11-04-2002 19:48									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ethelred 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.

Now that's exactly what is wrong in you argument.

The verses you posted have two particular characteristics you may not want to realise:
1 - They are from the Old Testament: therefore, they must be interpreted according to the message Christ brought, that completed it. That, in a Christian view, of course. But is the Christian view we are talking about.

2. The New Testament's message (the main source of Christian morals), as DinoDoc so well exemplified, clearly condemns slave traders and, basicly all that do not treat others as they want to be trated themselves (ie, the Golden Rule that IS in the Bible).

Therefore, I dare you to present a verse, in the New Testament saying it is OK to have a slave. Than we may talk.

Otherwize, you should use more caution in making claims based on the verses in the Bible. You are not talking to Christian Fundamentalists, you know.

	11-04-2002 19:52									#32
	Inflate your Upload Space

Greatest achievements? The butchering of millions of native americans, muslims, africans, and other people from across the world. I for one won't be unhappy when it's finally eradicated.

	11-04-2002 19:56									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Oh, and I forgot to say that I voted on Human Dignity.

All that posted that earlier philosophers and religions also highlight Human Dignity are right. I would like to remember those that refered the Classic Philosofers the fact that one of the main reasons we know that some of them defended Human Dignity is because the Medieval Catholic thinkers highlighted it.

	11-04-2002 20:06									#34
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ethelred A smiley doesn't change it. You were the one being negative towards a specific person.

Still with the short term memory problems. I'm still here to talk about it with you when you're ready. I'm mean if you can not even remember what you post in this thread, there is a serious problem.

quote: The are still there and they are still aproval of slavery.

You have shown that the Bible the practice was regulated throughout the Bible. Which I never disputed. However, the verses you cited do not keep the practice frombeing immoral according to Christian theology.

More food for thought:

Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,

PS. It does seem that I was wrong though. I did find a verse which I'm suprised that you did not highlight earlier in your quest to prove me wrong (Genesis 9:25-27) as it would have made the case better than the Exodus and Leviticus regulations on the practice. However, I will stand by my statement that this doesn't save the pro-slavery theological arguement from falling by the wayside for the reasons that I have outlined earlier.

	11-04-2002 20:13									#35
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by SociableMartian Greatest achievements? The butchering of millions of native americans, muslims, africans, and other people from across the world. I for one won't be unhappy when it's finally eradicated.

What a moron.

	11-04-2002 20:16									#36
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

What is moronic about what I said? Christianity was used by the Spanish to convert/execute millions of native americans, as I said. The crusades resulted in the butchering of millions of innocents. Do I even need to go on? It's too depressing for words.

	11-04-2002 20:20									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

While it is true than many wars have religious roots, to imply that all the unjusts done to Native Americans (as an example) were done solely by "Christians" is, as I stated, moronic.

	11-04-2002 20:23									#38
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Yes of course not all crimes were by christians against the native americans, just 99% or so. Unless you can give me evidence that the US was colonised by a non-christian nation.

	11-04-2002 20:28									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You don't believe in Creationism.
Does that mean that throughout history, none of your family believed? Not particularly.
Not all the founding members of the U.S. came here for religious reasons, but let's say they did.
Does that mean that all these creationist's families stayed believers? Again, not particularly.
Don't paint with such a broad brush.

	11-04-2002 20:35									#40
	Inflate your Upload Space

Christianity is still by far the dominant religion in the US today. The church still influences the state to some degree (as in many socially backward countries). So I think it's reasonable for me to assume that the christian beliefs (of prejudice and extermination of non-believers) stayed with the settlers and influenced their politics with and treatment of the native americans (and if we look at their history we see the same pattern, prejudice and extermination).

By the way, the only reason my ancestors believed in Christianity was the brainwashing the church exposed the population of europe to, in order to secure their power and control the population.

	11-04-2002 20:48									#41
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by SociableMartian Yes of course not all crimes were by christians against the native americans, just 99% or so. Unless you can give me evidence that the US was colonised by a non-christian nation.

Great conclusion. Since all European countries were Christian at that time Christianity is to blame.

Or Europe? Or the White man? Or the White Christian European?

	11-04-2002 20:50									#42
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Christianity was used as the excuse by the conqustadiores for example, for the brutal killing/forced conversion (and destruction of their culture) of the native americans. Of course the crusades and others were pure holy wars.

	11-04-2002 20:53									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by SociableMartian Christianity was used as the excuse by the conqustadiores for example, for the brutal killing/forced conversion (and destruction of their culture) of the native americans. Of course the crusades and others were pure holy wars.

So who is guilty, Christianity, or the people who (ab-)used it for their own egoistic purposes?

	11-04-2002 20:55									#44
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Both, as Christianity helped brainwash them into thinking they could commit such atrocities in the name of god.

	11-04-2002 21:05									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well I agree that Christians acted in that way. But when you say "Christianity helped brainwash them" it gets tricky, because even if this happened it was carried out by humans. Then you would have to prove that the humans who did this followed Christian ideas when they used Christianity as excuse/reason to do crimes...

Some would simply say their behaviour (if allowed/advocated by the chruch or not) was against the idea of Christianity, even when they believed otherwise.

	11-04-2002 21:06									#46
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by SociableMartian Of course the crusades and others were pure holy wars.

Pure and uter nonsense. I suppose that's why they lterally bathed the streets of the holy city of Jerusalem in the blood of Christian and non-Christian alike and sacked Constantinople, a Catholic city at the time on thier way there.

	11-04-2002 21:07									#47
	Tired of ads?

Perhaps but if christianity helped them believe what they were doing was right, even if it was not directly to blame it must still take some of the 'credit'.

	11-04-2002 21:08									#48
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Pure and uter nonsense. I suppose that's why they lterally bathed the streets of the holy city of Jerusalem in the blood of Christian and non-Christian alike and sacked Constantinople, a Ctholic city at the time on thier way thier.

Well the wars wouldn't have even occured if it weren't for Christianity.

	11-04-2002 21:10									#49
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by SociableMartian Well the wars wouldn't have even occured if it weren't for Christianity.

The wars were only tangentially about Christianity. I find this comment dubious at best.

	11-04-2002 21:12									#50
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Explain how they would have started if it weren't for Christianity. The Pope was the one who called for Christian countries to retake the Holy Land and I doubt the Monarchies of Europe would have gone to the considerable expense of fighting a major war for no reason at all.

	11-04-2002 21:14									#51
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc The wars were only tangentially about Christianity. I find this comment dubious at best.

Why must you insist on quoting SociableMartian, DinoDoc? Some of us have him on ignore. Goddamned DL.

	11-04-2002 21:18									#52
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I'd love this conclusive proof of my DL status.

	11-04-2002 21:18									#53
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer Why must you insist on quoting SociableMartian, DinoDoc? Some of us have him on ignore. Goddamned DL.

Sorry. I knew not what I was doing.

	11-04-2002 21:21									#54
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Explain how they would have started if it weren't for Christianity. The Pope was the one who called for Christian countries to retake the Holy Land and I doubt the Monarchies of Europe would have gone to the considerable expense of fighting a major war for no reason at all.

Oh, European nobles and the Italian sea traders had their fights with Muslims in Spain, North Africa, Southern Italy etc even before the crusades. The reasons were hardly religious, control of trade routes, gaining territory and simply plundering the hell off the rich Arabian cities played a big role. The economy of the Arabic hemisphere was a lot better than Europe´s at that time, it was a valuable target.

Most of the European knights of the first crusade cared more about the personal wealth they could reach due to a military action.

I would say the pope´s call was a mobilizing factor, but not the only reason for the crusades.

	11-04-2002 21:21									#55
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Sorry. I knew not what I was doing.

That's okay. I tormented you with Sava's incoherent ramblings. We're even now.

	11-04-2002 21:25									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Oh, European nobles and the Italian sea traders had their fights with Muslims in Spain, North Africa, Southern Italy etc even before the crusades. The reasons were hardly religious, control of trade routes, gaining territory and simply plundering the hell off the rich Arabian cities played a big role. The economy of the Arabic hemisphere was a lot better than Europe´s at that time, it was a valuable target.

True but that's to be expected. Minor raids are a lot less damaging than all out warfare.

quote: Most of the European knights of the first crusade cared more about the personal wealth they could reach due to a military action.

True again, but then again I'm sure this can be said for many holy wars.

quote: I would say the pope´s call was a mobilizing factor, but not the only reason for the crusades.

But the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak?

	11-04-2002 21:35									#57
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by SociableMartian True but that's to be expected. Minor raids are a lot less damaging than all out warfare.

The reconquista was certainly not a minor raid. And the Italian trade cities fought constantly for dominance in the Mediterranean (ok, not only against the Arabs, but to a big part).

quote: True again, but then again I'm sure this can be said for many holy wars.

Agreed, but then again I would say "religious" wars are mainly fought because of other interests. Most of the knights would not have moved a single mile into the holy land when they hadn´d thought of their personal goals first.

quote: But the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak?

Probably.

	11-04-2002 21:38									#58
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by BeBro The reconquista was certainly not a minor raid. And the Italian trade cities fought constantly for dominance in the Mediterranean (ok, not only against the Arabs, but to a big part).

Yep but wasn't the reconquista at least partially religion based? After all surely if the Spanish had been all muslim the war would not have been fought and they would have accepted Arab rule.

	11-04-2002 21:46									#59
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by SociableMartian Yep but wasn't the reconquista at least partially religion based? After all surely if the Spanish had been all muslim the war would not have been fought and they would have accepted Arab rule.

Not in the beginning, really. Initially it was mainly a war of the aristocracy in Northern Spain to get the territory ruled by the Moors. But yes, religious aspects got more and more important. Finally it was treated like a "regular" crusade into the holy land, I don´t recall in which year it was officially recognized as crusade, but AFAIK that was a long time after it started.

	11-04-2002 22:49									#60
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Adam Smith Is the dignity of the individual original or unique to Christianity? Did other religions such as Bahai or Buddism have similar ideas or sooner. (sp? Its just too late at night to worry about it.) Also question whether Crusades-engendered trade had anything much to do with the formation of Capitalism. The Crusades did bring about increased trade. Venetian traders realized gains from trade, and used the proceedes of a successful expedition to finance the next. But gains from trade is not Capitalism. Capitalism usually refers to the use of monetary capital as a specific factor of production. This requires some sort of external market for capital and payment for capital, ie, interest. What the Venetians had was an internal finance mechanism. Their capital was not available for a price in a market, so it was not Capitalism. The Church's discouragement of charging interest inhibited the growth of such markets. When capital markets did develop, they usually came thorugh Jewish groups such as Florentine goldsmiths and, later, the Fugger banking family.

Hi, Adam Smith!

It's a pleasure to meet you again. As usual, I agree with you.
The Church forbade 'usury'. It was -more or less- a deadly sin, resulting in eternal condemnation!
(though I do not think the Fuggers were Jews)