Islam Stuff: For LCD2YOU

[_Ren]

The fact is it is not, nor was it ever, Christian doctrine.

I didn't say it was Christian doctrine. I said it was 'condoned' in the New Testament.
And it was.

You're missing the point

No. I didn't miss the point. You are not addressing the point I made.

The fact is slavery is not condoned by Christianity, and it never has been

'Is' not - sure. 'Was' not - baloney.

In fact, history shows us that it was overwhelming protested

'Christians' overwhelmingly opposed it, and yet it was practiced all over Christian nations until the 19th century?!
...exactly who are you trying to kid?

especially when people are out there trying to blame Christianity for slavery

I wouldn't blame Christians for the history of slavery. I blame humans for slavery.

At no time in history was slavery protested as an immoral practice until Christians protested.

The first recorded ruler to have abolished the slave trade was a Buddhist - Wang Mang. 9 AD

This is like saying Martin Luther King (another Christian) had nothing to do with ending segregation.

If there were also Christians FOR segregation at the same time, then yes - of course I get to question whether 'Christianity' was the root cause.

I assume all participants will participate because they do want to argue the points.

Perfectly happy to argue points. Just as long as we are clear that I am not claiming that Islam (either now, or historically) is 'better' or even equal to 'Christianity'. As long as that's clear, then feel free to point that issue at someone else if you like. And not me.

[_cksalmon]

we are talking about what both condone as a faith.

The New Testament condones slavery.

I once would have agreed with you on this, but no longer.

Paul clearly, to my mind, condemns slave trading in his letter to Timothy (1 Tim 1.9-10).

AV/KJV: Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine...

The Greek here is from avndrapodistes, which Louw-Nida, Liddell-Scott, Thayer, and other sources identify as "slave traders" (i.e., ones who deal in men; literally, something like "[brings] men to their feet" or "[a bringer of] men's feet"]. The circumlocution refers to an "enslaver," a "slave dealer").

Paul identifies such folks as "lawless and disobedient...ungodly and for sinners...unholy and profane."

So, no, the New Testament, as a whole, does not condone slave trading, but clearly (via Paul) condemns the practice by condemning the practitioners.

Best.

CKS

EDIT:

I didn't say it was Christian doctrine. I said it was 'condoned' in the New Testament. And it was.

No, I don't believe so. See above.

EDIT #2:
I gleaned this insight from a Christian missionary to a Muslim country speaking to a Christian church in America about Islam. He was noting the fact that slavery was condoned by early Muslims, but was manifestly not condoned by early Christians. He suggested further that KJV's rather ambiguous translation may have stemmed from the fact that King James owned slaves.

[_Ren]

cksalmon,

Thanks for the reference. Must admit I wasn't aware of this one, and I thank for actually addressing the point.

But I don't think this gives us cause to claim that "the New Testament, as a whole, does not condone slave trading".

I still reference Ephesians 6:5-9

5. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

9. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

These verses clearly condone slavery. So - at best it brings us to 'inconsistent'.

Unless you're proposing that New Testament teaching is that it's OK to have slaves - just not trade in them...?

[_dartagnan]

I didn't say it was Christian doctrine. I said it was 'condoned' in the New Testament. And it was.

Which means nothing in the context of what I am saying. This is my point.

'Is' not - sure. 'Was' not - baloney.

Then prove it. You're sole piece of evidence that "Christianity" condoned slavery, is your own interpretation of a single verse for which you are not authorized in any sense to interpret. You know nothing of Greek and you're not a theologian. There was plenty that was accepted as the norm in New Testament times, but that doesn't make it "Christianity" approved.

A Christian nation where 'Christians' overwhelmingly opposed it, and yet it was practiced all over Christian nations until the 19th century?!

The Christian Church has overwhelmingly opposed it throughout history, yes. This is demonstrable fact.

...exactly who are you trying to kid?

I'm trying to educate you, but it seems you've had your mind made up for quite some time.

I wouldn't blame Christians for the history of slavery. I blame humans for slavery.

And my point is this. The facts prove Christianity is responsible for the abolishment of slavery in the West, and it is also responsible for the drastic reduction of slavery in Muslim countries. You want to ignore Christianity's input and lay the credit strictly to "government." How ridiculous. Christianity has a accumulated 14 centuries of documented protest against slavery. This should not be ignored or even downplayed.

The first recorded ruler to have abolished the slave trade was a Buddhist - Wang Mang. 9 AD

Let's stick to what we're talking about here. If you really have to go fishing on the other side of the planet to find a parallel example, then I think I've made my case. The Chinese had nothing to do with the death of slavery in the Islamic and Western worlds.

If there were also Christians FOR segregation at the same time, then yes - of course I get to question whether 'Christianity' was the root cause.

This means republicans cannot really be accredited with Huckabee's win in Iowa since other republicans opposed him. In fact, following your reasoning, the American people cannot be the reason why George Bush was elected President since, at the same time, other Americans voted against him. What stupid logic.

[_richardMdBorn]

Not only is this a matter of interpretation that no Christian theologian supports

Well of course. What Christian theologian would want to be seen as condoning slavery?

Ephesians 6:5-9

Christianity is responsible for essentially abolishing it

Christianity huh? So you say that Christianity and the state are 'separate', and yet what the government does - not the church - should be attributed to 'Christianity'? Have I got that right?

Wilberforce, an evangelical convert, led the movement in Britain to have the slave trade abolished and then subsequently slavery abolished in the British Empire. Who was his counterpart in Islam? There isn't one.

[_cksalmon]

cksalmon,

Thanks for the reference. Must admit I wasn't aware of this one, and I thank for actually addressing the point.

But I don't think this gives us cause to claim that "the New Testament, as a whole, does not condone slave trading".

I still reference Ephesians 6:5-9

5. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

9. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

These verses clearly condone slavery. So - at best it brings us to 'inconsistent'.

Unless you're proposing that New Testament teaching is that it's OK to have slaves - just not trade in them...?

Good point. What one must keep in mind at this point, I think, is that Paul was a predestinationist--a believer in God's ultimate decrees anent human "placement," for lack of a better term.

What Paul is against, then, is both the violent uprising of Christian slaves against their masters (thus, Paul equates obedience within the institution of human bondage with service to the Lord. Paul is anti-rebellion (as he and other New Testament writers make clear elsewhere) and also he is against the institution of slavery in general. To be fair to Paul, one mustn't equate "slaves, obey your masters" with "slavery is okay with God." Paul advocated the former, but never advocated the latter.

What Paul apparently advocated was non-violent submission to one's present state in life while providing theological justification for viewing the institution of slavery as a "lawless and disobedient...ungodly and [sinful]...unholy and profane."

I think this rather demonstrates Kevin's point.

Best.

CKS

[Guest]

Which means nothing in the context of what I am saying.

It means plenty in the context of what Christians 'do', and have done.
The scriptures I provided were used as justification for slavery by Christians.

The Christian Church

'The' Christian church?

You want to ignore Christianity's input and lay the credit strictly to "government."

I'm not at all. I wouldn't deny for one second that Christianity had 'influence' on the government, and on people as a whole.
What I'm denying is that Christianity should be considered 'solely responsible' for it.

Christianity has a accumulated 14 centuries of documented protest against slavery.

And also 14 centuries of documented allowance of slavery. The fallacy here is that Christianity speaks as one voice. It doesn't.

Let's stick to what we're talking about here.

Translation: I want to control the agenda of this thread.

f you really have to go fishing on the other side of the planet to find a parallel example

...are people 'on the other side of the planet' not valid people, with valid religions, with valid moral views and with valid opinions?
...it's only our part of the world that 'matters?
...please explain why...

then I think I've made my case.

What case?!

The Chinese had nothing to do with the death of slavery in the Islamic and Western worlds.

Bad. Bad. Bad Chinese. If only they were Christians - then they would have - surely...

This means republicans cannot really be accredited with Huckabee's win in Iowa since other republicans opposed him. In fact, following your reasoning, the American people cannot be the reason why George Bush was elected President since, at the same time, other Americans voted against him.

If Huckabee has run continually for Iowa for centuries previously and Republicans had routinely failed to vote for him, then yes - I would get to question whether being a 'Republican', rather than modern attitudes- were responsible.

Same with the George Bush example.

[_huckelberry]

CkSalmon, I think you have made good points above. Perhaps the Ephesian quote could be more simply addressed by observing tthat the subject there is that a slave can be a Christian as well as anybody else. It is not necessary to conclude from that the slavery itself is condoned or even ok, just that even in that situation a person can be a reprentative of God to the world.

So far no one commented on the instruction to slave owners not to threaten. If that phrase is taken with even an ounce of sincerety the institution of slavery is put on a changed course which would naturally result in its eventual demise.

I mean how in the world do you maintain anything like normal slavery without threat?

[_Ren]

Wilberforce, an evangelical convert, led the movement in Britain to have the slave trade abolished and then subsequently slavery abolished in the British Empire.

Who else was it gonna be but a Christian? Practically everybody was - and largely still are - Christian in the Western World.
The reason it can't be solely attributed to Christianity is that Christianity had been around for nearly 2000 years, and it was still going on...

[_Ren]

"slaves, obey your masters" with "slavery is okay with God." Paul advocated the former, but never advocated the latter.

Sounds a lot like "Blacks have to be denied the priesthood for now, but one day we'll look at it some more. Perhaps when society as a whole backs us up against the wall..."