Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 02-10-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

http://www.joelbainerman.com/articles/new_test.asp

Quote:

Why The Romans Created Christianity And The New Testament

Why did the Romans need something new to keep the salves enslaved?

Because the Pharisees urged and end to slavery, democratic forms of government, and doing away with the oligarchy. Since Rome had no interest in stopping slavery, it installed its puppet, Herod, and made him appear Jewish so that the Jews would give up and side with the Romans. It never worked. The Romans were in danger of losing its Imperial government to a "local government of the people" thus they needed to create a replacement ideology for the slaves to what the Pharisees were proposing.

In order to promote slavery and create a religion that would be considered attractive to the slaves, the Romans gave the slaves a custom-made religion (set of concepts and beliefs) which had simple, common traits: humility, meek shall inherit, a promise of afterlife of bliss in heaven after years of suffering on earth, good overruns evil in the end, etc. As the Romans were a sophisticated bunch they knew what the problem was and how to solve it: a new religion that all the Gentiles/slaves can be "attached to" so that they think they are free. With their people at the top they pulled the strings either way. The Romans were neither stupid nor gamblers.

A new religion was needed for the slaves so they will think they are more free and better off and of under more of their own free will- but it will be an illusion- never mind- but mission accomplished on behalf of the Romans. Christianity made the slaves even better patriots and to "render unto Caesar". It supported nationalism, loyalty, patriotism and commitment to serve Rome. The new religion was also useful to the Romans because it gave the members of the empire a common enemy in the Jews. A double whammy end result for Rome.

The new religion was a concoction of the best components taken from earlier and pre-existing religions and belief systems, along with some new concepts that would be "unique to Christians" to give these poor, destitute slaves some reason to smile when they get up in the morning. That is what the Romans gave them: a drug called Christianity, which enabled the slaves to better accept their lot in life.

But yet Jesus told the Apostles that they were not to rule over one another and others harshly but serve one another. What Rome did was enslave the people to it's interpretation, as the bible was not allowed to the public. (The Holy Roman Empire). Rome persecuted and killed many christians because they were preaching against the established Pagan belief system. After seeing that Christianity was still ever gaining more ground as a movement the Roman Empire decided to adopt the Christian religion but that was subject to it's interpretation. No where in the NT can you find Jesus or the Apostles calling for toture against non-christans or even christians or brutally encouraging slavery (although it does tell slaves to endure their lot just as it tells us to endure all wrongs and that these wrongs would be avenged. Now why would the Romans condemn their own acts? Critics do not reason very well). Christianty was used wrongly to oppress people as it was against African slaves, American Indians and Indians in the southern Americas. This is possible if one is subject to another's false interpretation. When bibles were made available to the public during the Reformation, people began to see the lies of Papal Rome..that ended with rebellions, and the fleeing of peasents to America and elsewhere. Same with Slavery in America, when the light of Christianty was shed on the lies that supported involuntary slavery it came to an end. Christianity is freedom and a light that exposes lies. I find it unfair that people say that Rome created Christianity to enslaved people, when in fact this is what led to Papal Rome's downfall that made America possible....the greatest country of modern times. People were not enslaved by Christianity, but by an intentional false interpretation. :wave:

mountainman · 02-10-2008, 03:49 PM

Are we dealing with the mutilated bible?
or the complete edition?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

http://www.joelbainerman.com/articles/new_test.asp

But yet Jesus told the Apostles that they were not to rule over one another and others harshly but serve one another.

In the Acts of Thomas Jesus is presented as a slavemaster.
The Apostles are presented as casting lots for world dominion.
Thomas disobeys the commands of Jesus.
Jesus sells him at the markets as a slave.

Quote:

No where in the NT can you find Jesus or the Apostles calling for toture against non-christans

Try "The Acts of Philip" where a savage christian angel
slays forty Jewish priests. Clivedurdle, have you read
this non canonical text?

It is a strange story.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Clivedurdle · 02-11-2008, 10:32 AM

Luke 7

Quote:

7:2 And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
7:3 And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.

I assume that servant is actually a slave? Am I correct?

Well has anyone looked at xianity as actually a slave religion?

It does look like that - xianity's success with slaves in the US would seem to be clear evidence of this.

Clivedurdle · 02-11-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Luke 12:37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.

Is there anywhere an honest Bible translation that uses slave instead of servant?

One quarter of the Roman population were slaves....

Clivedurdle · 02-11-2008, 10:47 AM

Seems not

Quote:

Good luck with this one, because Jesus himself not only mentions this passage in the first part of Matthew 15, but he backs up its message!

Jesus here accuses the Pharisees of nullifying Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (which is, in fact, one of the most famous humanitarian feats that this party of reformers, the Pharisees, accomplished when they set out to reduce the barbarism contained in the Law of Moses without compromising the authority and nobility of the rest of the law.

Were it not for the slander leveled against this laudable group of men and placed into the mouth of Jesus long after he died, we would still be familiar with them today as the prototype of humanitarian religious reformer who has been lauded throughout history. Since Jesus grabbed, as disciples, mostly members of the Zealot party, and since the Zealots were a subset of the Pharisee party, what does this say about Jesus's real relationship to the Pharisees?

Specifically, if you wish to show me as having been dishonest (as you say I have been), you will definitely want to demonstrate to us that the passage in I Timothy 6:1-5 does not pronounce as "puffed up with conceit," etc., anybody who disagrees with Paul's teaching specifically about human slavery. To make this case solid, you will need to come up with historical teaching from the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformation-Era Protestantism that agrees with the modern translations, such as the New International Version, which has this passage switching gears in midstream. Siding with the traditional (pre-Abraham Lincoln) interpretation, I have Paul's pronouncement of wrath referring to the antecedent, those who disagree with Paul's slavery teaching; the NIV and other twentieth-century translations have the pronouncement refer to some generic "sound doctrine" -- pulled out of a vacuum or somewhere -- even though the sentence begins with Paul giving instructions on the "Christian" approach to human slavery. If you can show that the preponderance of pre-Abolitionist commentators side with the NIV on this one, I will retract the "National Bible Week" poster and apologize to both to our readers and to Christians the World over.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8634.htm

Clivedurdle · 02-11-2008, 10:54 AM

It is a slave religion.

Quote:

"He was in the form of God; yet he laid no claim to equality with God, but made himself nothing, assuming the form of a slave. Bearing the human likeness, sharing the human lot, he humbled himself, and was obedient, even to the point of death, death on a cross!" (Philippians 2:6-8, REB)

Clivedurdle · 02-11-2008, 11:01 AM

This is confirmed by modern theologians

Quote:

"What does the Lord require of you, " the prophet Amos asks, "but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." The ethical, the universal, is where we daily decide what justice is. The ethical is the good; but it is not God.

So the Pharisees were not evil. They became the modem rabbis of Judaism. They were good teachers, and good people. They were not evil; but they were not God. And their understanding of God's will was based on the ethical, the universal, the people, rather than God.

Quote:

There people, here, are the universal. They are our world. Our ethics, our standards, our right and wrong; for us, these things come as much from the people as from God. 150 years ago, slavery was not universally considered wrong. Even the Bible does not condemn it. The Hebrews, who had been slaves, held slaves. Paul returned a slave to his master; we have the letter in our Bible. But today, world-wide, we consider slavery so evil that it is a sin. In the universal, the ethical, the world we all live in, slavery is wrong. Slavery is evil. Slavery is a sin. By what authority do we think so? The authority of the ethical, which is to say the people. The world.

http://rmadisonj.blogspot.com/2005/0...trembling.html

Is one plus one equals two a modern idea, is slavery only wrong nowadays? What exactly was Spartacus complaining about?

Clivedurdle · 02-11-2008, 11:08 AM

Judaism seems very enlightened compared with xianity.

Quote:

"If a person strikes his male or female servant in the eye and injures it, he shall set the slave free in compensation for the eye. If he dislodges a male or female slave's tooth, he shall set the slave free in compensation for the tooth" (Exodus 21:26-27).

Sheshbazzar · 02-12-2008, 05:45 PM

Yep, if an old Southern slave owner happened to blind one of his slaves, why he'd just do the right "Christian" thing, pull out his pistol and put a bullet through 'ol Rufus's head, and order his kin to get the carcass planted out past the cotton field.

Clivedurdle · 02-13-2008, 08:09 AM

We can discuss Jesus as a myth or invention of Constantine, so why the silence about this? Is this a taboo subject?

Slavery is taken to be an add on, part of the culture, but reading around it does look like a deliberate possibly defining feature, that was reinforced in Islam with submission. (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9287...s-murdered-for)

What is the problem? Maybe xianity is actually worse than we believed? Why the rose coloured spectacles about xianity?

The truth will set us free!

The Failure of Christianity by Emma Goldman

Quote:

Both Nietzsche and Stirner saw in Christianity the leveler of the human race, the breaker of man's will to dare and to do. They saw in every movement built on Christian morality and ethics attempts not at the emancipation from slavery, but for the perpetuation thereof.

Xianity and its daughter Islam do look like cuckoo religions built on the unwilling back of Judaism deliberately to make slavery acceptable

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2008, 05:45 PM	#19
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Yep, if an old Southern slave owner happened to blind one of his slaves, why he'd just do the right "Christian" thing, pull out his pistol and put a bullet through 'ol Rufus's head, and order his kin to get the carcass planted out past the cotton field.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.