<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Apr 17 2007, 10:28 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Apr 17 2007, 10:28 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->(1) Both the religions drew from Greek and Roman civilization which had a alrge slave component. The so called Greek Ideals apply only to the free people.
(2) However Eastern civilizations also had slaves - dasas. The Mahabharat has great soliloquies against slavery by Arjuna addressing Uttara Kumara.
[right][snapback]67267[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I've numbered the above to address them one by one.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Both the religions drew from Greek and Roman civilization which had a alrge slave component.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(1) Christianity got its pro-slavery attitude from the OT and even NT. The early Fathers of the church were not referring to the Roman example in pushing for instituting slavery, but deferred to the OT and NT instead: the babble in other words. The same book provided the inspiration/motivation for slavery throughout the history of organised slavery in christianity.
Roman slavery has long been accused of being worse than that of Greece. Maybe this is because of the larger numbers involved, I'm not too sure. Although it has to be noted that Sparta was made up of mostly slaves with a few citizens. The slaves and citizen women could not vote. Not Greece at its best.
As to Roman slavery then, it was fundamentally different to Christian slavery in many respects.
http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4b.htm#Anci...yDifferent
<b>Christian apologetics: "the Ancients were worse"</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->...anyone who compares ancient slavery with modern negro slavery--a system that was actually instituted by Christians--will find it hard to point out in what direction the modern was an improvement on the ancient slavery, while it is easy to show that in some respects it was distinctly worse. And there is always the important distinction that, while ancient slavery represented a phase of social development, and tended to something better, <b>modern, or Christian, slavery stood for a deliberate retrogression in social life</b>.
...
In old Rome, as we have seen, encouragement was given to acts of manumission [giving slaves their freedom]. In Christian America the reverse policy was followed.
-- Christianity, Slavery and Labour, by Chapman Cohen (1931)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Greco-Roman slavery had nothing to do with skin-colour</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->...<b>there was no distinction of colour</b>. The Roman or the Greek, might consider himself superior to others, but his superiority was based on considerations that were personal, national, or cultural. When Rome conquered a people, absorption in the empire almost automatically brought a share in the empire's dignities and privileges. Inter-marriage took place...
<b>The theory that the control of the world should rest with the white races is a modern theory</b>, and, as a consequence, colour has in modern times carried with it a badge of inferiority, or divinely ordained servitude. Roman religion was polytheistic, inclusive, and tolerant. Christianity was monotheistic, exclusive, and intolerant. And as the latter extended its sway over the world of politics it introduced the spirit of exclusiveness and intolerance into all departments of life. "Saved" and "lost" in theology were the equivalents of superior and inferior in sociology. And as the overwhelming bulk of the coloured people remained outside the Christian pale, the development of the colour bar was easy. Christianity gave just that religious sanction which slavery required for its ethical justification. Slavery applied to whites was revolting; slavery applied to blacks became part of the divinely appointed order.
It was the <b>Christian</b> who elaborated the <b>theory that black slavery was permissible because the whole of the dark-skinned people were suffering from the curse God pronounced on Ham, the son of Noah.</b>Â
-- Christianity, Slavery and Labour, by Chapman Cohen (1931)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a larger degree the slave in Rome, in addition to his employment in agriculture and in the household, engaged in all trades and trading. The whole field of trade and industry was open to the slave, and Professor Dill comes close to the facts when he says that
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>"the slave class of antiquity really corresponded to our free labouring class."</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>It will not do, therefore, to identify Pagan with Christian slavery.</b> Slavery as an institution existed in both cases, but, as Professor Cairnes says,
"We look in vain in the records of antiquity for a traffic which in extent, in systematic character...can be regarded as the analogue of the modern slave trade."
<b>The Christian slave trade represents one of the most frightful and systematic brutalities the world has ever known.</b>
...
"<b>Christianity met the movement by turning freemen into slaves.</b> Under Paganism, bodies only were enslaved; minds were left free. <b>Christianity enslaved both body and mind."</b>
-- Christianity, Slavery and Labour, by Chapman Cohen (1931)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ramana, about slavery of African people under christianity see
- http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4b.htm#BibleAfricanSlavery <i>'Biblical justification'</i>
- http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4b.htm#ChurchesSlavery <i>'Churches and slavery'</i>
(especially the subsection 'Religious reasons used to institute and uphold slavery')
(2) However Eastern civilizations also had slaves - dasas. The Mahabharat has great soliloquies against slavery by Arjuna addressing Uttara Kumara.
[right][snapback]67267[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I've numbered the above to address them one by one.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Both the religions drew from Greek and Roman civilization which had a alrge slave component.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(1) Christianity got its pro-slavery attitude from the OT and even NT. The early Fathers of the church were not referring to the Roman example in pushing for instituting slavery, but deferred to the OT and NT instead: the babble in other words. The same book provided the inspiration/motivation for slavery throughout the history of organised slavery in christianity.
Roman slavery has long been accused of being worse than that of Greece. Maybe this is because of the larger numbers involved, I'm not too sure. Although it has to be noted that Sparta was made up of mostly slaves with a few citizens. The slaves and citizen women could not vote. Not Greece at its best.
As to Roman slavery then, it was fundamentally different to Christian slavery in many respects.
http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4b.htm#Anci...yDifferent
<b>Christian apologetics: "the Ancients were worse"</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->...anyone who compares ancient slavery with modern negro slavery--a system that was actually instituted by Christians--will find it hard to point out in what direction the modern was an improvement on the ancient slavery, while it is easy to show that in some respects it was distinctly worse. And there is always the important distinction that, while ancient slavery represented a phase of social development, and tended to something better, <b>modern, or Christian, slavery stood for a deliberate retrogression in social life</b>.
...
In old Rome, as we have seen, encouragement was given to acts of manumission [giving slaves their freedom]. In Christian America the reverse policy was followed.
-- Christianity, Slavery and Labour, by Chapman Cohen (1931)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Greco-Roman slavery had nothing to do with skin-colour</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->...<b>there was no distinction of colour</b>. The Roman or the Greek, might consider himself superior to others, but his superiority was based on considerations that were personal, national, or cultural. When Rome conquered a people, absorption in the empire almost automatically brought a share in the empire's dignities and privileges. Inter-marriage took place...
<b>The theory that the control of the world should rest with the white races is a modern theory</b>, and, as a consequence, colour has in modern times carried with it a badge of inferiority, or divinely ordained servitude. Roman religion was polytheistic, inclusive, and tolerant. Christianity was monotheistic, exclusive, and intolerant. And as the latter extended its sway over the world of politics it introduced the spirit of exclusiveness and intolerance into all departments of life. "Saved" and "lost" in theology were the equivalents of superior and inferior in sociology. And as the overwhelming bulk of the coloured people remained outside the Christian pale, the development of the colour bar was easy. Christianity gave just that religious sanction which slavery required for its ethical justification. Slavery applied to whites was revolting; slavery applied to blacks became part of the divinely appointed order.
It was the <b>Christian</b> who elaborated the <b>theory that black slavery was permissible because the whole of the dark-skinned people were suffering from the curse God pronounced on Ham, the son of Noah.</b>Â
-- Christianity, Slavery and Labour, by Chapman Cohen (1931)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a larger degree the slave in Rome, in addition to his employment in agriculture and in the household, engaged in all trades and trading. The whole field of trade and industry was open to the slave, and Professor Dill comes close to the facts when he says that
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>"the slave class of antiquity really corresponded to our free labouring class."</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>It will not do, therefore, to identify Pagan with Christian slavery.</b> Slavery as an institution existed in both cases, but, as Professor Cairnes says,
"We look in vain in the records of antiquity for a traffic which in extent, in systematic character...can be regarded as the analogue of the modern slave trade."
<b>The Christian slave trade represents one of the most frightful and systematic brutalities the world has ever known.</b>
...
"<b>Christianity met the movement by turning freemen into slaves.</b> Under Paganism, bodies only were enslaved; minds were left free. <b>Christianity enslaved both body and mind."</b>
-- Christianity, Slavery and Labour, by Chapman Cohen (1931)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ramana, about slavery of African people under christianity see
- http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4b.htm#BibleAfricanSlavery <i>'Biblical justification'</i>
- http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4b.htm#ChurchesSlavery <i>'Churches and slavery'</i>
(especially the subsection 'Religious reasons used to institute and uphold slavery')