• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

1452 Pope Nicholas V Authorizes Slavery

As we know history, the crusades started because a christian religious leader, the pope, wanted to stop the new influence of the islamic movement. He saw that it is starting to spread similar to what christianity has done starting the 3rd century. Its purely because of insecurity, and that is the motivation for the crusades. Regardless, the 2 religions just want to go through wasteful wars and this will be never ending. If it does end, more and more new religions will crop up to keep the vicious cycle.
 
Plitical Analyst: Religions = Wars
 
And just who are they?

If you cannot read the screen names of my opponents whom I’ve called neo-barbarians, neo-pagans and neo cannibals, I hope you still have an intellectual ability to read your own name.

Are you kidding me? So Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; and Colossians 4:1 are figments of my imagination?

No, they are not. And I am not kidding. The intellectual pornography is to say that the Bible is SUNCTIONING slavery. It is the same as to say that ‘’give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give God what is God ‘’ is sanctioning the power of the Caesar and monarchy. You would have to be who you are in order to imagine that establishing slavery and/or any political system is SANCTIONED by the Bible. If one puts Biblical passages about slavery together and into historical sequence and perspective, one cannot, in right mind, make a conclusion that the Bible is Sanctioning slavery. And so I did – I put them together and into perspective and submitted for ppl with normal intellect. Your perverted intellect cannot grasp the simple concept, that you have to take in consideration, reply or question, but not to ignore, premises and arguments of an opponent that lead the opponent to a conclusion, before stating your opinion that the conclusion is wrong. Or, at least, you have to provide some arguments how the 3 scriptures, pointed by you are different or contradicting to my quotes, and how in the world they SANCTION slavery, as a principal of Christianity.
Even the neo-cannibal politic analyst is capable of grasping such a simple concept, -he, at least, made an attempt to address some of my arguments that looked wrong to him. I am not sure I can put you on the same level of a neo-barbarian as him, you’d rather should be found on a level of a Ne-o-anderthal .

So what are your contra-arguments, if any?

I am quite sure everything Atheists say is in the bible, is actually there.

You belief is blind, as well as many other of your beliefs, and, as always, it is not supported by facts. I am still waiting to see where in the Bible Christ is a supreme leader for Christians and where he addressed punishment of slaves. Neither you nor other atheists can say what is actually in the Bible. One of the reasons, as I have pointed, is that the Bible is grossly about spiritual things that may difficult for shallow souls to understand.


All of the criticisms of your scripture in say "The God Delusion" are valid.

As long as you say so. A Ne-oandertal does not need to cite premises and arguments to support his conclusions, they are valid because he believes in them.

And atheists are not fighting for a world where Christianity is oppressed. Simply one where people acknowledge that faith is not a virtue, and that we should never cease to scrutinize the reasons people have the beliefs that they do, that effect their lives and our so.

OK, you can put my words in your way. It is correct, in your world you would scrutinize Christian beliefs; but you would not scrutinize your beliefs, whatever cannibalistic they are. The first cannibalistic belief of yours is that faith is not a You have expressed your dream about very directed towards one side oppression.


God showed who the way out of slavery? You do realize that Christians had slaves only up until recently, and there is no historical evidence to support the Exodus story.

This is what I call the intellectual pornography, intellectual fart, showing me your naked butt. The topic does not discuss if the Bible is truth, the topic is to discuss history and relation Christianity and slavery whether the Bible has an evidence or not. And originally the topic was one bull. So, I am far away from my original post, and now you want completely to derail the discussion.

If you do not agree with my premises and arguments – go ahead, argue. Do you disagree that the Bible was given to the enslaved nation called by G-d, “’my people”’? Do you disagree that they were the first and the only treating their slaves as spiritually equal and protecting them - like they were not slaves, but foolish and lazy children, - while surrounded by ruthless, violent and unruly slavery practiced by all other humans? Do you see that I misquoted the passages, do you have passages contradicting to the ones quoted by me?

Christianity was making its way out of slavery imposed on it by the world it was born into and it was a difficult way making Christians to stay strongly on the positions expressed hundreds years and to defend the same positions today, often in the struggle with atheism.

Christians look at slavery as at their past experience, for many who started Christianity were slaves and Christ came for them and completely equated them with others.

Genesis 15 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 13 Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years.


Exodus IS the historical evidence. You are saying, - it is not an evidence.
Why? – I ask.
- Because it says G-d exists, but I believe, there is no G-d.
- Why do you believe G-d does not exist?
- Because there is no evidence.
-
Sure in your mind you are logical.
-
A,B,C,D…Z are not events of evidence. Why? Because they say G-d exist. Why G-d does not exist? Because there is no single evidence.

Thus I would rather leave you with Jerry… You make nice partners…

Again you have ignored my repeated Q: WHAT WAS THE CHOICE? Would an African slave be better off if he was a slave of a Muslim, or a slave of an African chief, or if he was a slave owner in Africa, if he was not a slave of a Christian? The best dream of a slave was, as a rule, to become a slave owner, for no better reality was known to the mind of a slave. The way out of mutual violence, slavery, murder due hatred, has not been short and fast, but there has been only way, only light and only truth. And it is still a struggle in the world, as we can see millions of new slaves made by atheists in the XX century, and in this century. God bless all Christian missionaries bringing the way, light and the truth and freedom for the suffering human souls today, right now. And damn you when you say that they bring the Bible sanctioning slavery.

Umm these people oppressed religion because they wanted people to worship the state. These men were not doing the harm they did for the sake of Atheism. Hitler however professed his Christianity.
Hitler, fortunately, had his thoughts steno graphed with a time stamp: 10th October, 1941, midday
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity <is> the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

There is no difference between your views, words of other atheists here and Hitler’s. And they are in archives of DP.


No, they did not harm for the sake of atheism. They harmed for the sake of freedom of oppressed people, for the sake of fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general, for the sakeof human well-being and individual responsibility, for secularism, for scientific approach to all aspects of life, etc., for eqaulity of all people in the world.
They could put such principals forward only on the base of atheism, and so they all were atheists, as the matter of fact, no exclusion made. They were the slaves who made their dream true, - they became slave owners, and…. as always, they were not better off than slaves.
They were making rules on the base of science, logic and reasoning. Their fundamental bible “’Capital’’ was dedicated to Darwin and it used the same scientific approach, as Darwin. In order to do make their rules they had to make the first step – to deny any virtue to the rules of G-d. As Hitler was “’professing ‘’ Christianity, they were professing freedom of religion, but they were too impatient to wait for it to ‘’die little by little’’. Atheism was and is a crucial, requred check point, a passport to cannibalism, I mean, communism. It is the base.

I would say that all atheists are potential cannibals and communists, and they are slaves. That is true about myself, since I used to be an atheist. It has been very difficult to squeeze a slave out of myself, a drop by a drop. But freedom is an awsome award. So, I also know that atheists are potentially free men. It is always balancing on an edge for a human in order not to fall into cannibalism, it is always the question of good and evil inside, but there is the light, the way, and the truth that can lead and support.
 
First you seem to argue that Biblical rules on slavery are just like rules on "fools and children."


It is not me who argues. The Bible speaks for itself. I hardly made a comment. For it is clear that the slavery mentioned among Israelites is different from slavery you are trying to impose on the Bible in the first place. One to make a free choice to sell himself into slavery , and thus the buyer had an obligation to take of the needs of the seller, and the seller was in title to eat the same food as buyer. It is totally different from the meaning imposed by you. Accordingly, the rules are different. When a free person makes a decision to sell himself for slavery, it is far away from the slavery in your meaning. When, according to the Bible, rules for fools and children are just like rules for slaves, one hardly can suppose that fools and children were just like slaves in your meaning, for nothing in the Bible speaks about children in such a way. Only a perverted mind would say that children in the Bible were just like slaves, and the Bible sanctioned slavery of children. And so you have not quoted contradicting passages.


Then your seem to argue that the Bible allowed slavery because everyone else was doing it.


No, I am arguing exactly and consistently that the Bible does not allow the slavery everyone was doing. Moreover the Bible calls Egypt the land of slavery, but it does not call the place G-d’s people escaped to a land of slavery, and your proposition of the opposite would not fit the meanings of Exodus quoted by me. Moreover the Bible punishes the land of slavery.
And so I hardly commented the passages.

Another thought is that slavery was the only reality surrounding the G-d’s people from everywhere. One cannot blame reality for being reality. And even if G-d’s people had a system reminding slavery in your meaning it still was a big step towards Christianization of human relations, and thus it was opening a possibility for further steps. But it has not been seen yet, that their slavery was any similar to the slavery surrounding them. I can suppose some similarities, but I am not recalling the passages pointing to it, after many ones contradicting to such a supposition. And so you have not quoted contradicting passages.

Then you cite selected passages which appear to show that slaves should not be treated too badly and all are in the spirit.


I do not cite passages THEN, I cite passages and them passages and they speak for themselves. That is you description of the passages, but you have to show where do you see they were treated badly, but not too badly. These passages are another confirmation in the raw of other confirmations, that they were not treated as slaves in the meaning of slavery commonly associated today with the word slavery. I am not a Biblical scholar or historian, and I cannot prescribe exact meaning, but certainly, no slavery of your type is induced by the passages. It is certainly some kind of other relations.
You are free to select passages confirming your idea. But you cannot since your idea is not rooted in the Bible.

You cite an excerpt of 1 Timothy for the proposition that "slave traders" are mixed in with other bad folks.

2) What version of the Bible is that?

These and many other versions do not have the word "slave traders" in them, but refer to "manstealers" or "kidnappers".

That wouldn't be the blasphemous NIV version you're relying on, would it?


What is your look at men stealers and kidnappers, -what would be the fate of the men kidnapped and stolen? Slaves, my friend, slaves, and only slaves, and those who steal and kidnap are slave traders in your meaning of slavery, - unless I am not predicting another possible perversion coming from you. And it is your next perversion to say that they are mixed with other bad folks. Those folks are outlaws in the Bible, they are slave traders and they represent slavery, as we meaning it today, - and they, slave trade and forcible slavery are outlaws in the Bible. But they are different from the slavery when a freeman makes a free decision to sell himself. Like today a free men decide to sell themselves into slavery to gangs and drugs and end up behind the bars, as the result, for it said that foolishness and laziness leads to slavery, and that is still the truth today. The only question is: are we more cruel to our slaves than G-d’s people were, when we do not use rods?


The rest of your argument seems to be a diatribe about how folks "pervert" the Bible, apparently for suggesting that it sanctions slavery when in today's world, slavery is very un-PC, and we couldn't have God being un-PC, could we?


…what?

Instead of the faith-based "intellectual pornograhy" [cute phrase, I might use dishonesty] you engage in to try to explain away something that is patently obvious, why don't you be honest about what is black and white in the Bible and admit that condoning slavery is exactly what it does.

The intellectual pornography I mostly see is conservative so-called literalists picking and choosing parts of the OT to use to fit their political agenda. And the worst group of all are the blasphemers who created and promote the NIV, which twists the words of the Bible around for that same purpose.

__________________

I am glad you can appreciate the expression, and I appreciate that you refer to my copy rights when you use it.

As you can see in the above, NIV or not, it does not change a thing in the only passage that you questioned. Please, feel free to substitute any of my quotes for the version that is more close to your heart. NIV was the first that came on my screen and I am not so picky when it comes to English, as you should know, and if knowing me you still think that I am promoting my version of English, that is a pervert idea as well… no I don’t

You’ve used “”sanctioning”’ and ‘’condoning’’ and overlooking – and these are 3 different positions. Thus you are looking for a way to blame G-d, purposely choosing words fitting your agenda. It is difficult to believe that you do not understand the nature of the Bible and G-d. That’s why I used words intellectual pornography, - that instead of looking without pre-judgment you were choosing words fitting your pre-judgment in order to justify it. That is twisting and perversion, intellectual pornography.

If to follow your method one can say that G-d sanctioned power of Cesar, monarchy, colonization, taxes and all other sins of humanity. But that is not essence of G-d – to furnish a finished and complete rules of social and state organization and prevent humans from sinning. That is a totally opposite to the design of G-d and the Bible. Humans have to struggle and make their own choices, and they also have to have their own achievements. Choice of foolishness and laziness ends in slavery. As the consistent position of the catholic Church quoted here was not a rebellion against the Bible under any pressure from outside, as the position of other churches were are not a rebellion against the Bible, - as you are suggesting, - they have to come from the bible and they do refer to the bible. If it was not for Christianity you would still be a slave of Muslims, or barbarians, or pagans, or even worse, - you would be a barbarian slave owner, and those variants had no Bible given inside them as a way out.

G-d neither sanctioned, no condoned no allowed slavery for G-d’s people. He showed for all people practicing slavery around his people the way out of slavery, - through the Bible, starting from Exodus, and he never promised that was going to be an easy way out.

Out of two of us G-d is not an evil doer. I am.
 
As we know history, the crusades started because a christian religious leader, the pope, wanted to stop the new influence of the islamic movement. He saw that it is starting to spread similar to what christianity has done starting the 3rd century. Its purely because of insecurity, and that is the motivation for the crusades. Regardless, the 2 religions just want to go through wasteful wars and this will be never ending. If it does end, more and more new religions will crop up to keep the vicious cycle.

What do you mean we, white man?
 
Dear Just One, .

I had spent at least 5 seconds of my life thinking out my screen name, and, at least, 2 months of my life before I started liking it. Your perversion is not appreciated.
As well, formally, if you start from Dear, you should finish with sincerely yours, or truly yours. That is another perversion of yours.

You stated above:
You have perverted and twisted history in all your previous posts, and so you’re doing it again when you are lying that the Church started history of war with the Muslims.

The study of History is about assigning blame and recognizing Virtue..

That may be so in you opinion. Study of history for me is #1 to know the truth. The blame had been assigned during history. As Pope assigned blame on Muslims and as Muslims assigned blames on atheists, Christian and Jews.

A case can be made that the Muslims were more responsible for starting the wars known as the Crusades. .

I guess, the essence of the case would be that Christians share responsibility with Muslims whatsoever. Sure, Poland shares responsibility with Hitler, and US with Japan. Only Sadam does not share any responsibility, it is all on US. That’s why I feel so uncomfortable, trying to speak to a liberal and an atheist. That is your intellectual indecency and ability to ignore the facts of history, in the same way as you have ignored all my questions and many points I already made.

My point was that the decision by Pope Urban II to raise an army to fight the Moslem occupation of Anatolia in 1095, ended in defeat a few hundred years later, and left bitterness and animosity, that might possibly have been avoided. Indeed, a more peaceful, and accomodating approach might have produced better relations and better respect for law and order, furthering commercial and cultural exchange. .

Pope made his decision on the base of information he had, pros and contras submitted to him. Since there was no lefty liberal position submitted at the time, because there was no leftists advocating the committed murders in the court of the Pope, you cannot blame him for not considering your point. Pope was surrounded by the best intellectuals of his time. None of you type did exist, yet.



You owe you freedoms to the Christianity. The teachings of Christianity is not known or understood by you for you have chosen not to know them. The policy has always been: do not seek revenge, do not rush to reply to a stupid and hustle insult by an equal insult, be patient and tolerant; but when one comes with the sword to murder and kidnap, one must die from the sword; this is where the patience of saints ends. Atheistic attempts to see JC as a pacifist is another intellectual pornography. Pacifism is a leftist movement encouraging murder and sponsored by murderers. JC is intolerant to sins, especially to murder.

At all you dislike of Christianity, still it has been the foundation and the grounds of the Western civilization, and numerous social experiments of creating another foundation conducted for the last 200 years, are the undeniable proof of the validity of teachings of JC, and thus of the existence of G-d. These are real life experiments that are proving existence of G-d. Trying to impose a new experiment, you not meeting my willingness to follow and to move away from my beliefs, the only ones that have been proven valid in relations between humans (that, in a big measure, what is ‘’science”’ of the Bible is about). Whatever kind of your own sociology or psychology you’d try to invent they are due to failure.

There is no reason to suspect Pope in intolerance or lack of diplomacy. 1000s of pilgrims unarmed and tolerant, were, at least, one of the facts of diplomacy. They were representing the Christian side, the Pope, the Church, and they meant no harm. As they were slaughtered by Muslims, Pope had to admit that the diplomacy did not work with the murderers. So, he called pilgrims to bring swords. Long after the pilgrimage was over some started calling armed pilgrims crusades.


Your misunderstanding (the words such as perversion and intellectual pornography are loosing the taste, when repeated too often) is that it ended with a defeat. It did not, it was just a part of the war between two opposite religions, opposite civilizations. Muslims were grossly defeated in following centuries.

Muslims are to kill, concur and to stay. Christians are to bring freedom and to leave. That was intention of the Pope, that was again proven when Christian civilization left in the XX century. Unfortunately history repeats itself, for Muslims cannot help starting another attack, when they are left to themselves.

It may not be continuation of the religious war for, because Christianity in its essence is not to go into religious wars with a sword, and that can be clearly seen not only from all words of JC, but what is even more important, from all his actions; while Mohammed is all about religious wars, and that clearly can be seen not only in his words, but what is more important in his actions.

Today it is a clash civilizations. Like it or not, but you are an enemy of Muslims for belonging to the civilization that has it roots in the Bible and Christianity, in teachings of Moses and JC. As long as you belong to the Western Civilization, Christian or atheist, Mohammed will be coming after you with the sword.


Similarly, George Bush decided to attack Iraq, instead of working through the UN and other diplomatic channels to bring improvements in a progressive manner. We know now that Sadam Hussein was making changes to comply with international wishes. A continued course of diplomacy would probably not have been more destructive than the total result of the deaths and injuries resulting from the years of war since the US invasion, March 20, 2003. Not to mention the resulting years of unemployment and under-employment for Iraqi residents and citizens. .


As the matter of fact Bush was vigorously working with UN. As the matter of fact UN is vastly dominated by members sympathizing to genocide, murder and oppression. As the matter of fact the proven incapability of UN to stop genocide is not an excuse for civilized people not to take a military action. As the matter of fact Sadam bribed UN and UN officials were making millions on sufferings of Iraqi ppl. As the matter of fact Sadam never recognized any authority of UN, but only the authority of the US military.
Nothing could prevent him from reaching his goals, including WMD, but US military. As the matter of fact UN actions had no effect on Sadam, but added to suffering of Iraqis. And many other facts you are missing because you swimming in a sea of lies and perversions. Accepting such a situation is not a rule for civilized people. Neo-cannibalism has to be confronted.

Bush is not a Pope nor a King. He is not even a Nazi. Insinuations of such kinds are as blinded as the hate of Muslims. It is not the level I would consider to debate. Bush just was doing his job. There is no indication for me that if it was Clinton, the actions in the same situation could be different.

Iraq is just a part of war with Muslim civilization. Wars are not won when they are started, but when they are finished. Muslims have proven to be a strong enemy. Now they are proving it again. As the matter of fact Al-Queda has chosen Iraq as a battlefield and Muslims are venting their hatred and exercising their cannibalism over there. So we did hit some good nerve.

Liberals want to establish the rule that when the enemy is strong and uses an unexpected tactic we must accept a defeat and withdraw and use diplomacy and negotiate conditions FORCED on us by the enemy by bombs and bullets.

In relation to history, I would like to send you to excellent analyses made by SySgt. Even if he is no expert on Christianity and the past, still he can draw a very realistic picture of the war and how it is a clash of civilization. And he has more time and also he is a lot more pleasant to talk to than me, - more confirmed to rules and PC . I just stop once in a while to take a spoon or two out of the sea liberal lies and perversions. It is not like am not attempting to dry the sea of lies, and it is not like it is bothering me. I have my way and my truth.

Good luck.

Sincerely yours,

justone
 
Last edited:
Dear Justone,

It seems that it was Peter the Hermit who raised the Army, and Pope Urban II did not directly raise the the armed pilgrims.

The objective of the Crusades was a continuance of a custom for Europeans to visit Jerusalem, where Jesus was crucified and buried.
 
Dear justone,

Thank you for the reference to SySgt. but I was unable to find a handle on this forum with that name, or otherwise figure out the reference.

If a handle is a combination of two names, I will often separate the words, just so I can better understand the handle. Usually, the only reason the words are combined is because of the limitations of the Forum Program.

Some of my comments are to a aparticualr person posting, sometimes my comment is general. My salutation is just be be clear if the post is addressing a particular poster.

My habit in the past has not been to include a signature, since my handle appears at the top.

Sincerely yours,
 
Lets us discuss the lessons to be learned from Antioch in 1095, as might apply to Iran and Iraq. Let us start another thread. I will try to figure out a good Thread Title.
Maybe " Iran and Iraq Policy Blunders in the Crusades and Now
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom