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.
. . . and Christians turned around and did the same to pagans and other non-believers.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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.
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.
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?...
. . . and Christians turned around and did the same to pagans and other non-believers.
Some did yes.
Some?!?!?! Oh my! Antebellum apologetics. You need to seriously review your history of chattel slavery especially that of the Southern USA. You are tempting me to open a thread on this.
Slavery has has always been a cruel, involuntary, and exploitative enterprise of owning, buying and selling slaves as economic capital property.
As per the the president, and governors of the Confederacy of the Southern States the rebellion by the South was to preserve the institution of chattel slavery, which was the primary capital property of the slave states.
Perhaps you should read some history. Here I'll give you a lesson.
Because it was Christians that started the abolitionist movement in the U.S. Not Baha'i, or secularist. It was the Christians.Abolitionism in the United States - Wikipedia. So you can talk smack all you want but at least my people did something to help slaves.
Btw since you got all self righteous. Ill do you another favor. Did you know that some of the African slaves in the U.S. achieved freedom and then went on purchase slaves of their own? Anthony Johnson (colonist) - Wikipedia
Build a bridge and get over it!
This is the history of the selective biased exception and not the history of slavery.
Horsep00p, It is the real history of slavery in the U.S. You are the one using selective bias to try and ignore facts that counter your own self pitying narrative. Let's not forget the Atlantic slave trades slaves came from African capturing their own people then selling them as slaves to begin with.
Slavery in Africa - Wikipedia
Here is an African slave trade apologist trying to justify it here.
Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery: Misconceptions About the African Involvement in the Slave Trade | HuffPost
"Very often I see comments by people who argue that Africans sold each other into slavery. There is some element of truth to this, but to speak of the slave trade solely as Africans selling each other t is a gross oversimplification of what was a complex historical event."
The "element of truth" is in the Slavery in Africa article which details the various forms of slavery practiced in Africa. It is true that most slavery was not of the chattel kind until the Trans Atlantic slave route was established. Which cause an increase in demand for chattel slavery for sugar cane production. But it was then as it is now, Africans enslaving and selling their own people for money for hundreds of years. It still happens to this very day in 2018. Slavery in contemporary Africa - Wikipedia.
Take your selective bias and hit the road Jack!
Insults will get you no where. Yes slavery was common world wide involving Muslims, Christians, and blacks, but the history of Christianity is predominantly a justification of the majority for slavery based on scripture.
No, I will not be leaving, nor will I let you rewrite of history based on antebellum apologetics stand without calling you out.
No insults were given.
Just the facts as recorded in the history books. Your conjecture is of no value to the discussion.
Sure some Christians did use the bible to justify slavery. But many Christians paid for that mistake with blood to rectify it, in the civil war. So I'm gonna call it good. You can ignore and deny it all day, but you can't refute history.
Oh yes!!! Insults thrown and acknowledged.
No, a selective antebellum white wash of your selective citing of history to justify your agenda.
Neither can you you selectively use 'some' to minimalize the history of slavery to justify your agenda.
Prove it. Quote the insult.
No your the one guilty of selective bias. By ignoring the abolitionist movement in the U.S started by Christians. Just to push your bias against Christianity by only acknowledging the very small % of Christians that used the bible to justify slavery.
I am not white washing anything. Christians worked to free the slaves. Some of those Christians were black. So you insult them by white washing them, not I.
"Take your selective bias and hit the road Jack!"
All the Southern States is not a small %. You are not aware of the attitude even in the north by many concerning the problem of freeing slaves.
Again, you are selectively white washing the history of slavery.
Of course the Black Christians opposed slavery. What would you expect?
LoLz
It's a song, not an insult.
Yes it is. Because only a small % of people in the south owned slaves.
the song neat. From you an insult.
So what?!?!?
Your neglecting the industrial South that depended on white labor too and white labor that were interdependent on the economic capital of slave.
My sources are accurate and descriptive of the problem of slavery in the history of America
non-slave owners benefited collectively on the capital property of slaves in the South.
I'll put this is very simple terms for you to understand.
25%<75%
The claim that few of the troops of the Confederacy did not own slaves.
Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally.
Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census.
What is true today was true back then. That truth is rich people don't fight their own wars. They get others to do it for them.
That still only 10% roughly still under my 25% number.
That is misrepresenting stats. Your counting the same household twice in some instances to fudge the numbers. Which is why you arrive at almost double the census data which is solid.
As I said it's horsep00p propaganda to push an agenda. Slaves were extremely expensive. Both in the buying and upkeep, food, clothing, and housing. Only wealthy could afford them. The average price of a slave in 1860 was $800.
Typical wages in 1860 through 1890
Here is the average hourly wage:
Here is the average weekly wage for 60 hours a week:
- Occupation 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890
- blacksmith, 0.178, 0.304, 0.259, 0.271
- carpenter, 0.182, 0.410, 0.276, 0.322
- machinist 0.158, 0.260, 0.227, 0.243
- laborers, 0.098, 0.156, 0.135, 0.151
Just so we are clear these are non slave/plantation owners.
- Occupation 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890
- blacksmith, 10.68, 18.24, 15.54, 16.26
- carpenter, 10.92, 24.60, 16.56, 19.32
- machinist, 9.48, 15.60, 13.62, 14.58
- laborers, 5.88, 9.36, 8.10, 9.06
Blacksmith made $552.24 per year, on avg in 1860.
Carpenters made $567.84 per year.
Machinist made $492.96 per year.
General Laborer made $305.76 per year.
It doesn't take a masters in economics to notice that most non-plantation owners in the south could barely feed themselves, let alone afford slaves. A single slave was several years worth of money saved. So your 40% number is a complete lie used to push an agenda.