has led to things like people beliving that the body and spirit are seperable (which is very Platonic viewpoint and common in Greek thought), which is completely contrary to Jewish beliefs which holds that body and spirit are forever fuzed (read how Adam was created in Genesis 2).

Hrm? Substance dualism is important. The spirit is not the body, and neither is the body the spirit. You are right that the spirtual world does affect the body as does the inverse, but we have to be careful not to say that they are exactly the same.

Imran - God's kingdom is not going to be brought about by Christians here on Earth, but rather by Christ himself upon his return. Our purpose is to spread the Gospel and the truth of Christ, not to bring about the universal kingdom.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not sure how one Papal Bull means that the others did not exist. At one point the other Bulls were issued and slavery was accepted, regardless of changes in policy afterwards or differences beforehand.

It was the exact same pope that issued the bulls you referred to. You claimed, (entirely falsely), that the Bulls you cited advanced slavery, while (as usual), ignoring the crucial evidence.

You cited absolutely everything EXCEPT this one papal bull, which is par for the course. Now you're backpedalling.

Look, it's very clear that the Catholic church did teach that slavery was contrary to the will of God, in the middle of the 16th century. At least now, people here know the truth.

[giblets]

Imran like many people never calls out Islam and covers up for it whenever he gets a chance. Example A here. Yes, Muslims ran the slave trade. Their religion says it's perfectly ok to have as many slaves as you can get. They've been doing it for a long time.

How is it his job to "call out" things that muslims did in the past? How is he "covering it up"? As if he has the power to cover up publicly available information like the history of the slave trade

It doesn't. The fact that they bought their slaves from Muslims is significant. Oddly, you won't see Imran make this point anywhere.

You've failed to explain why Islam is at all relevant to the fact that the Catholic church at one point sanctioned slavery. Since it has nothing to do with how wrong it was for Christians to own slaves. If you want to talk about Islam maybe you should start a thread instead of threadjacking a discussion of the Catholic church with irrelevant historical facts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hrm? Substance dualism is important. The spirit is not the body, and neither is the body the spirit. You are right that the spirtual world does affect the body as does the inverse, but we have to be careful not to say that they are exactly the same.

Imran - God's kingdom is not going to be brought about by Christians here on Earth, but rather by Christ himself upon his return. Our purpose is to spread the Gospel and the truth of Christ, not to bring about the universal kingdom.

The Body and Spirit of a person are seperate, but they CANNOT exist without the other. People who think that the spirit will leave the body and the spirit will live with God somewhere else haven't read 1 Corinthians 15.

Christ will come again to make things right and reconcile the world to himself, but we are responsible for helping to "put out the red carpet" as it were. The line in Thessalonians about us meeting Christ in the air as he comes down isn't (as you know) about the rapture, but as a welcoming party. Christ will complete all things, but we are called to help and do His work here so that He is more welcome when he does arrive again.

It was the exact same pope that issued the bulls you referred to. You claimed, (entirely falsely), that the Bulls you cited advanced slavery, while (as usual), ignoring the crucial evidence.

So you are saying he was double talking? After all, regardless of what the Pope indicated in Sublimus Dei, his words are clearly in favor of slavery in Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex as quoted by gribbler above. I realize that the monarchy of Spain and Portugal had a lot of power and money and that could have swayed the Bishop of Rome, but his words are clear - or was he against slavery before he was for it?

The only backpedeling I can see is yours. For you cannot bear to call out anything the Catholic Church has done in its long history.

[Ben Kenobi]

How is it his job to "call out" things that muslims did in the past? How is he "covering it up"? As if he has the power to cover up publicly available information like the history of the slave trade

Arguing that Christians were oppressing the Muslims, when it was the Muslims running the whole damn show?

You've failed to explain why Islam is at all relevant

The fact that they were the ones selling the slaves isn't relevant? Really?

to the fact that the Catholic church at one point sanctioned slavery.

There's actually not any evidence for that position, at least not in what you've cited. Your argument amounts to, the Catholic church said that enslaving Christians is an evil, ergo, enslaving non-Christians is ok?

Christianity, encouraged the abolition of slavery. It's never referred to slavery as a good.

If you want to talk about Islam

Imran referred to them as victims of slavery. Ergo my response was warranted. FFS, victims when they were running the show? Either Imran is ignorant of that fact, or he's whitewashing as usual.