[wJswn5l3]

Ben, you're misquoting me, partially quoting me, and then based on your misquotes and partial quotes you jump to conclusions and decide that I'm not a real christian.
You're not trying to understand my point, and debate that point, you're not even trying set up an argument, you're just a one-way trick pony that bend my words in such a way so that you can resend your monologue.

Answer me again and address the points I'm trying to make, and you'll get a response.
I'm not trowing you words and thoughts just only so that you can re-arrange them in the way that pleases you so that you can feed on it and do with it as you like.

And the fact that you're telling me all the time that I'm not a real christian underlines this. Who're you to judge?

[v74ClzKY]

Slavery is against God's will. The Spirit doesn't just inform us on personal spiritual matters. I think describing it that way would shock Jesus to the core. The Spirit guides us on what is right and what is wrong. That means more than simply personal spiritual matters, but also injustices in our world. Jesus called out more than few injustices going on in 1st Century Palestine among the Jewish religious leaders and the Roman occupiers.

Those injustices were religious matters. Notice that slavery is not one of them. The Roman occupation was an injustice, but Jesus made it clear that that was not what he was sent to correct. Jesus spoke against the nonparticipation of the Sabbath Year because that is a religious matter. The High Priests were rejecting the Sabbath. The Sabbath Year is not for the poor. It's for God, to learn that all things belong to God. Slaves were freed for the slaves and other economic interests. That issue is not a spiritual matter, and although it's good that they are free, because that was an injustice, it is not a spiritual matter.

[uMG6uOSo]

Those injustices were religious matters. Notice that slavery is not one of them. The Roman occupation was an injustice, but Jesus made it clear that that was not what he was sent to correct. Jesus spoke against the nonparticipation of the Sabbath Year because that is a religious matter. The High Priests were rejecting the Sabbath. The Sabbath Year is not for the poor. It's for God, to learn that all things belong to God. Slaves were freed for the slaves and other economic interests. That issue is not a spiritual matter, and although it's good that they are free, because that was an injustice, it is not a spiritual matter.

Jesus claimed He was King. That is a political as well as a spiritual statement. What, you think the Romans would kill him simply for pissing off some Jewish religious leaders? Jesus came to right the wrongs and begin to set the world right. He didn't come so a few people could feel better about their personal relationship to God - He came to change the world.

[LeviBrawn]

Jesus claimed He was King. That is a political as well as a spiritual statement. What, you think the Romans would kill him simply for pissing off some Jewish religious leaders? Jesus came to right the wrongs and begin to set the world right. He didn't come so a few people could feel better about their personal relationship to God - He came to change the world.

Like I said, 1 John 5:19. No, he did not come as a King like that. That's how the Jews expected him to come. That's why they sang praises to him when he entered Jeruselum and waved palm leaves. But he didn't come as a King like that. The early christians and apostles didn't believe that. This is a believe that many christians today have made up.

[sesWaipunsaws]

Jesus claimed He was King. That is a political as well as a spiritual statement. What, you think the Romans would kill him simply for pissing off some Jewish religious leaders? Jesus came to right the wrongs and begin to set the world right. He didn't come so a few people could feel better about their personal relationship to God - He came to change the world. Not of this Earth, and it's very important to remember that.

[LeviBrawn]

The Papal Bulls did more than just tell them they had to choose between sinful slavery and non-sinful anti-slavery, they legitimized Portuguese and Spanish slavery of AmerIndians and Muslims. It was accepted by the Vatican. The only bullcrap is in your posts asserting the opposite.

Muslims ran the slave trade. They would enslave blacks, Christians, anybody they could get their hands on. Look at Malta. If you had the misfortune of getting captured by Muslims you were enslaved for the rest of your life. Look at Russia. The slaving of Christians was huge there. Same with Spain.

But why would I expect Imran to own up to this historical fact? Also the Church was opposed to slavery in the Americas. All I have to do is quote the folks who were there who wrote on this issue, and they all say the same thing - they were trying to preserve the native americans.

[EmxATW5m]

I doubt that Jesus ever really claimed to be a king, since "king" is a German title and doesn't appear to have been used until around 300 AD. I wonder what the actual word was? John 18:36 uses basileia.

ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς: ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου: εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἦν ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμή, οἱ ὑπηρέται οἱ ἐμοὶ ἠγωνίζοντο ἄν, ἵνα μὴ παραδοθῶ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις: νῦν δὲ ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐντεῦθεν. The vulgate uses

Respondit Jesus : Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. Si ex hoc mundo esset regnum meum, ministri mei utique decertarent ut non traderer Judæis : nunc autem regnum meum non est hinc Next verse:

εἶπεν οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος: οὐκοῦν βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ; ἀπεκρίθη [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς: σὺ λέγεις, ὅτι βασιλεύς εἰμι. ἐγὼ εἰς τοῦτο γεγέννημαι καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ: πᾶς ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς. Dixit itaque ei Pilatus : Ergo rex es tu? Respondit Jesus : Tu dicis quia rex sum ego. Ego in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati : omnis qui est ex veritate, audit vocem meam John 18:36-7

Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence.

Pilate therefore said to him: Are you a king then? Jesus answered: You say that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth hears my voice.

[illignocearia]

iirc 'indentured servitude' came about as a loophope to Christians 'owning' Christians For one, it's a voluntary contract with a finite period. You don't own the servant. The servant is paid and is free to leave when the contract is up. Really, not much different than any other employment contract.

[Preegovesem]

Except that is wasn't uncommon for extra debentures to be added by the 'employer' (such as room & board) to make the payment out of servitude impossible. Sounds just like taxes. And no, you didn't have to 'pay your way out', the contract was up when it was up.

[ftqwhbvxlcfop]

But why would I expect Imran to own up to this historical fact? Also the Church was opposed to slavery in the Americas. All I have to do is quote the folks who were there who wrote on this issue, and they all say the same thing - they were trying to preserve the native americans.

God hates liars.

"We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery

We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit

[Xxmlqevq]

Like I said, 1 John 5:19. No, he did not come as a King like that. That's how the Jews expected him to come. That's why they sang praises to him when he entered Jeruselum and waved palm leaves. But he didn't come as a King like that. The early christians and apostles didn't believe that. This is a believe that many christians today have made up.

Way to fall for the lies of inner spirituality Christianity - designed to prevent Christians from actually changing this world. He came as Ruler of Heaven and Earth. The Messiah, the Annointed One. What exactly do you think "Lord" means, Kid? It is to Jesus we owe our allegiance, not the kings of the world, for He is the one true King and Caesar is simply trying to take his seat. As for the early Christians & apostles, why do you think they were killed? For trying to start a new religion? No, Rome had tons of them. It was because they claimed Jesus was the true King, not Caesar! Way to un-revolutionize Jesus's message . The confusion as to which type of King was due to the fact that the Jews expected him to come as a VIOLENT CONQUERER, using warfare to defeat the enemies of Isreal. They didn't expect the King to come with peace and forgiveness and sevice and sacrifice. That makes him no less of a King, but one who fights (Satan & Earthly empires and wickedness) in a different way.

Remember the Lord's Prayer:

"Your will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven"

We are called to effect God's purpose on Earth, not to remove ourselves from it.

Here Imran. John 18:36, Jesus replied, "My kingdom doesn't originate from this world. If it did, my gaurds would fight so that I wouldn't have been arrested by the Jews. My kingdom isn't from here." If that doesn't do it for you you have a closed mind.

Look at that word "originate". Jesus's Kingdom originates from Heaven, but it is to COME to Earth (Your Kingdom Come). Read your Revelation, the New Jerusalem shall come from Heaven onto Earth and a new Heaven and a new Earth shall arise and the dead will rise and we shall be living together with God again as in Eden.

[BakerBonce]

John 18:36 uses basileia.

Interestingly:

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

The word “kingdom” is a translation of the Greek word basileia which in turn is a translation of the words malkuth (Hebrew) and malkutha (Aramaic). According to C. H. Dodd, the common translation of malkuth with basileia in Greek and hence kingdom in English is problematic. A translation with “kingship,” "kingly rule," “reign”, “queen”, or “sovereignty” should be preferred.[10] The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that the word basileia can be translated as "kingship," "kingdom" or "reign".[11] In contrast, the Hebrew word "malkuth", has a very physical world meaning, implying that the translation "kingdom" may be understood as both realm and a temporal kingdom.[citation needed] Eusebius identified basileia with monarchy while Augustine foresaw a merger of the church and basileia.[26] Aquinas ignores the concept and it was relatively little discussed by Christian theologians until Johannes Cocceius (1660) and Hermann Samuel Reimarus in the 18th century, during what has become known as the "first quest" for the historical Jesus.[27][28] I think one of the main issues is that we forget that Jesus was a Jew and lived in a Hebrew context. We tend to be more Greek focused (the New Testament being in Greek, written by Hellenized Jews had a great impact), which leads us to see things in ways Jesus and his disciples would not have seen them. This has led to things like people beliving that the body and spirit are seperable (which is very Platonic viewpoint and common in Greek thought), which is completely contrary to Jewish beliefs which holds that body and spirit are forever fuzed (read how Adam was created in Genesis 2).

[RastusuadegeFrimoum]

You're right Ben. All religions are equally bad.

[stoneeZef]

I'm not sure how one Papal Bull means that the others did not exist. At one point the other Bulls were issued and slavery was accepted, regardless of changes in policy afterwards or differences beforehand.

In this time you minimize it, not try to whitewash it.

[bestbyV]

I'm not sure how one Papal Bull means that the others did not exist. At one point the other Bulls were issued and slavery was accepted, regardless of changes in policy afterwards or differences beforehand. It was the exact same pope that issued the bulls you referred to. You claimed, (entirely falsely), that the Bulls you cited advanced slavery, while (as usual), ignoring the crucial evidence.

You cited absolutely everything EXCEPT this one papal bull, which is par for the course. Now you're backpedalling.

Look, it's very clear that the Catholic church did teach that slavery was contrary to the will of God, in the middle of the 16th century. At least now, people here know the truth.

[jeraveike]

Hrm? Substance dualism is important. The spirit is not the body, and neither is the body the spirit. You are right that the spirtual world does affect the body as does the inverse, but we have to be careful not to say that they are exactly the same.

Imran - God's kingdom is not going to be brought about by Christians here on Earth, but rather by Christ himself upon his return. Our purpose is to spread the Gospel and the truth of Christ, not to bring about the universal kingdom.

The Body and Spirit of a person are seperate, but they CANNOT exist without the other. People who think that the spirit will leave the body and the spirit will live with God somewhere else haven't read 1 Corinthians 15.

Christ will come again to make things right and reconcile the world to himself, but we are responsible for helping to "put out the red carpet" as it were. The line in Thessalonians about us meeting Christ in the air as he comes down isn't (as you know) about the rapture, but as a welcoming party. Christ will complete all things, but we are called to help and do His work here so that He is more welcome when he does arrive again.

It was the exact same pope that issued the bulls you referred to. You claimed, (entirely falsely), that the Bulls you cited advanced slavery, while (as usual), ignoring the crucial evidence.

So you are saying he was double talking? After all, regardless of what the Pope indicated in Sublimus Dei, his words are clearly in favor of slavery in Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex as quoted by gribbler above. I realize that the monarchy of Spain and Portugal had a lot of power and money and that could have swayed the Bishop of Rome, but his words are clear - or was he against slavery before he was for it?

The only backpedeling I can see is yours. For you cannot bear to call out anything the Catholic Church has done in its long history.