Islam Stuff: For LCD2YOU

[Guest]

It means plenty in the context of what Christians 'do', and have done.

Again, which has nothing to do with the discussion. It has nothing to do with anything I am talking about.
It has nothing to do with this thread.

The' Christian church?

Did I studder?

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.

But you deny it for no reason other than your personal spite for the religion, and any other religion for that matter. You do not deny it because you have evidence to do so. The fact is, nobody was protesting slavery except the Christians and Jews. Otherwise, please name some atheist based organizations that were trying to abolish slavery.

If Muslims protest X and get the government to ban X, the the Muslims are responsible and should be accredited for this.

If feminists protest X and get the government to ban X, the the feminists are responsible and should be accredited for this.

If children protest X and get the government to ban X, thethe children are responsible and should be accredited for this.

But for you the rule must change for Christians since they are bad all the way through and must be accredited nothing of value.

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

Then why did you just say it "allowed" it for 14 centuries?

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

Well, it is my thread, and you are derailing desperately to take focus off your ignoramus remarks about the New Testament.

...are people 'on the other side of the planet' not valid people, with valid religions, with valid moral views and with valid opinions?

Absolutely, but we are talking about the removal of slavery in Western Civilization. The Chinese have nothing to do with this.

...it's only our part of the world that 'matters? ...please explain why...

Stop being an idiot, just take the hit and crawl away. If you're looking to beat me into submission with lame tangents like these, you're going to be disappointed.

What case?!

Everyone else seems to have gotten it. I guess that's what matters, since we both know your only purpose here is to disrupt a pro-religion thread that obviously pisses you off with facts.

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.

You're an idiot.

[Guest]

"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..."

Hi Ren. Hate to pipe up here. The problem with what you state above is that it was the fringe that was challenging societies' notions. With the abolition movement it was a vocal minority (Christians) that felt morally compelled to live their faith and pushed society to change. Not the other way around. They asked people to look to the scriptures and make this change. It was not politically or socially expedient to abolish slavery -- QUITE the opposite in many times. They asked people to put aside their own desires and monetary gain for the betterment of a more equal and just society. Slavery was often cited as a SIN.

[_cksalmon]

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?

Exactly. Another point to be made is that, if Paul's writings are to be believed, then he was routinely subjected to at least the indignities that slaves suffered. He was beaten repeatedly, falsely accused, imprisoned for years..., etc. Yet, he never wrote, "This shouldn't be happening to one such as myself." Instead, he suggested that his unfair treatment was part of God's plan to "present the sufferings of Christ" to the larger world.

In other words, again, Paul was a predestinationist, not only with regard to the plight of slaves (which situation he condemned), but also with regard to the indignities he suffered in his personal life. One simply must connect the dots between Paul's views on slavery with Paul's personal suffering in the cause of Christ. Paul never advocated an easy way out of his own personal suffering; he never advocated an easy way out of the suffering of earthly slaves.

He was consistently pro-suffering, in that regard. Suffering as unto the Lord.

If one reads Paul's apparent condoning of slavery without reference to Paul's own submissively-accepted, unique, personal suffering, he probably hasn't understood Paul's point. It's not as if Paul's letters were written from within a space-time vacuum.

CKS

[Guest]

Did I studder?

Did you 'studder'? Huh?

Otherwise, please name some atheist based organizations that were trying to abolish slavery.

What atheist based organizations existed at the time of slavery?!

But you deny it for no reason other than your personal spite for the religion, and any other religion for that matter.

Not at all. I deny for the reason that Christian nations existed for nearly 2000 years with slavery being practiced.

But for you the rule must change for Christians since they are bad all the way through

Where have I stated that Christians are 'bad all the way though'? I've never said it - and it's not part of my argument, so I don't know where you got that from...

and must be accredited nothing of value.

...again - you attribute an attitude to me that I do not hold. Saying that Christianity was not 'solely responsible' for the overturn of slavery, nor even if I hold the opinion that it's claims aren't literally 'true' - doesn't mean that I don't assign any worthy value to it. Nor would I deny that it has some substantial influence in the matter. The problem is it's not all positive...

Then why did you just say it "allowed" it for 14 centuries?

Because no matter what was 'said' on either side of the issue, the 'Christians' as a whole were perfectly happy to practice slavery. For 14 centuries no less...

Absolutely, but we are talking about the removal of slavery in Western Civilization.

So what you want me to impressed by is that 'Christian nations' managed to work out that slavery was wrong before the atheists took over?
...yeah - ok - I'll give ya that, if it makes you feel better...

You're an idiot.

Good retort.

[_richardMdBorn]

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...

But where were the advocates for abolishing slavery in Islam? Why didn't the Ottoman Sultan advocate it?

[_Ren]

But where were the advocates for abolishing slavery in Islam? Why didn't the Ottoman Sultan advocate it?

I'm not arguing that Islam is 'better', or even 'equal' - historically nor doctrinally - to Christianity.
Is that clear?

[_Ren]

With the abolition movement it was a vocal minority (Christians) that felt morally compelled to live their faith and pushed society to change.

But if the vast majority of people are Christian anyway, then:

a. Why were only the minority speaking, and why did it take nearly 2000 years for them to get heard?
b. What else were the minority going to be made up of, if practically everybody is Christian? Hardly surprising that the minority that had a moral conscience from any source you could name happened to be Christian. Why is this meant to be a surprise of any kind?

Slavery was often cited as a SIN.

And slavery was also condoned and justified... By Christians as well.

[Guest]

With the abolition movement it was a vocal minority (Christians) that felt morally compelled to live their faith and pushed society to change.

But if the vast majority of people are Christian anyway, then:

a. Why were only the minority speaking, and why did it take nearly 2000 years for them to get heard?
b. What else were the minority going to be made up of, if practically everybody is Christian? Hardly surprising that the minority that had a moral conscience from any source you could name happened to be Christian. Why is this meant to be a surprise of any kind?

Ren, yes the society of the early Americas was primarily Christian. You must ask yourself what in Christianity allowed them to recognize that slavery was a sin. Something within the ideology of Christianity compelled certain people to stand up morally against societies dictates of the day. How did they go about with their message? They asked others to look at their own moral compass and see if they were living their faith.

You seem rather defensive.

Does it matter when it happened? Why? Does it matter what the ideology eventually created? I would say yes! There had to be something fundamentally within the core principles of Christianity to allow the debate and the eventual sway over the minds and hearts of those that heard the message.

Look to the Magna Carta here. This document had been about for hundreds of years when the founders of America created the Bill of Rights and Constitution. They took from this document a compass, if you will, and were able to extrapolate a better society from it. This doesn't deny that for hundreds of years the people of Britain did go without those rights which were later found in the Bill of Rights -- yet it shows how any spark of ideology can create great change when there are those that find greater implications then the original. Is it possible that society could have changed without Christianity? We don't know. What we DO know is that Christians were the driving force that helped sway their fellow Christians to live their faith.

[_Moniker]

Slavery was often cited as a SIN.

And slavery was also condoned and justified... By Christians as well.

Yes, it was. Yet, what was compelling enough to eventually sway the majority? The idea that slavery was essentially sinful and a disgrace to God. Those that took this view went about asking others to consider their message. by the way, most Christians that condoned slavery were slave owners themselves and had an inherent conflict of interest. This is what those vocal minority asked people to do -- look past self and look to God for what is moral.

[_Ren]

You seem rather defensive.

True :) ...I'll try better in future :)

Ren, yes the society of the early Americas was primarily Christian. You must ask yourself what in Christianity allowed them to recognize that slavery was a sin.

Why would I think it was Christianity, when Christianity had existed for so long and practiced it for so long?
...I don't attribute 'goodness' to people because of their religion, or atheism. I attribute goodness to people because they are 'good'. They will then see the good in their belief system. 'Bad' people will find the 'bad' in their belief system. I believe that, because I think the evidence leads to this conclusion.

They asked others to look at their own moral compass and see if they were living their faith.

Indeed. And well done to them.

There had to be something fundamentally within the core principles of Christianity to allow the debate and the eventual sway over the minds and hearts of those that heard the message.

Of course. There is good within Christianity. But to attribute the downfall of slavery to 'Christianity' is inaccurate in my opinion.

Look to the Magna Carta here. This document had been about for hundreds of years when the founders of America created the Bill of Rights and Declaration. They took from this document a compass, if you will, and were able to extrapolate a better society from it. This doesn't deny that for hundreds of years the people of Britain did go without those rights which were later found in the Bill of Rights -- yet it shows how any spark of ideology can create great change when there are those that find greater implications then the original. Is it possible that society could have changed without Christianity? We don't know. What we DO know is that Christians were the driving force that helped sway their fellow Christians to live their faith.

I don't deny that there is good in Christianity,and that good Christians will find that good...