"True Christian" denominations must teach True Christian doctrine.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by CL8

DM, why are you trying to change the point of my question?

The issue is what motivated the politician in the U.K. to seek to abolish slavery.
This is totally separate from what Americas founders did with slaves or slavery.

So do you not know the answer to my question?

Some minor corrections on your last 2 posts.

1. The movement in Britain started in 1787, and there were 12 founders, most of them Quakers. They worked hard to gather public support and in the ensuing years, hundreds of thousands or Britons protested slavery, so it was not just one person as you say.

3. There was never recognized slavery in Britain itself, but only in some of the colonies; and mostly for sugar plantations. Many colonies, such as Canada did not allow slavery at all,

2. For many years, abolitionists did not seek to abolish slavery (as you put it), but merely to abolish the slave trade. They succeeded, and for some years shipping slaves from Africa was illegal but people could still own slaves.

I think that they would have preferred to abolish slavery altogether at the time, but that was a radical concept. Most people accepted slavery as a reality, so banning it outright was pushing the envelope too much, at the time.

Now, are you claiming that it was Christianity that drove these men to work to abolish slavery? I read the book Bury the Chains click here on the subject. These people were moral and decent, intrinsically, but not due to god's teachings. Frankly, it had more to do with their Quaker outlook than a Christian one.

Since Quakers dispense with a lot fo the trappings of religious propeganda (churches, priests, revs. sermons etc.) these individuals could think more for themselves than most christians of the day. Therefore, their particualr belief system encouraged their actions. I
But there were hundreds of thousands of devout Christians who accepted and defended slavery. Many used common biblical passages to defend slavery. Where was god to change their minds?

[CL8]

MagicRat,
Now why are YOU also skirting around the question I asked Drunken Monkey?

Do you also not know the answer to the question?

It can be found in the post below.

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/antislavery.html

[drunken monkey]

Once again because I'm sure I've mentioned it before; what's the point of asking questions that can be answered with two minutes on google and/or wiki?
What difference is there to this discussion if we do or do not type out that particular name?
Is it that if we don't give the name, that gives you just cause for ignoring anything we might ask and/or point out?

If you have a point to make, make it and we can discuss it.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by CL8

MagicRat,
Now why are YOU also skirting around the question I asked Drunken Monkey?

Do you also not know the answer to the question?

It can be found in the post below.

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/antislavery.html

I agree with DM..... I read that book I referenced (450 plus pages) on this subject about 3 years ago, so I'm very familiar about the subject. . Your link is a nice and very brief synopsis of the subject matter, but it is no great secret.

So what is your point about these gentlemen?

[CL8]

Both of you avoid directly answering my question and stating the name William Wilberforce because neither of you MR, or DM want to admit it was his CHRISTIAN beliefs and principles that motivated him to be the leader of the cause with those 12 Quakers (who also held to Christian beliefs and principles), and fight to pass the legislation that ended the slave trade.

You would rather propagate lies about Christians, Christ and Christianity.

http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm

He was noted for his eloquence and charm, attributes no doubt enhanced by his considerable wealth, but he did not involve himself at first with any great cause. A sudden conversion to evangelical Christianity in 1785 changed that and from then onwards he approached politics from a position of strict Christian morality. In 1786 he carried through the House of Commons a bill for amending criminal law which failed to pass the Lords, a pattern which was to be repeated during his abolitionist career. The following year he founded the Proclamation Society which had as its aim the suppression of vice and the reformation of public manners. Later in 1787 he became, at the suggestion of the Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger, the parliamentary leader of the abolition movement, although he did not officially join the Abolition Society until 1794.

[drunken monkey]

Being Christian didn't stop some of the notable members of the Founding Fathers from making money off the backs of slaves did it?

If being Christian was the sole reason that William Wilburforce took up his crusade, why didn't being Christian stop the Founding Fathers and their peers from taking advantage of slaves?

As has been pointed out, in the Bible, God ocasionally gave his people the right to take slaves and to murder; something that some have used to justify slavery at the time. Surely if you agree that slavery is wrong, then you are saying that God is wrong.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by CL8

Both of you avoid directly answering my question and stating the name William Wilberforce because neither of you MR, or DM want to admit it was his CHRISTIAN beliefs and principles that motivated him to be the leader of the cause with those 12 Quakers (who also held to Christian beliefs and principles), and fight to pass the legislation that ended the slave trade.

You would rather propagate lies about Christians, Christ and Christianity.

http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm

I have to say that your comment is absolute nonsense. Wilburforce lived in an age when organized religion, especially Christianity had tremendous power and influence, far greater than today. Yet virtually the entire civilized world condoned, cooperated and encouraged slavery.

NONE of these organized religions did anything meaningful to work to end it. Any Christian church would have had greater credibility and influence than Wilburforce in opposing slavery. Where were they, when Wilburforce was at work?

This includes the American founding fathers. You have boasted in the past how christian they were, yet they were complicit in the slavery industry, with a number of them being slave owners.

At that time, there were precious few atheists in Europe and America. Virtually everyone was religious, to some degree. Yet millions of christians participated in or benefitted in the slave trade including many thousands of christian slave owners and traders. Indeed, many of them used bilblical paasages to support their engagement in slavery. Therefore, christianity was far more complicit in slavery than opposing it.

CL8, you should not be proud of christianity's role in slavery, but rather ashamed of it.

[CL8]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

I have to say that your comment is absolute nonsense. Wilburforce lived in an age when organized religion, especially Christianity had tremendous power and influence, far greater than today. Yet virtually the entire civilized world condoned, cooperated and encouraged slavery.

But NOT Wilberforce

NONE of these organized religions did anything meaningful to work to end it. Any Christian church would have had greater credibility and influence than Wilburforce in opposing slavery. Where were they, when Wilburforce was at work?

I'll bet with a little research this statement would be proved wrong!

This includes the American founding fathers. You have boasted in the past how christian they were, yet they were complicit in the slavery industry, with a number of them being slave owners.

These articles show your statement to be misleading.
Washington and Jefferson inherited slaves, and believed it should be outlawed, they just didn't know how to go about abolishing it without
destroying the union.

http://www.reformed-theology.org/htm.../jefferson.htm

http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/mee...ex.cfm/ss/101/

At that time, there were precious few atheists in Europe and America. Virtually everyone was religious, to some degree. Yet millions of christians participated in or benefitted in the slave trade including many thousands of christian slave owners and traders. Indeed, many of them used bilblical paasages to support their engagement in slavery. Therefore, christianity was far more complicit in slavery than opposing it.

CL8, you should not be proud of christianity's role in slavery, but rather ashamed of it.

cite specific examples please.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by CL8

Washington and Jefferson inherited slaves, and believed it should be outlawed, they just didn't know how to go about abolishing it without
destroying the union.

Absolute nonsense!! If they really objected to the existence of slaves, they could have sold their own slaves, given them away, set them free or even PAID them for their work, thus alleviating themselves of the alleged terrible burden of owning them!

Washington and Jefferson used their considerable intellects to found a country. The comparatively small task of getting rid of slaves would have been comparitve child's play! Since they did not do so demonstrates they were perfectly comfortable using and profiting from slavery.

Originally Posted by CL8

cite specific examples please.

http://www.answers.com/topic/a-relig...nse-of-slavery

[CL8]

Apparently you overlooked these statements in those articles MagicRat.

Jefferson was a slaveholder by inheritance, and he was prohibited by Virginia law from freeing them, a law he sought to overturn with his first act in the Virginia legislature.

George Washington's attitude toward slavery changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, he seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation.

Washington could -- and did -- lead by example. In his will, he arranged for all of the slaves he owned to be freed after the death of his wife, Martha. He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, support and training for all of the children until they came of age, and continuing support for the elderly.

This article does a good job of explaining the difference between biblical slavery and slavery in America:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

[drunken monkey]

Jefferson is a moot point.

Originally Posted by CL8

Thomas Jefferson never did come to believe Jesus was God the Son.
He was not Christian, but believed the Christian religion taught the best belief system.

And don't give me any rubbish about how it was his belief in some Christian ideas that made him a good man.
It was the 1800s in the Western world.
The only religious movement he would've had contact with would've been a form of Christianity.
It also goes back to the point that those same ideas also exists in other religious/belief systems, some of which that has been shown to pre-date Christianity.

As Magicrat pointed out, these men were the ones who founded a nation and had a hand in writing the laws.
Perhaps what you are ignoring (or failing to see and/or comprehend) is that Washington in particular understood the neccessity for slaves in his new country's plantations to maintain the economy and hence, to guarantee the future of his country.
This is what he had issues with.
He saw it was not a good thing but a neccessary evil.

So which is it in your opinion?
Should he have forced the issue and insisted on freeing slaves and watch his country flounder or was he right in letting the issue go and allow his country to prosper?

Being Christian and/or believing in some of the Christian ideas also didn't stop them having illegitimate children with their slaves did it?

[CL8]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Jefferson is a moot point.



And don't give me any rubbish about how it was his belief in some Christian ideas that made him a good man.
It was the 1800s in the Western world.
The only religious movement he would've had contact with would've been a form of Christianity.

Did you forget about the Barbary wars?
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2007/691/

It also goes back to the point that those same ideas also exists in other religious/belief systems, some of which that has been shown to pre-date Christianity.

Of course those ideas were around before Christianity since Christ came to earth a few thousand years into human civilization!

As Magicrat pointed out, these men were the ones who founded a nation and had a hand in writing the laws.

Don't you know the way laws are made and passed in the U.S.?
It's not by the president alone.
They must be voted on in congress! Even during Washington and Jeffersons time.

Perhaps what you are ignoring (or failing to see and/or comprehend) is that Washington in particular understood the neccessity for slaves in his new country's plantations to maintain the economy and hence, to guarantee the future of his country.
This is what he had issues with.
He saw it was not a good thing but a neccessary evil.

it's like the abortion issue, those who know it's wrong can work to pass legislation to stop it,
but there are too many corrupt politicians in power to allow legislation to stop it.
It would have been the same with slavery then.

So which is it in your opinion?
Should he have forced the issue and insisted on freeing slaves and watch his country flounder or was he right in letting the issue go and allow his country to prosper?

My answer above^

Being Christian and/or believing in some of the Christian ideas also didn't stop them having illegitimate children with their slaves did it?

Not a proven fact

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by CL8

Did you forget about the Barbary wars?

What about the barbary wars?
Marco Polo travelled to China in the 13th century, that doesn't mean that schools in Italy were teaching Taoism, Buddism and Confucius ideas in school.
Are you seriously saying that other religions were an equal part of western life in the 18th Century?

Originally Posted by CL8

Of course those ideas were around before Christianity since Christ came to earth a few thousand years into human civilization!

so why do you keep insisting that people are only good because of Christianity?

Originally Posted by CL8

Don't you know the way laws are made and passed in the U.S.?
It's not by the president alone.
They must be voted on in congress! Even during Washington and Jeffersons time.

wait a minute, so are you saying that there were no other Christians in Congress at the time?

Originally Posted by CL8

it's like the abortion issue, those who know it's wrong can work to pass legislation to stop it,
but there are too many corrupt politicians in power to allow legislation to stop it.

do not compare slavery to abortion.
they are not the same, nor is abortion 100% wrong as slavery is.
answer me this, is it right for a woman who was raped to be forced to keep a child conceived because of the crime inflicted on her?

Originally Posted by CL8

Not a proven fact

if you'd bothered to check:
http://www.anusha.com/dna-jeff.htm

but of course, as pointed out before, you say Jefferson was not a Christian so I guess that is again, a moot point.
I also guess that maybe you should stop using Jefferson as an example of Christianity when the simple fact is that he was just a brilliant (and yet flawed) man.

[CL8]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

What about the barbary wars?
Marco Polo travelled to China in the 13th century, that doesn't mean that schools in Italy were teaching Taoism, Buddism and Confucius ideas in school.
Are you seriously saying that other religions were an equal part of western life in the 18th Century?

Did you not read the article from the site I posted that Jefferson had his own Koran and studied it?

Jefferson also figured that the best way to learn about the political, military, social, economic, and religious agendas of America’s enemies was to read the best textbook on all things Muslim. So he read the Koran in what for his day was a state-of-the-art translation into English directly from the Arabic. Jefferson’s copy of the Koran equipped him with everything he needed to know on how to respond to threats from the caliphates of the early 1800s

so why do you keep insisting that people are only good because of Christianity?

Where do I insist that?

wait a minute, so are you saying that there were no other Christians in Congress at the time?

NO

do not compare slavery to abortion.
they are not the same, nor is abortion 100% wrong as slavery is.
answer me this, is it right for a woman who was raped to be forced to keep a child conceived because of the crime inflicted on her?

Is it right for a child to killed because his/her father is a rapist? There is the choice of adoption.

if you'd bothered to check:
http://www.anusha.com/dna-jeff.htm

but of course, as pointed out before, you say Jefferson was not a Christian so I guess that is again, a moot point.
I also guess that maybe you should stop using Jefferson as an example of Christianity when the simple fact is that he was just a brilliant (and yet flawed) man.

It is statements like these below that show this allegation about T Jefferson are not a 100% proven fact.http://www.monticello.org/plantation...on_contro.html

from the DNA study, original documents, written and oral historical accounts, and statistical data - indicated a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was perhaps the father of all six of Sally Hemings' children listed in Monticello Jefferson's younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings' children.

Although the relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemings has been for many years, and will surely continue to be, a subject of intense interest to historians and the public, the evidence is not definitive, and the complete story may never be known. The Foundation encourages its visitors and patrons, based on what evidence does exist, to make up their own minds as to the true nature of the relationship

There were approximately 25 adult male Jeffersons who carried this chromosome living in Virginia at that time, and a few of them are known to have visited Monticello.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by CL8

Did you not read the article from the site I posted that Jefferson had his own Koran and studied it?

Like before, if you cannot tell the difference between a person being brought up and educated in a largely Christian environment, a person studying a religion for personal development and a person studying a religion for diplomatic reasons then there is no point discussing it.

Originally Posted by CL8

Where do I insist that?

please, are you trying to deny that you believe that God/Christianity is the source of all good and that it is gosh, simply just the bestest?

Originally Posted by CL8

NO Is it right for a child to killed because his/her father is a rapist?

which is why the debate is when should you consider it (the conceived) to be a, for lack of a better term, proper person/human being/life? When is it a child?

As for the adoption option.
Sure, that is a viable alternative but that leads to another bunch of questions.
Is it right for the victim of the crime to have to endure around 9 months of carrying the rapists child inside her then suffer the pain of childbirth?
Is it then right to simply leave the child to the care of others.
How does that fit into a world that is increasingly over-populated and in a country (the US) that doesn't seem want to give people in less fortunate positions proper healthcare or wellfare?

Of course, going back to the Bible; you ask is it right for the child (ignoring questions when to consider it life) to suffer for the crimes of the father.
I ask, is it right for Christianity to esentially treat all people as being sinners from the moment they are born until we accept Christ?
What's, in terms of the principles, is the difference there?

I am not surprised that you conveniently ignore this bit:

Originally Posted by website

The study's authors, however, said "the simplest and most probable" conclusion was that Thomas Jefferson had fathered Eston Hemings.