Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And THAT makes the church a leader in women's rights?!?!?
That is an amazingly inane thread of a thought.
The person might be exaggerating, but Jesus clearly had women followers in prominent roles. Even Paul states something positive about a female merchant. Several early Christian women gained renown in a way pretty rare in most religions.
And not just for cooking or cleaning. Priscilla and Phoebe are mentioned as deaconesses. Kings and princes reportedly sought the advice of Hilda of Whitby. The first play written by a woman was by a Catholic nun named Hrotsvitha. Catherine of Siena lectured Popes. The Quakers went further allowing women to preach and do other things. Many of the first suffragists were Quakers.
What you had at that time was a personal battle between good and evil.
The left hand (Democrat) keeping the black man down. The right hand (Christan) trying to lift him up. The right hand dominant became Republicans. The left, the racist democrats we know so well.
Just like human beings, political parties evolve over time.
The parties of the mid-19th century do not resemble present day parties in the least, neither in demographics nor ideology.
Christians did indeed bring slavery to this Continent, enslaving Africans and in some cases during our early Colonial Period, 1st Nations people as well. And they did indeed use the bible as justification FOR that enslavment.
And one of the biggest Abolishionist of the time was Ralph Emerson Waldo, an Athiest. William Loyd Garrison and Robert Ingersoll are two other big names in Abolishion, who were also Athiest.
Christians did indeed help abolish slavery, but it was Christians who put it in place as well.
Simply put. The contents of the Bible are products of THEIR times. Put that into perspective and you can understand half the nonsense you read in there. The problem starts when people take it serious enough to believe it was authored by some perfect deity and then have to keep trying to defend questions like these that are within the lines of the Socratic Method (which I love, by the way). In short the question goes like this:
"If slavery is bad and evil (we don't care how you try to dress it up) and your god is perfect an good, why the hell is he, through his so-called "inspired" mouthpiece, condoning it, even giving instructions on how to carry out the institution?"
Note, the two (god and slavery) should not be in the same sentence - a perfect god authorizing slavery (ANY kind). And we have not even gotten to the scripture where Moses (supposedly speaking for this god) orders the Israelites to storm cities and enslave the people whether they surrender peacefully or not.
"If slavery is bad and evil (we don't care how you try to dress it up) and your god is perfect an good, why the hell is he, through his so-called "inspired" mouthpiece, condoning it, even giving instructions on how to carry out the institution?"
Simply put. The contents of the Bible are products of THEIR times. Put that into perspective and you can understand half the nonsense you read in there. The problem starts when people take it serious enough to believe it was authored by some perfect deity and then have to keep trying to defend questions like these that are within the lines of the Socratic Method (which I love, by the way). In short the question goes like this:
"If slavery is bad and evil (we don't care how you try to dress it up) and your god is perfect an good, why the hell is he, through his so-called "inspired" mouthpiece, condoning it, even giving instructions on how to carry out the institution?"
Note, the two (god and slavery) should not be in the same sentence - a perfect god authorizing slavery (ANY kind). And we have not even gotten to the scripture where Moses (supposedly speaking for this god) orders the Israelites to storm cities and enslave the people whether they surrender peacefully or not.
He didn't authorize slavery as it was known in the 1800's Americas.
He didn't authorize slavery as it was known in the 1800's Americas.
Wait a minute here...
You bible thumpers say that the Bible is the infallible word of God, and God is omniscient, so if he says slavery is all well and good he must have foreseen the slavery of the 1800s.
If not, he is not omniscient, or the Bible is not the infallible word of God.
You cannot have it both ways.
<Well, you folks think you can, but rational folks like us do not accept such nonsense.>
He didn't authorize slavery as it was known in the 1800's Americas.
Chattel slavery was used 2,000 years ago as well.
And there were laws put in place in the early 19th century to keep Abolishionists, from the North and South, from freeing slaves left and right, thus flooding the market with cheap labor. Even still, after a long court process in which a few considerations were examined, such as education and lack of a "criminal" background, a slave could then be freed.
Many of the freemen inhabitants of Freetown PA were freed in this manner.
Slavery, and indeed the ideal of Manifest Destiny that pushed our western border to the Atlantic and reulted in the near extinction of the 1st Nation's cultures and religions, were in fact excused using the bible.
Slavery, and indeed the ideal of Manifest Destiny that pushed our western border to the Atlantic and reulted in the near extinction of the 1st Nation's cultures and religions, were in fact excused using the bible.
Forcibly sterilizing the disabled and banning certain immigrants from entering the country were excused using Darwin. Massive starvation and persecutions were excused using Lamarckian evolution. The Chinese expand into Uighur and Tibetan land, persecuting both, without a Biblical reason in sight.
That you can excuse evil with something is not necessarily that meaningful.
He didn't authorize slavery as it was known in the 1800's Americas.
This is like trying to compare the different types of domestic abuse.
I can believe that me, a black man and former Christian, used to actually defend this foolishness by saying, "well, biblical slavery was not as bad as African slavery" as if to EXCUSE and accept ANY kind of slavery to ANY people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
