28-11-2002 16:18									#151
	Support Apolyton

quote: Because it is true that Christianity had nothing to do with ending slavery while having a lot to do with saying it was ok. Facts are facts.

This is the biggest load of horseshit I've read in a long time. It's up there with your "Chinese can't be nationalist" statement in terms of idiocy...

	28-11-2002 21:32									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Saint Marcus, once upon a time I spent a few years in the seminary studying to be a priest. I know a little about the Catholic faith and the Bible.

you seem to know a lot about the history of the church, but little about the Scripture.

quote: I think we are not communicating because you assume that the initial acceptance of the civil order of the Empire means that for all time the Church remained neutral on slavery.

I didn't say the Church remained neutral on slavery, I said the Scripture is neutral (and even condoning) of slavery.

quote: However, it's role in ending slavery evovled.

Yes. Christianity evolved. The Islam evolved. Every religion evolves. That's why you can't look just look at the present state of any religion, and make claims about it. You can't say, Christianity is peaceful and tolerant, while Islam is violent and bigotted. This may seem the case now, but it was different a century ago, and will be different a century from now. That's why you can't look at just how things are now. You have to look at the basis of the religion.

Strangely, you do look at the Quran when making arguments about the Islam's violent nature, but are completely ignoring similar things written in the Bible. What's up with that?

	29-11-2002 00:09									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Once can easily see in revelations that the government(s) of man are compared to the government of Christ in the second coming. By doing so it implicitly states that the church and man's government are separate until the second coming of Christ, wherein teh unificationof Church and State take place.

That's a stretch. It does not implicitly state that Church should not have influence or control over government.

	29-11-2002 00:27									#154
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

In one particular case it does indicate that the church does become perverted and become a tool of the antichrist. In that one could say that the church does meddle in the secular realm.

Other than that it pretty much leaves governments to be run by man until such time as Christ decides enough is enough.

	29-11-2002 00:32									#155
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Revelations is a prediction of what is to come, not an instructional. Nowhere does it say church should not become involved in matters of politics, it simply paints a picture of what will be, certainly not what is desirable.

	29-11-2002 00:42									#156
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I don't think Christianity had in anyway a central role in ending slavery in the Empire. After all, the Byzantine Empire had the Chrsitian faith as a pillar and yet slavery within it continued. If it collapesed in the West is because the sociao-economic situation that made slavery work collapsed with Imperial rule and law and order. Yes, many churchmen through history argued strongly against slavery, but manya rgued strongly for it. I have had the ability to read parts of books written by preachers in the early 19th century that argued vehemently, based on scriptural passages, that not only did Christianity allow for slavery, but that for a good Christian society to exist slavery (race based slavery) HAD to be manitained. IT was the temporal powers that eneded Slavery, not theological ones, and while groups of religiouslyy mided individul may have been at the forefront in various places, they were at best instrumental but not central. After all, Brazil is as Chrsitian as the US, yet slavery ended there only in 1883 (I believe), and in deeply religious US in 1865.

Which birngs me to a point I made earlier. Scripture means NOTHING. It is a bunch of words and lessons made long ago- for any of those words and lessons,e xcept for ther most fundamental, to have any meaning, they must eb constantly re-interpreted to fit the facts of the day. For the facts fo the day rule, not scripture. Modern Christian fundamentalism is non-violent NOT because Chirsitanity is inherently non-violent (history more than proves that wrong) but becasue the sociao-political situation in which these types of Christian fundamentalist groups exists discourages acts of violence and revoltuionary acts. And Islamic fundamentalism today is violent because the socio-political situations in the Islamic world breed violence and revoltuion.

The answer to Islamic violence is NOT CULTURAL, NOT ENDEMIC TO THE SCRIPTURES, IS NOT ABSOLUTE . It lies with the study of the socio-economic and political reality of each individual place in which this violence is taking place, and the possibility that an overarching, modern political movement of Islamist political ideolgy is spreading is also something that must be studied as a political reality, not a cultural one. Which is why I fervently oppose the notion that the answers to Islamist violence lie in scripture. As I said, Islam has characteristics that make it more political than Christianity, but being more political does not mean inherently more violent, just easier to spin that way.

	29-11-2002 01:06									#157
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus Yes. Christianity evolved. The Islam evolved. Every religion evolves. That's why you can't look just look at the present state of any religion, and make claims about it. You can't say, Christianity is peaceful and tolerant, while Islam is violent and bigotted. This may seem the case now, but it was different a century ago, and will be different a century from now. That's why you can't look at just how things are now. You have to look at the basis of the religion. Strangely, you do look at the Quran when making arguments about the Islam's violent nature, but are completely ignoring similar things written in the Bible. What's up with that?

Agreed.

The problem seems to be those who read the Bible or the Koran "literally." In the context of the Roman Empire, the Church accepted slavery. Later it condemned it.

Just as an asside, I have severe problems with Christian sects who take the Bible literally and who ignore all the wisdom of two millenia of development since.

As to the OBL and his merry band of terrorists, it seems that they might be reading the Koran literally. If so, they are like the Christian fundamentalists who ignore the doctrinal developments made over the centuries.

But as I am somewhat ignorant of the development of Islam, I am at this point only making observations and asking questions.

	29-11-2002 01:13									#158
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin Have noticed something Interesting glancing through some of the last pages. When it came to Islam and violence Ned took the words in the Koran very seriously as the essence of the religion. When it comes to the bible, christianity and slavery not so. In this case we have to look at the history he says. Oh well...

Kropotkin, I have asked many times over the past half year about what changed Islam into a peaceful religion. We all know how it started and what is said in the Koran. But, if it changed, when did it and why?

	29-11-2002 01:22									#159
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned The problem seems to be those who read the Bible or the Koran "literally." In the context of the Roman Empire, the Church accepted slavery. Later it condemned it. Just as an asside, I have severe problems with Christian sects who take the Bible literally and who ignore all the wisdom of two millenia of development since.

I agree completely here. If christianity were simply the words of Christ I would get baptized tomorrow. Instead, because I had a Catholic grandmother who had the right priorities when deciding what parts of the Bible to introduce me to I have simply integrated many of the teachings of Christ into my atheist philosophy.

As for OBL I've been lead to believe by the media that he isn't a particularly religious man or very learned in the Koran. He tries to assume these airs for his target audience. I don't think the muslims that support him do so because of he's holy or wise, but because hes got the nut and hes nut enough to take on the western world. Sorta like American blacks supporting OJ cause he got off.

	29-11-2002 01:34									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

GePap, I agree with your post, to a degree. The major problem I have with Islam is its mixture of Church and State. When Church and State are mixed, discrimination is the inevitable result. When a religion is "universal," its mixture has led to conquest for the very purpose of spreading the religion. It has also led to military action in defense of religion or for access to territory "holy" to the religion.

The history of Christianity in modern times has led to an increasing separation of Church and State. Perhaps America and its constitution is the inspiration for this movement. But the result is far less religious violence.

Most of the nations that have a significant Islamic majority are today led by secular governments. We call these countries "moderates." Islam within these countries is largley peaceful. But the fundamentalist movements led by OBL have declared war on these moderate governments just as much as they have declared war on the United States. Perhaps are best policy here is to support secular governments against the fundamentalists. But this might be a trap. We did the same thing when communism was the issue. Our actions to support oppressive regimes against communists brought us the enternal emnity of the affected people.

	29-11-2002 01:38									#161
	Suffering from ads?

GePap, exactly.

While you can point to Churchmen that disagreed with slavery, you can easily point to those that backed it. The change in slavery came as a result of other factors, not the Church. To say slavery ended because of the Church is ludicrous.

	29-11-2002 01:47									#162
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Well, the relation of temporal to theological power varies. After all, the most openly Tehocratic state in Islam is Iran, and while Iran has supported violence against its enemies, it does not in any way have an expansionistic government, and the treatment of minorities in Iran is not very bad (in relative terms)
In Saudi Arabia, the Clergy (more like portestant clergies than A Catholic or Orhtodox Church) is not part of the state itself: they are allied but don't hold government post.

What I see with OBL is a man leading a group uterly disatisfied with how the secular governments of the Middle East have acted, and in seeking a solution, has not turned to the political systems of the west, but has turned inward: His movement is a utopian revisionist system, tyring to "purify" the people by returning to "their cultural roots", since they view modernity as the cause for the fall. There is certainly a small streak of Fascism, in the way cultural solutions take precedent, but just a streak. Still, i think OBL's political ideology is highly unstable and would fail in ruling amodern state effectively. For that reason, what Osam wants to build (and the Taliban represnts) would never come to power in a modern state (Afghanistan was a state turned premordenr just by the beating it took)

	29-11-2002 01:54									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23 I agree completely here. If christianity were simply the words of Christ I would get baptized tomorrow. Instead, because I had a Catholic grandmother who had the right priorities when deciding what parts of the Bible to introduce me to I have simply integrated many of the teachings of Christ into my atheist philosophy.

I personnaly am an agnostic because I do not have evidence and therefor do not know whether there is a god or not.

Even so, I have often argued that we can learn much from the moral teachings of Jesus Christ and of Greek and Roman pagan philosphers. I could care less whether Jesus was a god, a human or something of both. What he had to say changed the world for the better.

Even today on new issues of morality, the first thing I want to know is what is the position of the Roman Catholic Church on the issue. At times I agree. At times I disagree. But always I find their thinking helpful.

	29-11-2002 02:03									#164
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui GePap, exactly. While you can point to Churchmen that disagreed with slavery, you can easily point to those that backed it. The change in slavery came as a result of other factors, not the Church. To say slavery ended because of the Church is ludicrous.

OK, Imran, what were the "other" factors that ended slavery.

	29-11-2002 02:08									#165
	Inflate your Upload Space

Slavery is a economically inferior way of production compared to wage labour in most cases.

	29-11-2002 02:09									#166
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Uh....the Civil War?

	29-11-2002 02:18									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: OK, Imran, what were the "other" factors that ended slavery.

Already told you over and over. For someone that tells me to read things, you should really read yourself.

The tide turned against slavery after the Enlightenment, when humanists believed all men (and women) were equal and thus slavery was a blight on the world. Secular humanists like Voltaire were very big in convincing the masses that slavery should be abolished.

	29-11-2002 02:48									#168
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Wow, this is successful threadjacking! From "peaceful Islam" to "Christianity and Slavery". Why do most threads about Islam turn into threads about Christianity?

	29-11-2002 03:00									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Possibly because few around here actually knows anything about islam but a lot about christianity.

	29-11-2002 03:42									#170
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Wernazuma, many defenders of Islam always try to divert attention. However, there are others who are truly interested in discussing Islam. You and GePap included.

Last edited by Ned on 29-11-2002 at 06:18

	29-11-2002 05:37									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: OK, Imran, what were the "other" factors that ended slavery. Already told you over and over. For someone that tells me to read things, you should really read yourself. The tide turned against slavery after the Enlightenment, when humanists believed all men (and women) were equal and thus slavery was a blight on the world. Secular humanists like Voltaire were very big in convincing the masses that slavery should be abolished.

In England Rev. Wesley was an early opponent to slavery. In the later part of the 18th century and the early part of the 19th century the leaders of the anti-slavery movement were largely clergy of the new Methodist movement and a number of evangelizing Anglicans. In the US a varieyt of northern clergymen took up the cause in the 19th century. Neither Harriet Beecher Stowe nor Fredrick Douglas can hardly be called atheists. You really need to do some research before you make such sweeping, inaccurate statements.

In France the Jacobin controlled National Assembly outlawed slavery, but after the terror was put down the Directorate reinstituted it. So much for your enlightenment.

	29-11-2002 05:52									#172
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui GePap, exactly. While you can point to Churchmen that disagreed with slavery, you can easily point to those that backed it. The change in slavery came as a result of other factors, not the Church. To say slavery ended because of the Church is ludicrous.

The real question is who led the movements to end slavery in each nation that abolished it. In France the secular Jacobins abolished it, then the equally secular Directorate re-established it. I believe that it was Loiuse Phillipe who finally abolished slavery permanently following the English lead in the 1830s.

In England the horrors of the French Revolution ended for quite a while the influence of the "enlightenment". Instead the movement against slavery that culminated in legislative abolition in 1832 was led largely by clergymen.

In the US the influence of evangelists is also incontrovertable. Yes, the Freemasons also advocated abolition, but their influence was virtually eradicated by scandals in the 1830s.

Spain and Portugal abolished slavery in their colonies in the 1880s largely due to external pressure from Britain, the US and others. Slavery in their European holdings had been abolished in the 18th century.

Going back even further I might point out that the Roman empire abolished slavery in the 5th century due to the influence of Christianity. Unfortunately the northern Germans re-introduced slavery in the 10th and 11th centuries. For awhile many areas of Europe existed under dual law, one for the Germans, who kept their slaves and one for the original inhabitants. Eventually a compromise which included the watered down form of slavery known as serfdom was introduced. Contact with muslims in the 16th century re-introduced full fledged slavery. Slavery was abolished again in Europe in the 18th century and in European colonies in the 19th century. Meanwhile in the Islamic world slavery flourished essentially right up to the era of the colonialism in Africa and Asia, or right up to the end of WWI. In the absence of European occupation I am utterly cetain that slavery would still be fluorishing in those areas.

	29-11-2002 13:42									#173
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Obviously no one gives a rats ass about my explanation, the economic incentives. Oh well.

quote: In the absence of European occupation I am utterly cetain that slavery would still be fluorishing in those areas.

IS, or isn't, this just a matter of semantics? There was no real need for formal slavery as it de facto still was slavery. With superior weapons and administration it wasn't necissary. After all, who here dares to claim that there wasn't any forms of slavery in Belgian Congo?

	29-11-2002 15:20									#174
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Going back even further I might point out that the Roman empire abolished slavery in the 5th century due to the influence of Christianity. Unfortunately the northern Germans re-introduced slavery in the 10th and 11th centuries.

I still try not to get into this too much, but what the hell are you talking about? No law in the Roman Empire EVER abolished slavery.

	29-11-2002 21:33									#175
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Wernazuma III I still try not to get into this too much, but what the hell are you talking about? No law in the Roman Empire EVER abolished slavery.

May I be so bold as to conjecture.

There was a law -- passed by Diocletion, that tied the farmer to his land but also prevented anyone from displacing him from it. These farmers eventually because serfs.

Over time, farm-worker slavery was completely abandoned in favor of the new system. However, when the Goths took over the governence of Italy at the request of the Eastern Empire, they passed a law repealing Diolectians law - hence freeing the serfs.

	29-11-2002 21:48									#176
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Agreed.

now we're getting somewhere

quote: The problem seems to be those who read the Bible or the Koran "literally." In the context of the Roman Empire, the Church accepted slavery. Later it condemned it. Just as an asside, I have severe problems with Christian sects who take the Bible literally and who ignore all the wisdom of two millenia of development since. As to the OBL and his merry band of terrorists, it seems that they might be reading the Koran literally. If so, they are like the Christian fundamentalists who ignore the doctrinal developments made over the centuries.

The Taliban are exactly like Christian fundies. Al Qaeda are a bit harder to pinpoint. I don't think Al Qaeda is a religious organisation per se, there are a number of non-religious sides to Bin Laden and his merry bunch. (one small issue:. The Taliban considered shaving a sin. Yet, Al Qaeda instructs their agents to be clean shaven abroad in their training manual.)

quote: But as I am somewhat ignorant of the development of Islam, I am at this point only making observations and asking questions.

In the Middle Ages, Islam was enlightened, and Christianity brutal. The Islamic world was ahead in science, and their society was a lot more tolerant towards people with different believes than the Christians were. Just compare Islamic rule of the Holy Land with Christian rule (during the crusades).

Anno 2002, the situation is reversed. But as can be seen from history, things weren't always this bad with Islam, and things weren't always this good with Christianity. In just about any war where religion plays a part, be it a Crusade or a Jihad, that religion is usually a pretext or vehicle of the fighting side(s).

Islam in itself isn't any worse, or better, than Christianity. It's people that screw it up.

	29-11-2002 21:53									#177
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: When a religion is "universal," its mixture has led to conquest for the very purpose of spreading the religion.

interesting that you use the word universal. Check your dictionary for the meaning of the word catholic.

	29-11-2002 22:21									#178
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ned Wernazuma, many defenders of Islam always try to divert attention. However, there are others who are truly interested in discussing Islam. You and GePap included.

Arguing whether Islam is peaceful or not is always relative. Peaceful compared to what? It automatically involves all other religions because without them you have no relative scale. If you are interesting in learning about Islam why not start a thread asking what statements in the Koran support a peaceful Islam, what statements support a violent Islam? If the question were phrased that way you would be justified in asking that other religions weren't brought up. I would also be quite interested in a thread like this.

	29-11-2002 22:53									#179
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Gsmoove, I have been asking, repeatedly and for months, why Islam turned away from conquest. I don't know the exact date, but the initial conquests conducted by Arabs seemed to run out of steam in the mid 700's. Perhaps they, like the Romans, simply became overextended and they had their own Augustus/Hadrian.

	29-11-2002 23:06									#180
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

They where defeated at Tours and Poitiers in 732 (as you probably know), a conventional explanation, besides better opposition, is as far as I know that there where some internal reasons for discontent. Social and economic troubles where caused by the fact that conqured peoples got the same status as arabs after convertion, uprisisings and power struggles followed.