Saints For Slavery [Archive]

Rakhmetov

24th May 2011, 20:49

Another illustrious saint-for-slavery is Ambrose. For him, enslavement is a path to rectitude, for "the lower the station in life, the more exalted the virtue." Needless to say, the aristocratic Ambrose never thought to exalt his own virtue by placing himself in servitude. For St. Ignatius, slaves should "bear their slavery for the glory of God, that they may win from Him thereby a better liberty" in the next life. When Christian slaves proposed that their freedom be bought by funds from an Asian church community, Ignatius opposed the move. He feared that once free to indulge themselves, they would become "the slaves of desire."

Michael Parenti, History as Mystery, page 64.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7bXtGrn1xT4C&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=michael+parenti+saints+for+slavery&source=bl&ots=u6gGwk5Jkw&sig=4mkSfyfOobawVdNds5XnMC2UeW4&hl=en&ei=pg7cTdTqMaLm0QHu3qTKDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

bcbm

1st June 2011, 19:04

and yet it was catholic countries who were among the first to outlaw slavery

Hoipolloi Cassidy

1st June 2011, 19:12

and yet it was catholic countries who were among the first to outlaw slavery

???? Like in Brazil, where slavery was abolished in 1888?

bcbm

1st June 2011, 19:24

1810/1829 mexico
1811 spain (kind of)
1814 uruguay
1823 chile
1831 bolivia
1836 portugal

many of these had earlier already been stopping slavery in certain areas, working in that direction.

and of course many abolitionists came from a strongly religious perspective- william lloyd garrison, john brown...

Rakhmetov

2nd June 2011, 00:30

Ocean Seal

2nd June 2011, 02:52

Took them long enough to implement justice, and this by people who claim to be endowed with the supernatural wisdom of the Holy Ghost. :( Ambrose lived in the 4th century. Do the math ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Ambrose
Come on man. 4th century. Look at the current mode of production. They took a poor interpretation of the Bible because their interpretation reflected the mode of production.

"bear their slavery for the glory of God, that they may win from Him thereby a better liberty"
I don't understand how God who wishes to give them liberty would not want them to seize liberty in this life. He helps those who help themselves. Long live the uprisers who help themselves.

bcbm

2nd June 2011, 04:53

Took them long enough to implement justice, and this by people who claim to be endowed with the supernatural wisdom of the Holy Ghost. :( Ambrose lived in the 4th century. Do the math ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Ambrose

slavery was never fully accepted by the entire christian community, saint patrick and the manicheans opposed it in the early AD's among others. the catholic church took longer, though there was already movement to stop the enslavement of christians in the middle ages and by the 15th century popes were issuing decrees against slavery. its not so black and white.

Revolution starts with U

2nd June 2011, 18:04

Some religous people support slavery, some support freedom.
In my mind it is very black and white....
Religion is irrelevant to morality and ethics.

Obs

2nd June 2011, 18:11

Pope Paul III condemned slavery as early as 1537. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimus_Dei)

Rakhmetov

3rd June 2011, 17:00

slavery was never fully accepted by the entire christian community, saint patrick and the manicheans opposed it in the early AD's among others. the catholic church took longer, though there was already movement to stop the enslavement of christians in the middle ages and by the 15th century popes were issuing decrees against slavery. its not so black and white.

So Christians should not be enslaved? Just the heathen and the pagans should be enslaved??? Sounds like fascism to me. By the way for hundreds of years the Catholic Church was the largest owner of slaves in the world.

And the Pope is supposedly put in power by the hand of God Himself. Oh my ...

#FF0000

3rd June 2011, 17:45

So Christians should not be enslaved? Just the heathen and the pagans should be enslaved??? Sounds like fascism to me. By the way for hundreds of years the Catholic Church was the largest owner of slaves in the world.

And the Pope is supposedly put in power by the hand of God Himself. Oh my ...

You are stretching so hard to make an argument here and you are not succeeding. There's a million reasons to hate on religion and especially the Catholic fucking church. Turns out this isn't one of them. Move on.

P.S. You don't know what Fascism is

ZeroNowhere

3rd June 2011, 17:51

Rakhmetov, are you a real person?

Rakhmetov

3rd June 2011, 19:07

Why are we defending the Catholic Church on Revleft??? :confused:

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Pope-Secret-History-Pius/dp/014311400X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307124375&sr=8-1

brigadista

3rd June 2011, 19:12

i had all this BS at school cant believe Im reading this...

#FF0000

3rd June 2011, 19:40

Why are we defending the Catholic Church on Revleft??? :confused:

Because what you are saying just isn't true. Sorry.

Misanthrope

3rd June 2011, 19:59

Why are we defending the Catholic Church on Revleft??? :confused:

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Pope-Secret-History-Pius/dp/014311400X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307124375&sr=8-1

Because truth brought us here and what you are saying is not true. Why are you so hard set on convincing people that the Catholic church supported slavery? There are bigger and more important issues.

Franz Fanonipants

3rd June 2011, 20:01

Invader Zim

3rd June 2011, 20:09

hatzel

3rd June 2011, 20:13

this tradepress WWII book is sure to be rigorously researched and well-supported

I know people say 'don't judge a book by its cover', but:

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/history-books/657-2.jpg

Look at the run-on from the subtitle to the author's name! The secret history of Pius XII John Cornwell. Just looks shocking. Whoever designed that should be ashamed of themselves.

Franz Fanonipants

3rd June 2011, 20:18

my history department is lousy w/holocaust/wwii historians and they are without exception the most boring of historians.

that is the truth.

Decolonize The Left

3rd June 2011, 20:24

Why are we defending the Catholic Church on Revleft??? :confused:

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Pope-Secret-History-Pius/dp/014311400X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307124375&sr=8-1

No one's defending the Church. What people are saying is that your arguments aren't logical or reasonable.... Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they automatically support what you're attempting to critique.

- August

#FF0000

3rd June 2011, 20:34

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Pope-Secret-History-Pius/dp/014311400X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307124375&sr=8-1

Five years after the publication of Hitler's Pope, Cornwell wrote: "I would now argue, in the light of the debates and evidence following Hitler's Pope, that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cornwell_%28writer%29#cite_note-2)

jake williams

3rd June 2011, 21:01

Look at the current mode of production. They took a poor interpretation of the Bible because their interpretation reflected the mode of production.
The best modern interpretation of the Bible probably comes from the Phelps family, if you're concerned about historical accuracy. At any rate, religions as dominant ideologies always reflect the mode of production, not what's in the books, and really what's in the Bible, though repugnant, is pretty irrelevant. "Catholicism" as the dominant ideology of the European ruling class for most of European history since the collapse of the Roman empire has basically just reflected whatever the European ruling class happened to believe, until the industrial revolution. Thus it supported slavery until the development of the class forces to oppose it.

bcbm

3rd June 2011, 21:05

Slavery was made illegal in England in 1772.

but not the colonies of the british empire.

also, so?

Rakhmetov

4th June 2011, 17:20

Five years after the publication of Hitler's Pope, Cornwell wrote: "I would now argue, in the light of the debates and evidence following Hitler's Pope, that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cornwell_%28writer%29#cite_note-2)

The Pope is still considered to have the "audience of heaven." Could he not have called all the mighty host of heaven to wage battle against the Blackshirts??? Better yet, could he not have foreseen all this fascism business--- he is after all endowed with supernatural wisdom and has God's guidance--- and implemented diplomatic manuevres to counter Mussolini's thugs before they became a genuine menace???? :confused:

bcbm

4th June 2011, 17:24

:rolleyes:

hatzel

8th June 2011, 01:04

The Pope is still considered to have the "audience of heaven." Could he not have called all the mighty host of heaven to wage battle against the Blackshirts??? Better yet, could he not have foreseen all this fascism business--- he is after all endowed with supernatural wisdom and has God's guidance--- and implemented diplomatic manuevres to counter Mussolini's thugs before they became a genuine menace???? :confused:

This is literally the most insane anti-Church argument I have ever heard. "I acknowledge that the Pope had crazy-ass superhuman powers, and could have used them to stop fascism, but he didn't, and that's why he was such a butthead fascist." I mean seriously? Are you seriously saying that? You're actually arguing that the fact that the Pope didn't look into his crystal ball, predict the rise of fascism and then have some lightning bolt fall down from the sky to vanquish the fascists is proof that he was himself a fascist? Crazy, crazy...

Also, don't know if you heard, but in that whole war thing...the fascists did get beat. That Germany-Italy side didn't win the war. You never know, maybe that was because the Pope called for the Allies to have divine backing or something. Prove it wasn't so! :lol:

ZrianKobani

8th June 2011, 01:18

"Catholicism" as the dominant ideology of the European ruling class for most of European history since the collapse of the Roman empire has basically just reflected whatever the European ruling class happened to believe, until the industrial revolution. Thus it supported slavery until the development of the class forces to oppose it.
This:thumbup1:

Franz Fanonipants

8th June 2011, 01:22

"I acknowledge that the Pope had crazy-ass superhuman powers, and could have used them to stop fascism, but he didn't, and that's why he was such a butthead fascist."

this is unironically my strong materialist thesis on the matter except at the end cus basically the pope mind controlled hitler into killing himself wait i mean god because the pope is god.

Rakhmetov

8th June 2011, 17:00

This is literally the most insane anti-Church argument I have ever heard. "I acknowledge that the Pope had crazy-ass superhuman powers, and could have used them to stop fascism, but he didn't, and that's why he was such a butthead fascist." I mean seriously? Are you seriously saying that? You're actually arguing that the fact that the Pope didn't look into his crystal ball, predict the rise of fascism and then have some lightning bolt fall down from the sky to vanquish the fascists is proof that he was himself a fascist? Crazy, crazy...

Also, don't know if you heard, but in that whole war thing...the fascists did get beat. That Germany-Italy side didn't win the war. You never know, maybe that was because the Pope called for the Allies to have divine backing or something. Prove it wasn't so! :lol:

You would think that an omnipotent and loving God could have prevented more than 50 million people from perishing and millions of women from being raped and the millions of refugees and injured during W.W. II.

The Pope is supposedly infallible and he is supposed to have divine power and wisdom. He didn't do much to prevent this tragedy; in fact he collaborated with the fascists.

bcbm

8th June 2011, 18:46

You would think that an omnipotent and loving God could have prevented more than 50 million people from perishing and millions of women from being raped and the millions of refugees and injured during W.W. II.

dude have you read the bible? god loves that shit

The Pope is supposedly infallible and he is supposed to have divine power and wisdom. He didn't do much to prevent this tragedy; in fact he collaborated with the fascists.

the pope is a human being? holy shit, who knew

ComradeMan

9th June 2011, 14:37

This thread: = OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOH GOD!

LuÃs Henrique

30th June 2011, 02:35

So Christians should not be enslaved? Just the heathen and the pagans should be enslaved??? Sounds like fascism to me.

Yeah, because fascism was all about enslaving people of different religions - not about politically smashing socialism.

By the way for hundreds of years the Catholic Church was the largest owner of slaves in the world.

Your fact forgot to happen...

Luís Henrique

Invader Zim

16th September 2011, 00:14

but not the colonies of the british empire.

also, so?

Sorry to come back to this late.

But you said that Catholic countries banned slavery first, yet slavery was banned in a Protestant country before all of the examples you cited.

As for the 'so', it was your point - remember? So you tell me.

16th September 2011, 00:44

Attributing the slavery of the 18th and 19th centuries to christian theology downplays the role the market had in slavery. The ruling classes didn't enslave millions because a religious text made them all irrational, it's because they needed a ready source of labor power.

You can however argue they used religion to justify slavery, but then you'd be ignoring a great lot of Christians who felt that was an interpretation inspired out of avarice. That includes Catholics by the way.

Invader Zim

16th September 2011, 00:57

Attributing the slavery of the 18th and 19th centuries to christian theology downplays the role the market had in slavery. The ruling classes didn't enslave millions because a religious text made them all irrational, it's because they needed a ready source of labor power.

But plenty of historians have pointed to it being amajor factor in abolishing slavery as changing religious sentiments proved incompatable with slavery as an institution.