sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I'd agree that it's about one's perception of their circumstances.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would religion matter if you're a slave?
- Thread starter Euronymous
- Start date
- How do you think Dr. Martin Luther King might answer the question?
- On what basis do you reduce "religious theists" to "those who worship God"?
Looking at voluntary indentured servitude from a spiritual perspective, some religious beliefs may be viewed this way. Some monastic choice life styles are a form of self-imposed indentured servitude. I believe in many ancient religions people are indentured due to the obligation to the sense of community of that religion, and either voluntarily or involuntarilly committed their will to that religion, and for example irrationally reject science or suffer under this voluntary indentured commitment.
Some cults carry this to extremes as forms of brain washing and committing their believers to various forms of forced isolation, and emotional and physical dependency believing the have not choice but to follow.
Some cults carry this to extremes as forms of brain washing and committing their believers to various forms of forced isolation, and emotional and physical dependency believing the have not choice but to follow.
james bond
Well-Known Member
God doesn't enslave people. People enslave people. US black history shows that the slaves in America held Christian service in secret in order to cleanse their disgust of the vitiated gospel taught by white preachers who told them not to kill or steal their master's chickens, turkeys, hogs and to serve their masters. Honor and obey your father and mother became honor and obey thy father, thy mother and thy master.
Yet people tend to get more religious in times of trouble or uncertainty, which is why evangelizing is more effective in Skid Row and on Death Row than pon Restaurant Row. It seems paradoxical as the OP implies, but it's apparently human nature..
That's the message in the Sermon on the Mount. That's what made this religion so appealing to Constantine and monarchs to follow for over a millennium, and even to slavers in the American South.
The message is directed at the disempowered and the exploited, and is basically to stand down when mistreated rather than rise up. Blessed are the meek and the long-suffering for their reward will come later. Turn the other cheek and love your oppressor. Subjects are commanded to submit to kings, slaves to their masters, and wives to their husbands.
Yes, and I know this likely isn't where you were going with this, but what of the people who (have) enslave(d) people in God's name?
Ephesians 6:5
Titus 2:9
Augustus
…
Not necessarily.
Islamic empires made extensive use of slave soldiers such as mamluks, janissaries. Mamluks even took over the empire at one point.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
For the most part, most Christians are slaves.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Okay, but Islam provided more of a meritocratic environment than other religions. That the mamluks took over the empire at one point is a similar case study, as that of Balban or the Kuwaiti royal dynasty who were descendants of slaves.
This probably stems from the teachings of equality and brotherhood amongst all muslims before God. An emperor and slave would perform salat or prayers side by side in a mosque in line with this doctrine of equality.
Orbit
I'm a planet
A Christian slaveholder would tell you it's scriptural to have slaves and their duty is to be good slaves so they get their reward in heaven. Belief was forced onto American slaves, but they used the plight of the Hebrews in Egpyt to subvert the message and give them a metaphor for speaking of liberation that the master couldn't realize or object to. God became the champion of the slave.
Slavery and the extensive trade in slaves remains a historic fact of Islam in history up until today.
Release from slavery in exchange for conversion is not an enlightened view of slavery, and remains an advocacy of slavery.
Augustus
…
Other than it fitting preconceived ideological narratives, what makes you think that is true? Any evidence?
In the Roman Imperial Cult the Emperor was Divine, so it's probably a downgrade on God given authority. The Roman Empire was also a martial empire, why would he want to make the population meek? It was also a massively patriarchal society already, and all slaves were supposed to submit to their masters. Also he didn't even make Christianity the official religion.
Christianity spread far more from the bottom up rather than the top down conspiracy theory type myth.
Augustus
…
The Mamluks took over by military force, not meritocracy.
Also slaves (and Jews/Christians) were often used as high level government officials precisely due to their lower status. A powerful Muslim could always become a rival for power, but not a slave or infidel.
Bold was initially true, but it is naive, and bad selective history, to assume this represents the history of Christianity after Constantine's mother and Constantine became Christians.
The first Christians were slaves. Rounded up and thrown into slavery by the Pagans. Thousands were put into arenas to be raped, tortured, and murdered.
Augustus
…
Having imperial backing for a religion is obviously beneficial and certainly hastened the spread, sometimes forcefully. Of course you had some aspects of a 2 way process. It mostly wasn't the government telling people that had to be Christians now so they would be meek and pliable though.
Leaders tended to become Christian simply because people were becoming Christian and some of these became leaders, although it is also true that missionaries specifically targeted leaders for obvious reasons. There are also significant regional variations regarding the spread.
In the Islamic Empire, despite the advantages of being a Muslim, Islam didn't become the majority religion for 400+ years, meaning conversions must have been incredibly low considering the the Muslim + Christian = Muslim children equation.
The ability to tell the population what to believe before modern communication technologies is greatly overstated.
Last edited:
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Slavery existed amongst the christians and jews as per the historical accounts in the Old testament.
But have blacks in christianity received better treatment because of conversion to christianity ! Often christian scriptures were interpreted to induce submissiveness in the slaves and acceptance of their lot. Abraham Lincoln was a deist from what I know.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
This does not negate the fact of the slave Balban's rise to power as the Sultan, or that of former black muslim slaves becoming the rulers of Kuwait.
Are there any such precedent in christian or other religious kingdoms of the past ! I would be happy to know if there are some.
Augustus
…
The Mamluks taking the Empire of their masters by force is hardly a sign of meritocratic enlightenment though.
Capable slaves could rise into positions of influence though, many slaves even owned slaves.
Do you know what his name was? thanks
Numerous lower class people rose to positions of power in the Roman Empire via progressing through the military ranks, although this was more likely to occur across generations. The military has tended to be the most meritocratic and best means of social advancement in many societies though. Leaders need people who can help win them wars.
Justin I, uncle of the more famous Justinian, was a peasant who became Emperor in the Christian Byzantine Empire via this method.
It probably wasn't altogether that rare in many ancient societies though, although I've no idea how frequently it happened.
Read the scriptures and decide for yourself what the words mean and who they benefit. The advice is horrible. Would you advise your children to be like that? Not if you love them.
Be courageous, not meek. Stand your ground when in the right.
Don't tolerate injustice if you can do something about it.
Do not love enemies - identify and avoid them.
Don't offer the other cheek. It just incites further violence and oppression. Try to negotiate a peace of you can, walk away if necessary, or at a bare minimum, put up your fists to protect your face if you can do neither.
This is advice to slaves and peons that one wants to exploit, not to people that one cares about.
Sorry, but you calling common sense a myth or a conspiracy theory is just a semantic device intended to demean an idea. Aim higher in the future.
Like everybody else, you have no authority here beyond the power of your arguments to convince. Simply disagreeing without addressing the argument made is ineffectual. One needs to make compelling arguments if he wishes to change minds.
The belief in gods originated from the grass roots as Ian early attempt to explain the caprices of nature and perhaps to have help in controlling them.
It didn't take the priestly class long to recognize and exploit this tendency. With this, organized, politicized religion was born, giving clergy unearned social status and a cushy indoor job. One doesn't need to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that such a thing was inevitable. A rudimentary understanding of human nature will suffice.
Later, Christianity was spread at the point of a sword - Constantine's armies, the Crusaders, and the conquistadores come to mind first.
Anyway, ever wonder why the days of creation include a day of rest every seven days, and that the Ten Commandments insist that man emulate that?
It's really pretty easy to guess why an omnipotent god would be said to need to labor for six days followed by one day of rest. Undoubtedly, it was once considered immoral for any able bodied person not to work every day - planting, sowing, gathering, etc..
Then, a priestly class arose, one which required that people make regular pilgrimages to bring money to the temple, which would necessitate taking time away from the fields. How do you convince people to do this? Easy. Tell them that regarding taking time away from work, that their god did it and commands them to do so as well.
This time, if you choose to disagree, rather than calling this argument a myth and conspiracy theory, try offering evidence or a compelling argument of your own as to why this hypothesis is incorrect or likely incorrect. Simply asserting that it is incorrect and offering an unsupported contrary view absence a specific rebuttal to the elements of the argument will accomplish no more this time than it did last time.
Last edited: