S
Curse of Ham? Thank you anabaptists, Quakers, and Mennonites
- Status
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
It is interesting to see who the true Christians were.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I am not making that statement here, but I do appreciate your views and respect them of course.
That is not the purpose of this thread, my purpose runs deeper than that.
Can you guess what it may be?
B
Benadam
Guest
Slavery is a word attached to numerous and various conceptions of duty to another many of which would not be considered slavery today.
That being said the slavery that is obviously wicked and came to a sinfull head in the lives of black people was the offspring of the failure of the Hebrews to fulfill the ban when they took Canaan. The social structures forming at that time are the archetypes for successfull societies of western culture. The Hebrews having an enemy population among them ineviteably restricted their freedom and incorporated them into their economic structure. The humblest duties were thus avoided and filled with the least economic strain possible.
The Judeo model formed law that insisted that slaves be treated humanely. An example in the Law of Moses is the restriction of hours a slave could be worked. They couldn’t make them work over ten hours a day and were not allowed to make them work Sundays. Wonder where the weekend comes from? Anyway, the Mosaic Law didn’t prevent this system from generating the sin that God intended to avoid by issuing the ban. The failure to obey the ban was not a failure to be as mean as God intended them to be because the Hebrews weren’t experiencing guilt for committing genocide quite the opposite. They couldn’t resist the spoils of war. Spoils that their God forbid.
If the Hebrews had fulfilled the ban the societies that sprung from them wouldn’t have inherited cultures that were desensitised to the market of humans and economies dependent on slave labor.
If the ban had been fulfilled those who clung to slavery as pressure against it mounted wouldn’t have had Sacred texts to twist in their favor.
That being said the slavery that is obviously wicked and came to a sinfull head in the lives of black people was the offspring of the failure of the Hebrews to fulfill the ban when they took Canaan. The social structures forming at that time are the archetypes for successfull societies of western culture. The Hebrews having an enemy population among them ineviteably restricted their freedom and incorporated them into their economic structure. The humblest duties were thus avoided and filled with the least economic strain possible.
The Judeo model formed law that insisted that slaves be treated humanely. An example in the Law of Moses is the restriction of hours a slave could be worked. They couldn’t make them work over ten hours a day and were not allowed to make them work Sundays. Wonder where the weekend comes from? Anyway, the Mosaic Law didn’t prevent this system from generating the sin that God intended to avoid by issuing the ban. The failure to obey the ban was not a failure to be as mean as God intended them to be because the Hebrews weren’t experiencing guilt for committing genocide quite the opposite. They couldn’t resist the spoils of war. Spoils that their God forbid.
If the Hebrews had fulfilled the ban the societies that sprung from them wouldn’t have inherited cultures that were desensitised to the market of humans and economies dependent on slave labor.
If the ban had been fulfilled those who clung to slavery as pressure against it mounted wouldn’t have had Sacred texts to twist in their favor.
A
anode
Guest
There are two notorious papal bulls, both authored by Nicholas V in 1452 and 1455m, which explicitly authorized by slavery, especially by conquering armies and the Portuguese.
(Emphasis mine)
** Romanus Pontifex 1455 Nicholas V.
“We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them **and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, **and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit – by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid Infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors”.
By the same Pope, Nicholas V, in 1452, in the Bull ***Dum Diversas:
*** authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery.
The point is, that the Anabaptists, et.c could say or justify what they wished, but their views had relatively little effect on the slave trade, in contrast to the many and powerful other Protestant abolitionists in Britain and the US, who helped end it. .
On the other hand, the impact of the papal bulls in ultra-Catholic Portugal, for example, enabled the taking of untold multitudes of slaves from Africa to the West Indies.**
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
There are two notorious papal bulls, both authored by Nicholas V in 1452 and 1455m, which explicitly authorized by slavery, especially by conquering armies and the Portuguese.
(Emphasis mine)
** Romanus Pontifex 1455 Nicholas V.
“We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them **and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, ****and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit – by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid Infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors”.
By the same Pope, Nicholas V, in 1452, in the Bull ***Dum Diversas:
*** authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery.
The point is, that the Anabaptists, et.c could say or justify what they wished, but their views had relatively little effect on the slave trade, in contrast to the many and powerful other Protestant abolitionists in Britain and the US, who helped end it. .
On the other hand, the impact of the papal bulls in ultra-Catholic Portugal, for example, enabled the taking of untold multitudes of slaves from Africa to the West Indies.
If I were a believer, I would say “can I get an Amen?”
L
Leo1984
Guest
There was no Gitmo back then. They could either kill the Muslims, or make them slaves. They certainly couldn’t just let them go, since the Muslims would certainly be back with a larger army.
So…kill them or enslave them? I think, as politically incorrect as this sounds today, that slavery is the better deal.
So…kill them or enslave them? I think, as politically incorrect as this sounds today, that slavery is the better deal.
A
anode
Guest
Not by much, it wasn’t. Portugal* dealt in slaves. Captured them, shipped them around often under appalling conditions causing a high death and suicide rate and sold them. It was a very profitable* business.** The church thought that it was saving their–the slaves’–immortal souls. The church often used this excuse. The major movement against slavery was initiated and sustained by Protestants.
B
Benadam
Guest
Nobody challenged slavery untill it’s most immoral manifestation became an institution. Sailing to another nation and taking hostage innocent people for no other reason than that they could. Before that kind of slavery it was a means to resolve various difficulties of war or debt.
L
Leo1984
Guest
Portugal = the Catholic church how? I am very glad that Protestants sustained the anti-slavery movement, especially since virtually all slave owners in America and England were Protestants. You could just say that they were cleaning house.
Dealing with prisoners of war and enslaving innocent free people are two totally different things.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
In America, yes. What about say, Brazil?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Leo…
You might have a point…if the Muslims at the time were actually the invading force. The problem with your argument is that they weren’t attacking Rome, Portugal or Spain. It was, unfortunately, the other way around.
Sorry about that.
…oh…just as an aside…Black African natives were not, as a rule, Muslim. You knew that, right?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
A brave Mormon comes on a thread about slavery. Can you tell me what delightsome or delightful and white means?
D
dianaiad
Guest
It means “pure and delightsome,” as you can read in the quote you think you are taking, m’friend.
…and I really do not think you want to go comparing LDS racism to that of most other religions. Did we have a racist policy until 1978? Yep. Did it take riots or violence to change that? Nope–it took one statement on a sunny June morning. Was that announcement greated with horror, wholesale gasping and a general refusal? No, actually, except for a few die hards it was greated with great joy. Was there any hesitance about implimenting the new policy, so that there remains, after 35 years or so, any hint of racism in the CoJCoLDS? Why, no, actually, there isn’t.
(shrug) Unlike a few other religions I can see around me that are still segragated ('black congregations) or who are unequally represented by the clergy, even as they point fingers.
I hate hypocrisy, y’know?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I am hoping at some point christians will see this thread as evidence of their ever changing “morality”.
D
dianaiad
Guest
What is your problem with people who change and grow positively, Strawberryjam? People are people…and Christians are simply people who believe that Christ died for our sins. If we didn’t ever COMMIT any, He would have not needed to die, would He?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
- I would appreciate it if you did not put words into my mouth
- Christian “morality” is ever changing, and as such it is not a reliable gauge for such.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Well, your statement number two rather contradicts your accusation in statement #1; it seems that you put those words in your own mouth. (shrug) Nevermind.
The thing is, I AM LDS. We believe in eternal progression…in growth and in maturing in morality, grace and knowledge. It is, in fact, the POINT.
I believe that goes for entire groups as well as for individuals. If it were not, why does God bother to talk to prophets, and why did He bother to send His Son?
It seems to me that we should celebrate that growth, not condemn it. However, I am not sanguine about this; I do realize that in the view of some, there is no way to win. If we do not change a policy you disagree with, then we are all evil and immoral because we do not change. However, if we DO change, then we are all frauds, hypocrites, evil and immoral because we don’t ‘stick to our principles.’
So…I guess the best way to handle it is to just do what we do and figure that you are welcome to think as you wish.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
If your belief is “truth” is ever changing, then exactly how is it beneficial to rely on such things?
Can you give me a basic outline of morality from your church’s start to the present day and honestly look at the alterations and accomadations it made to government in spite of what your prophets proclaimed?
I am not singling Mormons out here, but since you joined in I think especially your voice is important for people to consider when trying to evaluate the ever changing morality of christians who “hear things” from their God/prophets/ whatever other things
A
anode
Guest
Can you tell me how many Protestants there were in Portugal during the spreading of its slave trading empire? Not too many–alive and unburnt, that is.
There were quite a few slave-owning Catholics in the southern US, btw.
- Status