Was Slavery God's Will?
Some Christian writers have said slavery in America was divinely sanctioned because it helped bring Africans to Christ. Is this true?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/may22/29.80.html

This is what this article opens with. I nearly choked on my coffee. As I kept reading, I realized it was from a very concerned Christian who had a "down to earth" moment. The fact that this pastor Earl Carter is black him self only proves that religious ignorance stretches across race and culture.

Let me quote another one!
"In spite of the horror, he told the gathered pastors, most of whom were white, if the white man had not come to the Americas, we wouldn't know Jesus. The crowd of 40,000 shouted "Amen!" in stirring unison".

40 000? Not a mere lunatic running his mouth without support it seems. I know how most escapists here will react, but there are those who have defended biblical slavery here (you know who you are). I wonder how this will read to them. And in deed any Christian who in blunt ignorance have uttered the words, but it was good slavery.

For the rest. I let the article speak for it's self. And no one can accuse me of using a biased source.

Rastelin:

"In spite of the horror, he told the gathered pastors, most of whom were white, if the white man had not come to the Americas, we wouldn't know Jesus. The crowd of 40,000 shouted "Amen!" in stirring unison".

Ignoring for a moment that it's a crowd of 40,000...how the fuck does that even work? Do they think Jesus came from the US? I thought that was a Mormon thing.

As a Christian, I have never EVER heard of this ludicrous idea and I hope to never hear of it again.

Amnestic:
Ignoring for a moment that it's a crowd of 40,000...how the fuck does that even work? Do they think Jesus came from the US? I thought that was a Mormon thing.

In deed. Considering the US religious climate, you wonder if a future biblical version will say. In the beginning god created America.

Amnestic:

Rastelin:

"In spite of the horror, he told the gathered pastors, most of whom were white, if the white man had not come to the Americas, we wouldn't know Jesus. The crowd of 40,000 shouted "Amen!" in stirring unison".

Ignoring for a moment that it's a crowd of 40,000...how the fuck does that even work? Do they think Jesus came from the US? I thought that was a Mormon thing.

the mormon thing is that jesus visited the natives in the US.

OT: thats an odd theory that he has invented, lets hope it dies.

Amnestic:

Rastelin:

"In spite of the horror, he told the gathered pastors, most of whom were white, if the white man had not come to the Americas, we wouldn't know Jesus. The crowd of 40,000 shouted "Amen!" in stirring unison".

Ignoring for a moment that it's a crowd of 40,000...how the fuck does that even work? Do they think Jesus came from the US? I thought that was a Mormon thing.

He's saying that they brought Christianity with them from Europe when they started their genocidal conquest of the Americas.

Rastelin:

Amnestic:
Ignoring for a moment that it's a crowd of 40,000...how the fuck does that even work? Do they think Jesus came from the US? I thought that was a Mormon thing.

In deed. Considering the US religious climate, you wonder if a future biblical version will say. In the beginning god created America.

I really hope your kidding, that's not going to be something that mainstream Americans ever believe.

Rylot:

He's saying that they brought Christianity with them from Europe when they started their genocidal conquest of the Americas.

But if the "white man" never went to the US then they'd all still be in Europe and they'd all know about Jesus anyway. I'm so confused ;-;

Also, captcha, stop advertising brands at me. Every time you ask my opinion on a product, I'm just going to keep writing "shit".

His "theory" doesn't even work! Since we have missionaries operating in Africa today, so clearly slavery=not necessary. Plus I daresay the French, British and Spanish Empires spread a bit of Christianity into Africa too.

Fuckin' history, how does it work?

It's not exactly a stretch. Calvinists believe that God has a divine plan. Every atrocity and moral outrage can be justified because, in the end, Sky Daddy wanted it to happen. And if you question why God couldn't have just, say, sent a prophet to Africa, or made the Europeans befriend the Africans rather than enslaving them, it's because he "works in mysterious ways." I find the whole thought process delusional. It's a pathetic attempt to square their benevolent, all-powerful deity with the fact that sometimes bad shit happens to good people. The solution to that problem should be preventing bad shit from happening, but these apologists insist on taking the easy (and morally questionable) way out and simply justifying slavery and genocide. It's appalling.

Helmholtz Watson:
I really hope your kidding, that's not going to be something that mainstream Americans ever believe.

Of course I am, but I had this in mind http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/are-conservatives-in-texas-rewriting-history/736/
Who is to say what they will try in the future given enough power. They try to go far, but not that far.

Well, it kinda makes perfect sense within religious logic, where submission to the god and its teachings is the most important thing ever, and this life just a short proving ground to become worthy of it. And the western immigrants certainly did bring with them Christianity, which I guess to Christian eyes make everything else they did of lesser importance compared to that great gift.

Just like suicide would make sense according to such "special" logic, to skip ahead to the lovely afterlife, if there weren't an explicit theological ban on it in most religions with an afterlife (...for that reason, one presume).

Oh religious logic, u so crazy and nasty. What doesn't base and tie itself to actual reality can easily cause and justify the most unbelievably heinous of things.

Imperator_DK:
What doesn't base and tie itself to actual reality can easily cause and justify the most unbelievably heinous of things.

But it was good unbelievably heinous things! Ok that was to hard to resist...;)
It has to be the worst argument in the world, and they keep using it. There is no other I guess.

*Sighs*

Sometimes I wonder what Protestantism has been doing the past 5 centuries or so since it's left the Catholic Church.

This is one of the reasons why I'm glad that Catholicism is so well organized, it makes it's beliefs quite clear and the years of priestly training means you have less chances of some nutty preacher deep in the southern United States screaming things that makes your entire faith look bad. Plus if we do say something stupid and the person isn't excommunicated or anything like that, then you don't have to go through a headache-y debate over whether that one man's views speaks for the faith as a whole.

Oh, look. -This- thread again. Are you guys ever going to be done screeching every time some nutcase says something?

Well, isn't everything ever done in the universe "God's will" according to religious thought in some way or another? You can only be omnipitent if you know all that will come.

I saw "idolatrous" over and over and the equation of polytheism with sexual immorality, and I just closed the damned window. They can't even call out something as vile as that kind of Stockholm Syndrome-bred internalized racism without engaging in a little bias and hatred for something else on the side. Not only that, but this former Promise Creeper can't even lay the blame where it belongs. Native Americans have been taught to think that way *by Christians*. Severing indigenous Americans from their own religious traditions and even their own *language* has been a huge part of Christianity's mission in the US-- and still is, on many reservations today. (One of this forum's own posters is Hopi and attested to this, btw.) It's good to have the self-awareness to recoil at remarks like those, but I feel like the author saw the racist imperative in it but not the religious imperative that was twinned in it. But then, how could they, if they're so mired in the triumphalism that saw Thor cast down as firmly as the Orisha of the Yoruba and they still see it as a good thing?

I respect many Christians, but I do not respect Christianity-- articles like those are a big part of why. I'm committed to the vision of a pluralistic world, but I'm honestly not sure that Christianity can ever be okay with merely having one seat at a big table, when the idea that Christianity should reign over the world is such a large (and well nigh on inseparable) part of its DNA.

Rastelin:

Amnestic:
Ignoring for a moment that it's a crowd of 40,000...how the fuck does that even work? Do they think Jesus came from the US? I thought that was a Mormon thing.

In deed. Considering the US religious climate, you wonder if a future biblical version will say. In the beginning god created America.

The Gospel of Ron:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was America. 2 America was with God in the beginning. 3 Through it all things were made; without it nothing was made that has been made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

PrinceOfShapeir:
Oh, look. -This- thread again. Are you guys ever going to be done screeching every time some nutcase says something?

Yes, it's just 'some nutcase' when a crowd of 40,000 - including pastors who I assume would preach to their own congregations - cheer the sentiment, on the website of a magazine with ~260,000 readers. Just one nutcase.

How large does the crowd need to be before it graduates from "one nutcase" to "legitimate problem", exactly?

Amnestic:

PrinceOfShapeir:
Oh, look. -This- thread again. Are you guys ever going to be done screeching every time some nutcase says something?

Yes, it's just 'some nutcase' when a crowd of 40,000 - including pastors who I assume would preach to their own congregations - cheer the sentiment, on the website of a magazine with ~260,000 readers. Just one nutcase.

How large does the crowd need to be before it graduates from "one nutcase" to "legitimate problem", exactly?

40,010 is the confirmed amount for legitimate problem.

the abyss gazes also:

I find it odd that you would Catholicism as the exemplar of not having one man's actions making the faith look bad considering the Pope, through out history, has done plenty to make the whole faith look bad.

While I do agree that one nut job doesn't reflect the whole group, the sad fact is that-while we would like to think these guys are isolated-you have preachers all over the place saying stuff that is really off the rails, but they can all back it up with scripture. They might not all be the exact same flavor of crazy, they are all of the same brand.

Well, while Catholicism isn't perfect, it comes pretty close. Although I have to agree on the pope thing. I don't want to insult his Holiness, but I just hope that the next Pope is a liberal reformer, the church could use another after John Paul II.

The thing with Protestantism is, at the end of the day, regardless if someone's a Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, Etc. Unless all the other churches have a sort of unanimous agreement with each other and enforce laws and rules, at the end of the day it's the Preachers that run their parish. As long as the local town doesn't have a big problem with them, then the preachers can usually say anything they wish.

Catholicism does things a bit different, the local people have less of a say in who their priest is, that priest is taught what the Church approves and disapproves (although if the priest doesn't agree with church teaching on a certain issue, he's welcome to lobby for change) and what he should or should not say.

Hearing some of the backstories of some of the "Former Christians" on these boards, I'm honestly in shock at their tales of "Fire and Brimstone priests" simply because I have never once seen a priest act at all like that. Most of the priests I've met seem to be rather jolly, kind fellows that seemed more like Mr. Rogers than "Pastor Phelps". The worst I've heard of at one of the churches I went to was about a rather... Serious priest who came to mass to talk about Abortion. (To give you an idea about how bad it was, he used the word "BLADE" as an Acronym for... Something) The thing was... It was during a Children's mass. Several parents were outraged, and the Monsignor quietly made sure they wouldn't be getting a visit from the man again.

Slavery's been justified in different ways throughout history, and in the United States as long as it was legal it was usually justified at least in part with the understanding that educating savages was necessary for them to find Jesus and the work they provided was their role. In our society, where we pretty much expect crazy assholes to say and do whatever shit manages to crawl into their heads, it can't be much of a surprise that some people still buy that logic, and there's enough self-hating minorities out there for there to be something resembling a real-life Uncle Ruckus. It's a sad state of affairs on a couple of levels to hear a black man talk about the good that came of slavery in America or a Native American preacher frame what happened to Native Americans in the U.S. as beneficial sacrifices in exchange for a religion but it can't be something that surprises you to find on the internet.

Witty Name Here:

the abyss gazes also:

I find it odd that you would Catholicism as the exemplar of not having one man's actions making the faith look bad considering the Pope, through out history, has done plenty to make the whole faith look bad.

While I do agree that one nut job doesn't reflect the whole group, the sad fact is that-while we would like to think these guys are isolated-you have preachers all over the place saying stuff that is really off the rails, but they can all back it up with scripture. They might not all be the exact same flavor of crazy, they are all of the same brand.

Well, while Catholicism isn't perfect, it comes pretty close. Although I have to agree on the pope thing. I don't want to insult his Holiness, but I just hope that the next Pope is a liberal reformer, the church could use another after John Paul II.

The thing with Protestantism is, at the end of the day, regardless if someone's a Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, Etc. Unless all the other churches have a sort of unanimous agreement with each other and enforce laws and rules, at the end of the day it's the Preachers that run their parish. As long as the local town doesn't have a big problem with them, then the preachers can usually say anything they wish.

Catholicism does things a bit different, the local people have less of a say in who their priest is, that priest is taught what the Church approves and disapproves (although if the priest doesn't agree with church teaching on a certain issue, he's welcome to lobby for change) and what he should or should not say.

Hearing some of the backstories of some of the "Former Christians" on these boards, I'm honestly in shock at their tales of "Fire and Brimstone priests" simply because I have never once seen a priest act at all like that. Most of the priests I've met seem to be rather jolly, kind fellows that seemed more like Mr. Rogers than "Pastor Phelps". The worst I've heard of at one of the churches I went to was about a rather... Serious priest who came to mass to talk about Abortion. (To give you an idea about how bad it was, he used the word "BLADE" as an Acronym for... Something) The thing was... It was during a Children's mass. Several parents were outraged, and the Monsignor quietly made sure they wouldn't be getting a visit from the man again.

hmm so thats why the mormon and catholic churhc are friends they both operate and function in a similar matter. although i must say Mormons have better PR.

Witty Name Here:
*Sighs*

Sometimes I wonder what Protestantism has been doing the past 5 centuries or so since it's left the Catholic Church.

This is one of the reasons why I'm glad that Catholicism is so well organized, it makes it's beliefs quite clear and the years of priestly training means you have less chances of some nutty preacher deep in the southern United States screaming things that makes your entire faith look bad. Plus if we do say something stupid and the person isn't excommunicated or anything like that, then you don't have to go through a headache-y debate over whether that one man's views speaks for the faith as a whole.

Catholics aren't immune to the kind of creeping Dominionism that's going on here-- have you heard of the "charismatic Catholic" movement? Most of it is a de facto attempt to steeplejack Catholic congregations the same way that Dominionism has steeplejacked mainline Protestant denominations. Also, if I were in your shoes, I'd be looking at the numbers and worrying. Mainline Protestant denominations are taking the worst hit in terms of bleeding members at every turn, but Catholic adherent numbers in Western countries are also declining, while this kind of charismatic Evangelical Christianity is growing in leaps and bounds.

Amnestic:

PrinceOfShapeir:
Oh, look. -This- thread again. Are you guys ever going to be done screeching every time some nutcase says something?

Yes, it's just 'some nutcase' when a crowd of 40,000 - including pastors who I assume would preach to their own congregations - cheer the sentiment, on the website of a magazine with ~260,000 readers. Just one nutcase.

How large does the crowd need to be before it graduates from "one nutcase" to "legitimate problem", exactly?

How fringe does a group need to be before you don't lump every adherent of a religion/religion in general under the same banner as them?

PrinceOfShapeir:

How fringe does a group need to be before you don't lump every adherent of a religion/religion in general under the same banner as them?

Where's the 'lumping'? The OP itself says "Some Christian writers."

On the other hand, you jump at the opportunity to try to fringe a guy who clearly isn't just a fringe - there's a legitimately large platform for his bile.

PrinceOfShapeir:
How fringe does a group need to be before you don't lump every adherent of a religion/religion in general under the same banner as them?

So the pastor, the cleric representatives and the other 40 000 are not Christians. It this what you are saying?
Face it. Slavery and Christianity have a long ugly history together. It doesn't change because you disapprove. There is no "lumping" here. We are not talking about a mere cellar cult.

Considering you use it as a springboard to bitching about Christianity in general, religion in general, and everyone who doesn't subscribe to your worldview, yeah.

PrinceOfShapeir:
Considering you use it as a springboard to bitching about Christianity in general, religion in general, and everyone who doesn't subscribe to your worldview, yeah.

Oh I have no problem with different world views. What I do have a problem with is this!

"You suffered horribly under chattel slavery, you were brutalized and dehumanized, but if the slave ships had not arrived and brought you to the New World, you wouldn't have found Jesus".

That was from the article. I doubt you read it all. And why do you have a problem with me having a problem with this? You should to. The Christian who wrote that article certainly have. Or is he bitching to?

I really can't get this whole bad-things-for-the-glory-of-God mentality of some Christians.

You'd think it'd be more glorifying by, er, saving an entire race via NOT having them mostly enslaved.

Then again, apparently slavery is not that much of a big deal to God, according to his book.

Polarity27:

Witty Name Here:
*Sighs*

Sometimes I wonder what Protestantism has been doing the past 5 centuries or so since it's left the Catholic Church.

This is one of the reasons why I'm glad that Catholicism is so well organized, it makes it's beliefs quite clear and the years of priestly training means you have less chances of some nutty preacher deep in the southern United States screaming things that makes your entire faith look bad. Plus if we do say something stupid and the person isn't excommunicated or anything like that, then you don't have to go through a headache-y debate over whether that one man's views speaks for the faith as a whole.

Catholics aren't immune to the kind of creeping Dominionism that's going on here-- have you heard of the "charismatic Catholic" movement? Most of it is a de facto attempt to steeplejack Catholic congregations the same way that Dominionism has steeplejacked mainline Protestant denominations. Also, if I were in your shoes, I'd be looking at the numbers and worrying. Mainline Protestant denominations are taking the worst hit in terms of bleeding members at every turn, but Catholic adherent numbers in Western countries are also declining, while this kind of charismatic Evangelical Christianity is growing in leaps and bounds.

I think you're both right to some degree. Witty's got a point in that a hierarchy can provide some resistance against those on the fringe, and in general a larger church will have a large number of moderates. I think if charismatic Catholicism goes any further there'd probably be the constant rumbling of a potential schism which may or may not manifest in the end, a bit like the Anglican church, for example.

Oirish_Martin:
I really can't get this whole bad-things-for-the-glory-of-God mentality of some Christians.

You'd think it'd be more glorifying by, er, saving an entire race via NOT having them mostly enslaved.

Then again, apparently slavery is not that much of a big deal to God, according to his book.

Well, what else can you do? You either have to deny slavery existed, or deny it was bad.