Would religion matter if you're a slave?

[shunyadragon]

There is also an issue of the continuing prevalence of 'penal servitude' that persisted well into the 20th century where large numbers of black males were forced into prison and 'penal servitude' in the South.

 

[ajay0]

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.

Capable slaves could rise into positions of influence, but that of sultan or king, as clearly shown by the example of Balban is never heard of in any other religion or culture!

Do you know what his name was? thanks

I got this from this article excerpt ofAsian politician, sportsman and social activist Imran Khan ...

Look at what the slave trade did in the West and look at the slave trade in the Middle East. The blacks in the Middle East are completely integrated with the population. The Kuwaiti royal family is obviously descended from the Negroes. We have had slave dynasties and slave kingdoms in the Muslim Empire. But look at America. It still has not come to terms with its slave past. Look at the history of Jews. Look at how the Jews have been treated by the Europeans. When they were persecuted in France they went to Muslim Spain for refuge; when the Catholics persecuted them in Muslim Spain they went to North Africa and the Ottoman Empire for refuge. It was the Muslims who gave them rights of worship at a time when these concepts were uncommon in the western way of thinking. During the Inquisition people were tortured because of their religion.

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.

These kind of things happened in Hinduism and Hindu epics as well.

In the Hindu epic Mahabharatha Karna, a Hindu warrior of low caste and origin, was promoted as a king by prince Duryodhana owing to his skill in weapons.

The Indian emperors Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka were of low origin on their maternal side.

Hemu, a mere merchant was promoted as a warlord and king, for a short period of time, owing to his skill in administration , battle strategy and logistics, till he fell in battle.

 

[Enoch07]

Your classically misrepresenting my sources to justify an antebellum agenda, and no the forty percent is not a lie, it is your ENRON

Thats you manipulating the stats. You even lumped in non-slave owning soldiers who lived in slave owner households, to increase your numbers it's total bull crap.

Nobody is denying the souths support of slavery. The Democrats at the time were real a-holes, we get it!

I am not justifying anything. The facts are most southerners were to poor too afford slaves. A man that makes $200 a year will not be able to afford buy a single slave, at $800+ let alone afford upkeep etc. It's simple as that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thats you manipulating the stats. You even lumped in non-slave owning soldiers who lived in slave owner households, to increase your numbers it's total bull crap.

Nobody is denying the Souths support of slavery. The Democrats at the time were real a-holes, we get it!

Thats you manipulating the stats. You even lumped in non-slave owning soldiers who lived in slave owner households, to increase your numbers it's total bull crap.

Nobody is denying the souths support of slavery. The Democrats at the time were real a-holes, we get it!

I am not justifying anything. The facts are most southerners were to poor too afford slaves. A man that makes $200 a year will not be able to afford buy a single slave, at $800+ let alone afford upkeep etc. It's simple as that.

I am not justifying anything. The facts are most southerners were to poor too afford slaves. A man that makes $200 a year will not be able to afford buy a single slave, at $800+ let alone afford upkeep etc. It's simple as that.

The original problem was that you have been minimalizing the support for slavery in the history of the United States and Christianity using words like 'some' and a 'f'ew' to make your case which was bogus. Throughout the history of Christianity and Islam there has been slavery in various kinds and ways, and cannot be minimalized.

The economics an juggling percentages of slave ownership in the South and in the North is not even an issue, and more a meaningless smoke screen. .

The prevalence of 'penal servitude' of blacks well into the 20th century in the South cannot be ignored as well

 

[Augustus]

Capable slaves could rise into positions of influence, but that of sultan or king, as clearly shown by the example of Balban is never heard of in any other religion or culture!

I'm sure there must be an ex slave who managed to become king or some other place with some other culture at the head of a large army.

I don't really get how a slave soldier seizing power through force is somehow an example of progressive meritocratic egalitarianism though.

The Janissaries In the Ottoman Empire were also slaves and were more powerful than the Sultan at times due to their military power.

 

[Enoch07]

The original problem was that you have been minimalizing the support for slavery in the history of the United States and Christianity using words like 'some' and a 'f'ew' to make your case which was bogus. Throughout the history of Christianity and Islam there has been slavery in various kinds and ways, and cannot be minimalized.

Nobody is minimalizing it. That's your mistake. Your assuming left and right it's insanity!

Throughout history everyone has been either slave or slavery master at different points in time. Your ancestors were both slaves and slave masters at different points in time. You need to accept this and move forward learning from your ancestors mistakes.

 

[Augustus]

This is advice to slaves and peons that one wants to exploit, not to people that one cares about.

So Christianity made people both brutally oppressive and unconscionably meek?

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.

No it is the classic idea behind a conspiracy theory.

A small group of tremendously powerful shadowy elites mendaciously pull strings with complete effectiveness to oppress and manipulate the masses to keep them under control and to prevent them from achieving their true desires.

And 'common sense' seems to be shorthand for 'there's no actual evidence for this happening, but it's ideologically convenient so I'll just assume it went the way I hope it did'.

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.

So it's 'pretty easy to guess' that someone purposely created the Sabbath so they could exploit everybody for their personal benefit out of pure mendacity? It's like the ur-"sneaky Jews always manipulating the masses to steal their coin" myth.

Assigning Bronze Age figures with the mind of a cynical 21st C atheist sitting there rubbing his chin and thinking of how he can manipulate the masses is dubious logic and not one I have seen used in academic studies of religion.

Anthropologists have noted that one feature of historical religion is that it they invariably require "Hard-to-fake public expressions of costly material commitments to supernatural agents, that is, offering and sacrifice (offerings of goods, property, time, life)", which may also function to differentiate one group from another (Kosher diet, etc). Religion’s evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion

This is because:

Simple consent among individuals seldom, if ever, successfully sustains cooperation among large numbers of people over longperiods of time. Emotionally hard-to-fake and materially costly displays of devotion to supernatural agents signal sincere willingness to cooperate with the community of believers... Commitment is useless unless it is successfully communicated. It follows that displays of credible commitment are as significant as the behavioral commitments they are meant to signify. (In gods we trust - S Atran)

Sacrifice is basically a way to reduce the potential for free riders who are not committed to the community and its goals and the Sabbath is just another form of sacrifice. It also acts as a clear differentiator between Jews and non-Jews as going against it would be done in full public view.

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.

In response to your unevidenced argument, I explained why your logic was flawed as the reasons you gave for Constantine adopting Christianity didn't seem to fit with the reality. You chose to miss out that part in your reply though.

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.

 

[Prestor John]

This question is for religious theists specifically. Would there be a point to having religious faith if you're a slave? I mean, what good would worshiping God or Yahweh do if you're bound by chains?

Any answers?...

Honestly, it would make the bondage easier to bear and it would ensure true freedom in the world after this one.

 

[Prestor John]

It is the interdependence of all aspects of the Southern economy that lead to universal support for slavery as an institution that the South was dependent on not playing manipulation games of percentages. You cannot deny the the overwhelming support in the South for slavery and the Rebellion to support slavery

Your classically misrepresenting my sources to justify an antebellum agenda, and no the forty percent is not a lie, it is your ENRON bookkeeping of antebellum manipulation of the sources, which neglects the facts that the interdependent relationships of agriculture commercial and industrial South was dependent on the largest capital in the South 'Slaves,' then the South almost universally supported the War of Rebellion to preserve the institution of slavery that the whole south is dependent on.

You have also neglected the role of the North and the attitudes of the North on slavery.

You make it seem like every single citizen of the South voted to support slavery, cessation from the Union and the war.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, I mean, I see no point in worshiping a deity that's supposed to help you, yet let's you be enslaved.

Supposed to help me? Hahahahaha!

Yeah, no. It doesn't work like that... on so many levels I'm not sure where to start. I suppose starting here would be good:

religion =/= Christianity (or some branch thereof, or only Abrahamic religions)
theism =/= classical monotheism (and its various assumptions about what the gods are)

 

[Prestor John]

Well, I mean, I see no point in worshiping a deity that's supposed to help you, yet let's you be enslaved.

A deity that is "supposed to help you" do what?

Which God claimed that He/She would make sure that no one would be forced into slavery?

Which God claimed that He/She would make sure that nothing bad ever happened to anyone?

Which God claimed that He/She would make sure that no one could choose to do bad things?

 

[shunyadragon]

You make it seem like every single citizen of the South voted to support slavery, cessation from the Union and the war.

The worst you can do is misrepresent me and my posts and you managed to that!

 

[Glaurung]

This question is for religious theists specifically. Would there be a point to having religious faith if you're a slave? I mean, what good would worshiping God or Yahweh do if you're bound by chains?

The hope of the Christian faith as I understand it isn't in this life.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nobody is minimalizing it. That's your mistake. Your assuming left and right it's insanity!

Reread your posts, and you will see you minimalize slavery in US history and in the history of Christianity. Yes, your view is a form of insanity, a voluntary (involuntary?) cognitive dissonance.

 

[Enoch07]

Reread your posts, and you will see you minimalize slavery in US history and in the history of Christianity

All I am doing is just acknowledging the truth, instead of ignoring/omitting it like you. If you can't stomach the truth then you shouldn't be in the discussion.

 

[syo]

This question is for religious theists specifically. Would there be a point to having religious faith if you're a slave? I mean, what good would worshiping God or Yahweh do if you're bound by chains?

Any answers?...

yes. it will make the slaves to rebel.

 

[ajay0]

Not only false, but a very naive selective reading of slavery in the USA and elsewhere. Slavery has always been a cruel, involuntary, and exploitative enterprise of buying and selling slaves as economic capital property.

Are you saying here that the Jews and christians had no slaves !

Also were the blacks freed in some quarters due to conversion to christianity !

I do not believe Lincoln was a deist. In his younger years rejected churches and never joined a church. He attended churches throughout his later years, but never expressed outwardly his beliefs. If he was a Deist more power to him for making that private choice like a number of our forefathers.

I never tire of reading Tom Paine. - Abraham Lincoln ( as quoted in A Literary History of the American People‎ (1931) by Charles Angoff, p. 270.)

While this does not on its own qualify Lincoln as a deist, he did have deistic sympathies or inclinations.

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you saying here that the Jews and Christians had no slaves !

Where did you get that??? Christians and Jews most definitely had slaves!

Also were the blacks freed in some quarters due to conversion to christianity !

Coercion to convert is the worst reason to justify slavery. Muslims did the same thing. It remains that:

Slavery has always been a cruel, involuntary, and exploitative enterprise of buying and selling slaves as economic capital property.

I never tire of reading Tom Paine. - Abraham Lincoln ( as quoted in A Literary History of the American People‎ (1931) by Charles Angoff, p. 270.)

While this does not on its own qualify Lincoln as a deist, he did have deistic sympathies or inclinations.

The fact is the abolitionist anti-slavery movement was mixed movement involving people of different beliefs, and a distinct minority before 1860's.

Lincoln's sympathies were abolitionist, but in his politics he was a pragmatist, and tried to impliment change slowly. .The question of whether he advocated racial equality was unclear, if he was it was advisable at the time to keep some things unspoken, or it was likely he would not have been elected

 

[1213]

This question is for religious theists specifically. Would there be a point to having religious faith if you're a slave? I mean, what good would worshiping God or Yahweh do if you're bound by chains?

Any answers?...

Peace of mind, hope and love. God’s love can be felt, even in bad situations.

 

[ajay0]

Coercion to convert is the worst reason to justify slavery. Muslims did the same thing. It remains that:

Okay. But this does not answer the question whether black slaves were freed from slavery once they adopted Christianity as a religion !

The quran and hadiths had praised manumission as a meritiorious act. Many slaves were freed in this regard and Muhammad himself set an example by freeing and marrying a woman named Safiyyah bint Huyayy in this manner, and freed and adopted as his son Zayd ibn Harithah.

Slavery was a preexisting Arabian practice and Islam considerably reduced the barbarity of this practice even if it did not completely eradicate it.

Slavery has always been a cruel, involuntary, and exploitative enterprise of buying and selling slaves as economic capital property.

The theme of the thread deals with how religion has acted to abolish this primitive and unethical economic and social trend.