• 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

Gladiator

Verifier
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
4,653
Reaction score
643
Location
Suburbia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Search Dum Diversas

In 1452 Pope Nicholas V authorized the King of Portugal to enslave any and all non-believers in perpetuity. Like Forever.

Some coastal towns of Portugal had expereinced mass kidnappings in about 1410 by Barbary Pirates who sold slaves to Baghdad. Returning home after a fish8ing trip, teh portugese fisherman found their town inhabitants all kidnapped. Increasing their sea power and navigation expertise, from 1400, Portugal became aware of the established practice in Aftrica of trading for slaves. The Barbary Pirates had been trading for African Slaves since maybe 700 AD.

So Portugal began trading in African Slaves. The Portugese discovered some nearby previously uninhabited Islands that were excellent for growning Sugar Cane, which was more productive with more Aftrican Slaves. Eventually the Portugese reached Brazil, forming many plantations with Slave labor. Only 4% of the African Slaves were brought to the United States.

The 1452 Papal order has never been reversed.
 
Last edited:
Pope Paul not only condemned the slavery of Indians but also "all other peoples." In his phrase "unheard of before now", he seems to see a difference between this new form of slavery (i.e. racial slavery) and the ancient forms of just-title slavery. A few days before, he also issued a Brief, entitled Pastorale Officium to Cardinal Juan de Tavera of Toledo, which warned the Catholic faithful of excommunication for participating in slavery.

Unfortunately Pope Paul made reference to the King of Castile and Aragon in this Brief. Under political pressure, the Pope later retracted this Brief but did not annul the Bull. It is interesting to note that even though he retracted his Brief, Popes Gregory XIV, Urban VIII and Benedict XIV still recognized and confirmed its authority against slavery and the slave trade.

Popes Gregory XIV (Cum Sicuti, 1591), Urban VIII (Commissum Nobis, 1639) and Benedict XIV (Immensa Pastorum, 1741) also condemned slavery and the slave trade. Unlike the earlier papal letters, these excommunications were more directed towards the clergy than the laity. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo. Its main focus was against slave trading, but it also clearly condemned racial slavery:

We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples. [Ibid., pp.101]

Unfortunately a few American bishops misinterpreted this Bull as condemning only the slave trade and not slavery itself. Bishop John England of Charleston actually wrote several letters to the Secretary of State under President Van Buren explaining that the Pope, in In Supremo, did not condemn slavery but only the slave trade (Ibid., pp. 67-68).

With all these formal condemnations, it is a shame that the Popes were largely ignored by the Catholic laity and clergy. Two Catholic nations were largely involved with slave trafficking. Many Catholics at that time owned or sold slaves. Even some Catholic bishops during the 19th-century appeared to support slavery. The Popes were so ignored that some people today claim that they were silent. These sins brought great scandal to Christ’s Church.

No one today cites any Christian authority supporting slavery.

It is wrong and the practice should be abolished.
 
Hey Felicity

:doh Sorry...I meant the OP...The first site after Wiki on such the search he suggests is Popes For Slavery - Romanus Pontifex by Pope Nicholas V --and it has the gist of the "information" he presents. That group is schismatic.

Thanks.

Is "schismatic" another way for you to say "not REAL Christians, like us Catholics"?

600px-ChristianityBranches.svg.png
 
Slavery is currently still Legal in Sudan and I believe Darfur. Real estate prices may be cheap, given the political unrest.
 
Re: Hey Felicity

Is "schismatic" another way for you to say "not REAL Christians, like us Catholics"?

600px-ChristianityBranches.svg.png

No...schismatics are Christians too--just not in union with the the Church.

...why the unnecessary nasty statement?:confused:
 
Dear Felicity,

So you agree that the 1452 Papal authorization of Slavery of un-believers, forever is accurate. The Catholic Church does not deny the authenticity of the English Translation.

You seem to say that the people who publish the 1452 Papal Bull are the ones who are wrong.

Is there any way a Pope today, could write another Papal Bull stating that "The 18 June 1452 Papal Writing authorizing Slavery is Hereby Revoked?"

What are your feelings about the role ot the Catholic church in the origins of hte trans-Atlantic slave trade? If the Pop had used his moral authority to protect Human Rights, might history have been different?

What about the Islamic Barbary Pirates. Is there a realtionship of the Barbary Pirates to Islamic Terroism Today? What are the lessons we could learn?
 
Dear Felicity,

So you agree that the 1452 Papal authorization of Slavery of un-believers, forever is accurate. The Catholic Church does not deny the authenticity of the English Translation.

You seem to say that the people who publish the 1452 Papal Bull are the ones who are wrong.

Is there any way a Pope today, could write another Papal Bull stating that "The 18 June 1452 Papal Writing authorizing Slavery is Hereby Revoked?"

Did you read Bhkad's post...he didn't give the link but it addresses the issue you raise.


http://cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a003.html
From 1435 to 1890, we have numerous bulls and encyclicals from several popes written to many bishops and the whole Christian faithful condemning both slavery and the slave trade. The very existence of these many papal teachings during this particular period of history is a strong indication that from the viewpoint of the Magisterium, there must have developed a moral problem of a different sort than any previously encountered. In this article I will address three- from many more-of the responses of the papal Magisterium to the widespread enslavement that accompanied the Age of Discovery and beyond.

Eugene IV: Sicut Dudum, 1435

On January 13, 1435, Eugene IV issued from Florence the bull Sicut Dudum. Sent to Bishop Ferdinand, located at Rubicon on the island of Lanzarote, this bull condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. The Pope stated that after being converted to the faith or promised baptism, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved:

"They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (subdiderunt perpetuae servituti), sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them.... Therefore We ... exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands ... who have been made subject to slavery (servituti subicere). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."

The date of this Bull, 1435, is very significant. Nearly 60 years before the Europeans were to find the New World, we already had the papal condemnation of slavery as soon as this crime was discovered in one of the first of the Portuguese geographical discoveries.

Eugene IV was clear in his intentions both to condemn the enslavement of the residents of the Canary Islands, and to demand correction of the injustice within 15 days. Those who did not restore the enslaved to their liberty in that time were to incur the sentence of excommunication ipso facto.

With Sicut Dudum, Eugene was clearly intending to condemn the enslavement of the people of the Canaries and, in no uncertain terms, to inform the faithful that what was being condemned was what we would classify as gravely wrong. Thus, the unjust slavery that had begun in the newly found territories was condemned, condemned as soon as it was discovered, and condemned in the strongest of terms.



Also see: Catholic Apologetics International - Robert Sungenis Question #13
 
Dear Falicity,

Thank you for the Papal Bull of 1435.

The Portugese Slave trade was authorized in 1452, and grew in scope and magnitude after that date. At first plantations were established on offshore uninhabited Islands, and slaves wre brought from the West coast of Africa. The plantaions and slave labor were spread Westward, to the Carribean and the Americas. During this key period of expansion of Slavery, the Pope's 1452 authorization for Portugal to capture non-believer slaves was in force

The Roman Catholic Church was apparently inconsistent in its disapproval of Slavery. Some Catholic Priests and Bishops owned slaves.

So your point is that since the Catholic Church made some statements against Slavery, that no revocation of Dum Diversas is necessary? Is there anything Catholics, or the Catholic Church could do to rectify their inconsistency?

.
 
Leviticus Chapter 25

44 "'As for your male and your female slaves, whom you may have; of the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you may buy, and of their families who are with you, which they have conceived in your land; and they will be your property.

Any biblical based religion that has this passage surely believed in slavery. This was according to their ancestors the word of their god. Anything that changes this belief makes them hypocrites or enemies of their god.
 
Catechism of Catholic Church Catechism of the Catholic Church - The seventh commandment

2414 ''The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord."194


Sublimus Dei :

Sublimus Dei
Given by His Holiness Pope Paul III
March 29, 1537

‘’ We, .. consider, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare… the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. ‘’

One should remember that the Church was surrounded by slavery. Africans, South and North Americans, Muslims as well as all pagans and barbarians were practicing slavery. Their slavery was different from the slavery of the Bible. They had no civilized rules, protecting rights of slaves, nothing like rules of the Bible. Africans and Native Americans used to eat their slaves, they used to eat even their relatives. That was the reality the Church had to face. That was the world the Christianity was born into, the world Christianity was surviving and spreading in. (I am not even talking about civilized slavery of ancient Rome and Greece, the one which is so admired by neo-pagans so often here.) And there was nobody standing or thinking about humanity and human rights, but the Catholic Church.
Pagans and barbarians knew no laws, they knew instincts of cruelty and violence and slavery.


One should really read the story of Catholic missionaries, ‘’Black fathers”’ going alone, with no weapons, but the Bible, perishing, being eaten and burned, but establishing civilization. The acts of Jesuits in South America were causing admiration among most bloody barbarians and cannibals, so they were turning and converting. Neo- barbarians and neo-cannibals know no such admiration.

It seems that Christianity still has to survive in the same kind of surroundings. Neo-barbarians know only their animal instincts. Muslims, neo-pagans and neo-cannibals are attacking the Church and are demanding an apology, some “’revocation.” The Church does not want to apologize, I guess. May be because demands of “’revocation”’ are just a cover, but in the reality, the Neo-cannibals want the Church not to be at all. They want their human rights back, the rights to kill the neighbor, to enslave the neighbor and to eat the neighbor, to pleasure their animal instincts. They do not want to hear about highest dignity of a human and human life, some highest purpose of life. They laugh with a laugh of a cannibal when they hear about human soul, - no soul, but just flesh exists for the neo-cannibals. They always prove that they have never had a soul for a snack, so there is no such thing as a soul. Certainly, one can see, how the greatness of the Church is bothering them and their purpose of satisfying their hunger and their animal instincts. If centuries ago they had have weapons and ships, they would have attacked Christians and enslave and eat them; Christians never had goals or animal feelings of that type. I guess, The Church has no need to revoke the bull and to rewrite the history. Rewriting and perverting history is the agenda of neo-barbarians and neo-cannibals. Now they have ships and weapons and they can write. Was it a big mistake of the Catholic Church to treat them as people with a soul and to teach them how to write? Should the Church apologize for such a mistake?

P.S. I am not a Catholic, just an admirer.
 
Catechism of Catholic Church Catechism of the Catholic Church - The seventh commandment

2414 ''The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord."


Sublimus Dei :

Sublimus Dei
Given by His Holiness Pope Paul III
March 29, 1537


’ We, .. consider, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare… the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. ‘’
One should remember that the Church was surrounded by slavery. Africans, South and North Americans, Muslims as well as all pagans and barbarians were practicing slavery. Their slavery was different from the slavery of the Bible. They had no civilized rules, protecting rights of slaves, nothing like rules of the Bible. Africans and Native Americans used to eat their slaves, they used to eat even their relatives. That was the reality the Church had to face. That was the world the Christianity was born into, the world Christianity was surviving and spreading in. (I am not even talking about civilized slavery of ancient Rome and Greece, the one which is so admired by neo-pagans so often here.) And there was nobody standing or thinking about humanity and human rights, but the Catholic Church.
Pagans and barbarians knew no laws, they knew instincts of cruelty and violence and slavery.


One should really read the story of Catholic missionaries, ‘’Black fathers”’ going alone, with no weapons, but the Bible, perishing, being eaten and burned, but establishing civilization. The acts of Jesuits in South America were causing admiration among most bloody barbarians and cannibals, so they were turning and converting. Neo- barbarians and neo-cannibals know no such admiration.

It seems that Christianity still has to survive in the same kind of surroundings. Neo-barbarians know only their animal instincts. Muslims, neo-pagans and neo-cannibals are attacking the Church and are demanding an apology, some “’revocation.” The Church does not want to apologize, I guess. May be because demands of “’revocation”’ are just a cover, but in the reality, the Neo-cannibals want the Church not to be at all. They want their human rights back, the rights to kill the neighbor, to enslave the neighbor and to eat the neighbor, to pleasure their animal instincts. They do not want to hear about highest dignity of a human and human life, some highest purpose of life. They laugh with a laugh of a cannibal when they hear about human soul, - no soul, but just flesh exists for the neo-cannibals. They always prove that they have never had a soul for a snack, so there is no such thing as a soul. Certainly, one can see, how the greatness of the Church is bothering them and their purpose of satisfying their hunger and their animal instincts. If centuries ago they had have weapons and ships, they would have attacked Christians and enslave and eat them; Christians never had goals or animal feelings of that type. I guess, The Church has no need to revoke the bull and to rewrite the history. Rewriting and perverting history is the agenda of neo-barbarians and neo-cannibals. Now they have ships and weapons and they can write. Was it a big mistake of the Catholic Church to treat them as people with a soul and to teach them how to write? Should the Church apologize for such a mistake?

P.S. I am not a Catholic, just an admirer.
 
Their slavery was different from the slavery of the Bible. They had no civilized rules, protecting rights of slaves, nothing like rules of the Bible. Africans and Native Americans used to eat their slaves, they used to eat even their relatives.

I believe the Egyptian book of the dead seems to have some of the items that may represent the rights of slave. In Christianity even their supreme leader Christ had been quoted by the writers that you can punish a slave if they don't do their duties that they knew of. Most of the clergy would not even include these in their readings.
 
The study or history is to learn from missed chances, or slips into temptation.

The Catholic Church has stood for many fine priciples,in varous difficult situations.

Probably Pope Nicholas V did not imagine the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1452, or how it grew, or the moral dilmnas resulting form his decree in 1452.

The first crusade illustrates another opportunity to attempt to negotiate peace. There are many instances where the Catholic Church has recommended seeking peace.

Pope Urban II, had an opporunity to seek peace in 1095,in Anatolia (Turkey), but instead raised an army to retake Anatolia, which was the start of 9 crusades over 250 years of war with the Muslims. Would the relations of the West with the Muslim world be different today, if Pope Urban II had sough and establsihed peaceful relations of trade and enlightenment?




.
 
No one today cites any Christian authority supporting slavery.

It is wrong and the practice should be abolished.

I agree with the conclusion, but disagree with your premise, if the Bible is considered to be any kind of authority. As politic_analyst pointed out, the Bible has numerous reference sanctioning slavery, as well as specific instructions on their treatment (it's OK to beat them, but you shouldn't beat them to death).
 
I believe the Egyptian book of the dead seems to have some of the items that may represent the rights of slave. In Christianity even their supreme leader Christ had been quoted by the writers that you can punish a slave if they don't do their duties that they knew of. Most of the clergy would not even include these in their readings.

It would be fair if you could to refer to a line or a scripture or a quote, but I do not expect fairness form a neo-barbarian. All you do is expressing your pagans believes.
Ex 5:14
The Israelite foremen appointed by Pharaoh's slave drivers were beaten and were asked, "Why didn't you meet your quota of bricks yesterday or today, as before?"
Ex 3:7
The Lord said, "I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering.
Exodus 2:23
The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God.
Exodus 13:3
Then Moses said to the people, "Commemorate this day, the day you came out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery, because the LORD brought you out of it with a mighty hand.
Exodus 13:14
"In days to come, when your son asks you, 'What does this mean?' say to him, 'With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Exodus 20:2
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Deuteronomy 6:12
be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Deuteronomy 24:18
Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there.

I can guess that you have suffered a lot in your life when you have been punished for not doing your duty, so you have a personal reason to dislike such a situation. You would prefer not to do what is required and have no punishment. So you blame Christians when your wishes are not met.

John 8:34Jesus answered them, `I tell you the truth. People who do wrong things are not free. They become a slave of the wrong things they do.
Certainly you shouldn’t like JS for telling the truth about you.
Corinthians 6:12
I am free to do anything I want, but some things are not good for me to do. I am free to do anything, but I will not become a slave of anything.

So, what scripture, passage are referring to?
 
The study or history is to learn from missed chances, or slips into temptation.

The Catholic Church has stood for many fine priciples,in varous difficult situations.

Probably Pope Nicholas V did not imagine the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1452, or how it grew, or the moral dilmnas resulting form his decree in 1452.

The first crusade illustrates another opportunity to attempt to negotiate peace. There are many instances where the Catholic Church has recommended seeking peace.

Pope Urban II, had an opporunity to seek peace in 1095,in Anatolia (Turkey), but instead raised an army to retake Anatolia, which was the start of 9 crusades over 250 years of war with the Muslims. Would the relations of the West with the Muslim world be different today, if Pope Urban II had sough and establsihed peaceful relations of trade and enlightenment?




.

What would be the reason for you to divert from the topic and the Qs addressed in OP by you?
Your insinuations have been answered; your intentions have been highlighted. But you still attack – now from a new angle, – crusades. It does not matter, if I would answer, because then, you would attack something else, like Galileo. Sure, I have mentioned Muslims in my answer, - it is still the same motive from their side and from your side. As the matter of fact I said that only the Church stood for fine principals when it was surrounded by Muslims, cannibals and barbarians. Unless you want to tell me that anybody around the Church had better principals. Who did – Muslims? Africans? Native Americans? Pagans? Barbarians?

Who and when started calling them crusaders? They did not call themselves so. The armed pilgrims were to bring freedom from oppression and to leave, Muslims as always were to bring war and oppression and to stay.


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. You started the topic with words search for
and, of course the search produced first 125 pages of perversion and lies. And so a search for crusades will do. Neo-barbarians and neo-cannibals have build a strong structured attack on Christianity, but a paragraph of the truth will always beat pages of lies, for it is the core of the Christianity that human spirit will always be longing for the freedom, cleanliness and simplicity of truth away from the twisted chains of the slavery of lies and perversion. For God created us in his own image and gave us a choice.


The Church is not to establish trades and enlightenment, those are byproducts of establishing real human freedom from slavery of animal instincts, cannibalism, mutual violence of Muslims, neo-barbarians and neo-pagans. It is a spiritual thing that may not be understood so easy by shallow souls.


Would the world be different today, if the founding fathers had taken Tripoli Treaty seriously but did not through it into garbage after 2 years at the first opportunity? Would it be different if kings Clinton and Bush ''established peaceful relations of trade and enlightenment '' with Al-Quida? The same song is sung by neo-pagans and neo-barbarians over and over again. The same lies and perversion of history, the same intellectual pornography and slavery is imposed on human freedom of spirit over and over again. It’s getting boring.
 
I agree with the conclusion, but disagree with your premise, if the Bible is considered to be any kind of authority. As politic_analyst pointed out, the Bible has numerous reference sanctioning slavery, as well as specific instructions on their treatment (it's OK to beat them, but you shouldn't beat them to death).

Genesis 15 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 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.

The Bible was given to the nation of slaves and mistreated slaves, to those who did not question merciful G-d and who did not mistreat their slaves. All other nations were practicing unruly, violent slavery, all of them were mistreating their salves, sanctioning slavery and even eating their slaves. The Bible of the enslaved people was the starting point of freedom; but then there are still too many neo-slaves who are longing for restoration of slavery by attacking the Bible. As a rule they are also speaking on the side of Muslims attacking G-d’s people because the Bible is the way out of slavery, but they do not want people to see the way out. Was slavery good for G-d’s people, or it was bad and they rejected G-d? Were people better off by being slaves of G-d’s people or they were better off by being slaves of somebody else, were they better off by being slave owners in all other nations? The question remains the same - what was the choice?
Sure, in some literal interpretation it is OK to beat fools, children and slaves:
Ex 21:20
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
Pr 23:14
Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.
2Sa 7:14
I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men.
Pr 29:15
The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.
Pr 23:13
Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.
Pr 26:3
A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!

I guess. fools have their reasons to dislike the rules of the Bible…Ex 23:12
"Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed.

Ex 21:32
If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned
. Ex 21:29
If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.
Le 22:11
But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.
De 23:15
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master.
De 32:36
The Lord will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free.
1Co 7:22 - For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave.

1Co 12:13

For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

The Bible is ‘’sanctioning’’ slavery? It is sanctioning it as much as it is sanctioning perversion, adultery, lies and perjury:
1Ti 1:10
for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

The Bible speaks for itself, but still neo-barbarians have a need to pervert it and miss all simple points. God gave people a choice and people fallen into violence, slavery, and murder. God gave the Bible to his people as a way out, and he even put them in slavery for 400 years, and then sent his son to die on the cross in order to show the way out of their misery, out of their own slavery. Because G-d is perfect and merciful.

Pr 12:24
Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slave labor.


Neo barbarians are still slaves as the result of laziness, and their dream is to turn people with diligent hands into their slaves and to become masters. Atheists are fighting for a society of people where Christianity would be in a position of something that is wrong, invalid. Anyone who did search for could see the scale of the atheistic attack on the Bible, the scale of lies and perversion. ‘’The Bible is sanctioning slavery’’ is another perversion and intellectual pornography. The position of the Bible and Christianity in the world of violent cannibals, perverts, slave traders, pagans and Muslims has been very simple and clear all the time, as well as recorded actions of Christianity in regards to the world surrounding Christianity. The vast experience of humanity, documented and photographed shows clearly that when atheists rich their goal and establish such a society of their dream they immediately establish the most inhumane and bloody slavery one can only imagine. Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao – they all perverted history, Christianity and the Bible. But they could not reduce Christianity because G-d had prepared his people and had showed them the way out of slavery. And Christ is still the light, the way and the truth, as he promised.
 
Neo barbarians

And just who are they?

Atheists are fighting for a society of people where Christianity would be in a position of something that is wrong, invalid. Anyone who did search for could see the scale of the atheistic attack on the Bible, the scale of lies and perversion.

I am quite sure everything Atheists say is in the bible, is actually there. All of the criticisms of your scripture in say "The God Delusion" are valid. 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.

‘’The Bible is sanctioning slavery’’ is another perversion and intellectual pornography.

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

The position of the Bible and Christianity in the world of violent cannibals, perverts, slave traders, pagans and Muslims has been very simple and clear all the time, as well as recorded actions of Christianity in regards to the world surrounding Christianity. The vast experience of humanity, documented and photographed shows clearly that when atheists rich their goal and establish such a society of their dream they immediately establish the most inhumane and bloody slavery one can only imagine. Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao – they all perverted history

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.

But they could not reduce Christianity because G-d had prepared his people and had showed them the way out of slavery. And Christ is still the light, the way and the truth, as he promised.

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.
 
Genesis 15 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 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.

The Bible was given to the nation of slaves and mistreated slaves, to those who did not question merciful G-d and who did not mistreat their slaves. All other nations were practicing unruly, violent slavery, all of them were mistreating their salves, sanctioning slavery and even eating their slaves. The Bible of the enslaved people was the starting point of freedom; but then there are still too many neo-slaves who are longing for restoration of slavery by attacking the Bible. As a rule they are also speaking on the side of Muslims attacking G-d’s people because the Bible is the way out of slavery, but they do not want people to see the way out. Was slavery good for G-d’s people, or it was bad and they rejected G-d? Were people better off by being slaves of G-d’s people or they were better off by being slaves of somebody else, were they better off by being slave owners in all other nations? The question remains the same - what was the choice?
Sure, in some literal interpretation it is OK to beat fools, children and slaves:
Ex 21:20
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
Pr 23:14
Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.
2Sa 7:14
I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men.
Pr 29:15
The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.
Pr 23:13
Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.
Pr 26:3
A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!

I guess. fools have their reasons to dislike the rules of the Bible…Ex 23:12
"Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed.

Ex 21:32
If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned
. Ex 21:29
If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.
Le 22:11
But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.
De 23:15
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master.
De 32:36
The Lord will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free.
1Co 7:22 - For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave.

1Co 12:13

For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

The Bible is ‘’sanctioning’’ slavery? It is sanctioning it as much as it is sanctioning perversion, adultery, lies and perjury:
1Ti 1:10
for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

The Bible speaks for itself, but still neo-barbarians have a need to pervert it and miss all simple points. God gave people a choice and people fallen into violence, slavery, and murder. God gave the Bible to his people as a way out, and he even put them in slavery for 400 years, and then sent his son to die on the cross in order to show the way out of their misery, out of their own slavery. Because G-d is perfect and merciful.

Pr 12:24
Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slave labor.


Neo barbarians are still slaves as the result of laziness, and their dream is to turn people with diligent hands into their slaves and to become masters. Atheists are fighting for a society of people where Christianity would be in a position of something that is wrong, invalid. Anyone who did search for could see the scale of the atheistic attack on the Bible, the scale of lies and perversion. ‘’The Bible is sanctioning slavery’’ is another perversion and intellectual pornography. The position of the Bible and Christianity in the world of violent cannibals, perverts, slave traders, pagans and Muslims has been very simple and clear all the time, as well as recorded actions of Christianity in regards to the world surrounding Christianity. The vast experience of humanity, documented and photographed shows clearly that when atheists rich their goal and establish such a society of their dream they immediately establish the most inhumane and bloody slavery one can only imagine. Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao – they all perverted history, Christianity and the Bible. But they could not reduce Christianity because G-d had prepared his people and had showed them the way out of slavery. And Christ is still the light, the way and the truth, as he promised.

I have to say, I'm a little baffled at your argument.

First you seem to argue that Biblical rules on slavery are just like rules on "fools and children."

How does that show the Bible does not sanction slavery?

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

How does that show the Bible does not sanction slavery?

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

How does that show the Bible does not sanction slavery?

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

1) How does that show the Bible does not sanction slavery?

2) What version of the Bible is that?

KJV: "10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

Darby: "10fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers; and if any other thing is opposed to sound teaching,"

English Standard: 10the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[That is, those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[c] doctrine,


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?

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?

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.
 
Last edited:
Dear Just One,

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.

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

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.



.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom