Religion and theology thread

Slavery in Poland - was normal thing till we become catholics in 966AD,our leaders have money for standing army becouse they sell slaves to jews.
Well,Russia,Czech and germans did the same,but still.

And then,after some 200 years,after 1100 AD there were practically no slaves on our lands.
Why? Catholic Church.

Which did the same in entire medieval Europe.

P.S i found interesting thing - in Rome exist Museum of Purgatory,in which you could see cloths or books touched by souls from Purgatory.
Usually look like hand which burned it.

Here:
 
Last edited:
The Catholics have always had a neutral to negative view of slavery. If I remember correctly, the Catholics had the first abolitionist groups in the US- not the it mattered since most Catholics were shall we say... disliked. It took a while for the pope to make a formal pronouncement, granted, but it was so culturally engrained to view it with a sideeye that I think he just figured it was obvious.

Edit: To head off claims of the Church "supported" the CSA. That is incorrect. The CSA sent one ambassidor once, was greeted and given a form letter and a short meeting like any visiting dignitary, then the CSA propoganda papers ran with that shit as hard as they could.

Edit 2: I was wrong. The first papal bull condeming racial slavery was in 1435 with Sicut Dudum condeming the enslavement of the natives by the Portugese. Welp.
 
Last edited:
The Catholics have always had a neutral to negative view of slavery. If I remember correctly, the Catholics had the first abolitionist groups in the US- not the it mattered since most Catholics were shall we say... disliked. It took a while for the pope to make a formal pronouncement, granted, but it was so culturally engrained to view it with a sideeye that I think he just figured it was obvious.

Edit: To head off claims of the Church "supported" the CSA. That is incorrect. The CSA sent one ambassidor once, was greeted and given a form letter and a short meeting like any visiting dignitary, then the CSA propoganda papers ran with that shit as hard as they could.

Edit 2: I was wrong. The first papal bull condeming racial slavery was in 1435 with Sicut Dudum condeming the enslavement of the natives by the Portugese. Welp.
I never said that the slavery of the new world was not a sin. I agree what the CSA did and what was done earlier was a sin slavery of that nature is a sin. I was debating whether all forms of slavery are automatically sinful.
 
Interesting can you post this? I am willing to concede. But even so like I said earlier it seems to ban enslaving of fellow Christians, but not the unbaptized.
This is Gregory of Nyssa's Homily on Ecclesiastes, which condemns all slavery.
"I got me slaves and slave-girls." Tell me what sort of price you paid. What did you find in creation with a value corresponding to the nature of your purchase? What price did you put on rationality? For how many obols did you value the image of God? For how many coins did you sell this nature formed by God? God said: "Let us make human beings in our own image and likeness" (Gen 1.26). When we are talking about one who is in the image of God, who has dominion over the whole earth and who has been granted by God authority over everything on the earth, tell me, who is the seller and who the buyer? Only God has this kind of power, or, one might almost say, not even God. For scripture says that the gifts of God are irrevocable (Romans 11.29). God would not make a slave of humankind. It was God who, through his own will, called us back to freedom when we were slaves of sin. If God does not enslave a free person, then who would consider their own authority higher than God's?

Sicut Dudum, a papal bull from 1435 on slavery, is about specifically christian slaves:

Augustine condemned the slave trade, but was fine with slavery itself as a punishment.
 
I don't even understand why anyone would look to religion for moral inspiration, any ideology structured on the idea of being willing and happy slaves to invisible tyrants is obviously not going to care about human welfare.

Religion literally just wants us all to be slaves to a myth, how could it possibly condemn slavery or ignorance?

Not that it's going to last long anyway. Christianity and Judaism are already in the ICU, and Islam is soon to follow once we take out the last stronghold of international Islamism: Iran. Then it's just Hinduism, which will soon follow once India becomes more educated, and whatever Africans are doing these days.
 
I don't even understand why anyone would look to religion for moral inspiration, any ideology structured on the idea of being willing and happy slaves to invisible tyrants is obviously not going to care about human welfare.
You completely misunderstand/mistate what the bible is teaching here.

It's about the slaves being told to behave in the manner of Christ so they don't commit murder and other sin which will move them away from Christ's salvation. In behaving in such a way, the slave can show what Godly behavior is and possibly draw those around them to Christ's salvation as well.

This happens. Look up the original Cassius Marcellus Clay. Not quite a direct connection, but he was the son of a very wealthy slave owner in Kentucky. He became one of, if not the most, prolific voices AGAINST slavery. He was a notorious duelist having never lost a dual. Supported Lincoln in his presidential campaign. In fact, they refused to send him south try and gain votes b/c they were afraid he'd kill so many Southerners in duals that his actions would be considered vote-rigging. Definitely not the most Christ-like example in that regard.
 
Not a bad idea, but unfortunately very anti-democratic. Killing your way to liberal democracy is not in fashion anymore....


What does he have to do with religious views on slavery?
Only pointing out that the power of Christian faith to persuade others from sinful activity. It's not in exacting revenge. It's about demonstrating a path to salvation. That's why that text in the bible addressing 'slaves' to behave certain ways. NOT to strike out against their owners.

Cassius Clay is simply an example of someone who was moved away from owning slaves by good examples.
 
And how many million slavers justified their actions with religion? "Sons of Ham" and all?

Methinks they were just inherently good people who grabbed on to whatever would let them justify their moral impulses.
 
This is Gregory of Nyssa's Homily on Ecclesiastes, which condemns all slavery.


Sicut Dudum, a papal bull from 1435 on slavery, is about specifically christian slaves:

Augustine condemned the slave trade, but was fine with slavery itself as a punishment.
Hmm thank you. I concede. Slavery is a sin in almost all circumstances except punishment.
 
And how many million slavers justified their actions with religion? "Sons of Ham" and all?

Methinks they were just inherently good people who grabbed on to whatever would let them justify their moral impulses.
That the only opposition to slavery originated from christianity tells a lot. Everyone justified slavery. Only in Christianity and Judaism did there arise opposition to it.
 
That the only opposition to slavery originated from christianity tells a lot. Everyone justified slavery. Only in Christianity and Judaism did there arise opposition to it.
Even people like me can't deny that. All religions did bad, but Christianity is easily the least of the worst.

It's not even a contest.
 
Judaism had opposition to slavery? In Europe and periphery Jews were slavers supreme up to the moment when Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and English turned to the negro slave trade.
Specifically one sect called the Essenes, which existed from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD, who had no slaves:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top