| Of course my summations need further research. There is a huge amount of existing literature on the topic, and I am no expert. By the same token, your summations need further research. And the books by experts need further research. Frankly, when I see people use that phrase, I interpret it as a deliberate undercutting of the opposing viewpoint. For example, those against vaccines rarely say "get rid of all vaccines." They say, "we need more research to access the safety before we can make a decision." Even though the research is already there. You say "I think a good starting point for research is ..." Assuredly so. That's why I gave links to Wikipedia pages about such topics. Earlier I pointed to a more academic approach, since that's what you asked for. You mention now only the British movement to abolition. What of the French? In Wikipedia link to Abolitionism I gave earlier, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism points out that: > During the Age of Enlightenment, many philosophers wrote pamphlets against slavery and its moral and economical justifications, including Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws (1748) or in the Encyclopédie. In 1788, Jacques Pierre Brissot founded the Society of the Friends of the Blacks (Société des Amis des Noirs) to work for abolition of slavery. Revolutionary France, based on Enlightenment principles, abolished slavery in all French territories. Napoleon restore it. Again, you refer to the Bible, as with "The Bible clearly states ..." and point out "There was always a Christian minority opposing it in every century". Which means the majority of devout Christians thought slavery was acceptable under the Bible, does it not? When you pick out only the small number of Christians who agree with you, it sounds very much like a post hoc argument. The question is, why was there slavery in Christian, European countries (eg, hereditary slavery in Scotland)? How could so many devout Christian theologians, like Aquinas, interpret the Bible as allowing slavery, when you think the Bible is so clearly against it? You say "it is also the triumph of the Church". That sounds like you think there's single Church. Are the Quakers part of "the Church"? What of the Jehovah's Witnesses? The Mormons? Unitarians? Is this the same Church which hides child molester priests from civil prosecution? If you mean the collective body of Christians, is this the same Church which kicked the Jews out of Spain and the Huguenots out of France? You call it a "triumph"? It's an embarrassment that it took so long. Most churches had to be dragged into their current views. Your argument is sort of like how a death-bed confessional is supposed to absolve someone of all their earthly sins, no matter how malign they were. I believe your view is that no matter what the Church does, so long as they eventually apologize for it and change their ways to conform with secular liberal beliefs, it will be a triumph? > "Is it better to call you sister?" The real question is not what I prefer to be called, but why you think someone's gender is so important in a conversation. Based on your reading of the Bible, should women be allowed to be the head of a church? |