Posted on 02/27/2006 4:29:24 AM PST by Loyalist
In an unusual public dissent with their leaders, 19 Quebec Roman Catholic priests published yesterday an open letter taking issue with the church's opposition to both same-sex marriage and the ordination of active gays into the priesthood.
Great point!
I have a feeling that some slaves might view homosexual acts as a lesser sin which is not for them to call, but something to consider nevertheless.
It's something I need to work through. I've only gottten to the point that homosexual acts were condemned in many places in the bible and always by the church, whereas slavery, although condoned or not specifically condemned, was not intended to brutalize or demean another human being; it was a form of servitude which has had many variations through the centuries; many immigrants came to America as indentured servants as well as the poor souls who came bound in chains on slave ships and condemned to an unpleasant life. I do think that a few slaves in the old south became devoted to their masters and would have rejected "freedom".
We still have "slavery" by consent today that would not be frowned upon, you work for me for a certain amount of time, and I'll give you free room and board; whatever the two parties agree upon. The only difference is the coercive element. But one could argue sometimes economic conditions in diverse times and places have coerced people to become unpaid servants, work as a nanny or taking care of an elderly person for free room and board, for example (usually there is some money exchanged). So long as it was mutually consentual, I don't think there are any laws on the books in America to prohibit the practice per se.
Maybe some greater mind has wrestled with the concepts. This is not a good time to bring this up because I've got a lot to do and should be getting to it.
Aliska, I would not be troubled by that comparison. All throughout the Old Testament are many parts that I am troubled by. Yes, those were different times in a different context of man. Those who would own slaves have much more than I would want to have to account for. I can't say for sure that the Holy Bible ever actually condoned it, but you have to admit that the slavery that the Israelites endured was much different in it's effect on the humanity of the slaves than what some other "situations" of slave ownership mentioned elsewhere. They were degraded, humiliated and murdered, and these were God's people. But they were enslaved because of their disobedience, and I guess in that regard you could posit that it was condoned by Our Lord. However, I don't remember anything in the Holy Bible ever once saying same sex relations were approved of by the Lord.
And I for one don't even need the Bible to tell me just how wrong it is. Its filthy and unnatural and something in it's practitioners has gone very, very wrong mentally as well as morally.
I'm going to have plenty to account for besides never owning slaves. You made a good point about the Jews; it was God's judgement; I won't presume why it was allowed the other way. As much as I remember, the bible was largely silent about the Jews owning slaves. It should be noted that at some times they would be freed, and if they chose to stay with their masters, they would be pierced by an awl through their earlobe to the doorpost ritually.
It's hard for we moderns to be objective about things that were done in the past.
These 19 need to go.
Now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.