Talk:Christianity and Slavery

Split

This article was cut out of the history of Slavery and religion after it was stubbed following an AfD. A lot of the iffy material has been deleted, and some has been sourced. This is an important article and could do with some expansion. For some ideas see Islam and Slavery. - Francis Tyers · 13:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there two articles?

We have this article, and Christianity and slavery, what's the deal here? Homestarmy 14:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I've added the merge tags, obviously they should be merged. - Francis Tyers · 14:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, there is no choice they have to merge. The format of this one is better so cut and paste that one into this one, who wants to do that? Yes i have brought the easy well researched parts across.--Halaqah 01:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO you know that i am not allowed to link this article or any article to the main Christian page, do you know no matter how nice i write the slavery section it is deleted for false reasons. Please help me and support a sub section of this article in the Christainity page---Halaqah 09:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is merged, consider moving the final product to the page Christianity and slavery. Wikipedia capitalization rules say that slavery should be lowercase because Christianity and Slavery is not a proper noun. Copysan 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some notes

i looked at the lead section and some of it is similar to the Islam and Slavery article. not that it's a bad thing but it seems a little less encyclopaedic when you have almost exactly the same sentences with minor word alterations such as "Christianity, like Judaism, Islam and other religions of the world, accepted and even endorsed the institution of slavery. [1]". the quote of Lewis, a scholar on Islamic history, is with Islam as the subject of the sentence. i think it goes against the spirit of the point he is trying to make by wording the sentence like that and then citing him. do also note, that he probably isn't an authority on Christianity. other clear problems exist as such:

Christianity recognized marriage of sorts among slaves.[5] - that's not what the source alludes to from what i read, rather the opposite it seems.
again the passage above referenced to Lewis, the catholic encyclopaedia claims "Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist." which contradicts the Lewis quote.
"As in Islam, freeing slaves was regarded as an act of charity. [6]" it was deemed by the church (meaning the catholic church), presumably at a specific point in time from the wording (i.e. the church made the enfranchisement an act of charity): "The Church made the enfranchisement of the slave an act of disinterested charity". so the wording of that passage needs to be made more precise.

wrt the merge, i think whatever is useful from here should be moved over to Christianity and slavery. almost all of the material here seems to have been taken from there anyway.. ITAQALLAH 15:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason to have the article at "small s" slavery not "big S" Slavery? - Francis Tyers · 16:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'small s' article is older, and much of the content on this article has been taken from that article (which should not really have happened i think), so it seems more logical to merge any new material from here into the article which has a more substantial history. that, and titles such as Islam and Slavery and Christianity and Slavery should actually be having small "s" for slavery according to what i understand from WP:CAPS as slavery here is not being treated as a proper noun (i have requested a move for Islam and Slavery to Islam and slavery).

Ok :) either is fine by me. - Francis Tyers · 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sentence is not thrue

"Christianity, like Judaism, Islam and other religions of the world, accepted and even endorsed the institution of slavery. [1]"

I don't see any argument for in this article. The quotations from the The New Testament refer how the slaves had to behave to their masters but do not accept or endorse the institution of slavery.

Christianity has always been against slavery. [1]

Konrad IV 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.135.132.47 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

White as Masters, Blacks as Slaves?

"The depiction of God, and subsequently the divine ethnic social dynamic, which placed Whites as masters, Blacks as Slaves"

I this is nonsence.

Konrad IV 00:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]