It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by troubleshooter
I did not say that...
...I am a historian and simply presented facts about China's relationship with Christianity...
...Christianity has not been involved in the politics or economic success of China.
Christianity was definitely a major factor in the rise and success of the West...
...you can not discount this if you know western history at all.
Is it coincidental that as Christianity is in decline in the West...
...that its economic strength and innovation is also in decline?
As I asked, what do you have against Chinese Christians?
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Originally posted by hippomchippo
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by inforeal
We all know what happened in the past, and we need to take into consideration the mindset of the people during that point in human history,
One needs to acknowledge the strides and reforms Christianity has taken to improve, we all need to grow up.
Christianity did not improve itself, the people forced it to change with the times.
I think in many ways, both were responsible, from all the ancient history I have read on the subject,
But the lack by some to even give an inch when it comes to Christians, speaks volumes.
As I asked, what do you have against Chinese Christians ?
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by FriedrichNeecher
You wanna run that by me one more time?
thanks
Originally posted by FriedrichNeecher
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by FriedrichNeecher
You wanna run that by me one more time?
thanks
If you provide your reason for not accepting the obvious in what I claim, which is that heretics cannot accurately represent orthodoxy b y their heresy, and secondly, those unschooled in any discipline cannot accurately understand or represent it to others, then yes, I can reprise the basic elements for you, if you tell me which of the obvious points escape you..
Originally posted by hippomchippo
Originally posted by FriedrichNeecher
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by FriedrichNeecher
You wanna run that by me one more time?
thanks
If you provide your reason for not accepting the obvious in what I claim, which is that heretics cannot accurately represent orthodoxy b y their heresy, and secondly, those unschooled in any discipline cannot accurately understand or represent it to others, then yes, I can reprise the basic elements for you, if you tell me which of the obvious points escape you..
In which context could slavery be allowed?
Originally posted by FriedrichNeecher
Can YOU point out where it does?
Originally posted by FriedrichNeecher
Perhaps the real problem is that christianity isnt modiftable into a functional government. It's at deathseeking suiciadal cult of sorts, which makes for very poor governance.
On the other hand THere are intac political systems in both the koran and the old testament.
I fear we're at cross purposes, comparing intact theocracy and a simple system of voluntary morality. TO assume there is any real parallel between morality and governance suggests one isnt paying much attention.
Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by FriedrichNeecher
God is practical so each of the major religions tolerated slavery. This is the case because slavery in ancient times was a necessary institution, according to this idea.
Though as I pointed out on another thread Muhammad actually freed thousands of slaves and told others to do the same, while not strictly abolishing it.
As for Christianity, Paul himself said that slaves should obey their masters.
The religions tolerated it as a necessary evil while at the same time advocating it’s eventual abolishment.
Originally posted by hippomchippo
Originally posted by FriedrichNeecher
Can YOU point out where it does?
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
Some aren't actually in the bible but are from very high up members of the church during the time, but several of those are straight from the "Good" book.
Originally posted by FriedrichNeecher
FAIL, sorry. Slaves in christ is a metaphore, and voluntary, making the slavery definition moot. Christian dont make slaves of others, involuntarily, unlike jews and muslims which attribute affilliation involuntarily by decree of one sort or another. Ya know, just cause the word exists in a phrase, it doesnt make its'eaning the exact same.
There is no word or implication by the founder, ie Jesus, which forces anyone to do anything, and tTHAT"S the operative fact, whether you choose to avoid it or not. You seem to persist in an overly legalistic interpretation of assignement of christianity to the unwilling, totally at odds with written doctrine Gain I ask, If I involve myself in criminality in your name, against your directives does that make you liable anyway?
Really the concepts are applicable and logical in this discoruse of others, wherin one cannot usurp authority of something simply by force of will. A thing is what it is, and anything different is something different. Simple, elegant, and dang irritating to those that find restriction of their own goals in it.
oh and the laws of the hebrews in the old testement are superceded by jesus and as such whatever is in leviticus is of no concern. The god of the old testement cannot be the god of the new, and THAT is obvious to anyone that can compare and contrast.edit on 8-3-2011 by FriedrichNeecher because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by hippomchippo
First, I don’t advocate any kind of slavery, BUT
Think for a minute. In pre-modern times we didn’t have welfare and food stamps.
Those ancient folks were very primitive in a sense, so an institution like slavery was so imbedded in the societies that total abolition of slavery at that time would have been impossible. The same thing goes for polygamy. That institution was slowly stopped over time in western religious history, as it is presently being stopped in Islam
If anything God is eminently practical.
Also, would ancient Rome ever have accepted Christianity [ a step forward in a sense] if it abolished slaves?
Of course not, in ancient Rome almost one third of the population was a slave.
You have to understand the mentality of the pre-modern man. It wasn’t like today where we have institutions and modern utilities and learning. Back then people rarely knew how to read or right. They were very primitive. Any kind of religious philosophy would have been hard to go over with those ancient people.