Under pretext of religion. The synod is condemning the binding of consciences as if to teach that slaves are somehow acting contrary to Christian piety to obey their masters. A gloss cites I Timothy 6:1 and Titus 2:10. It is an injunction against those who would convince slaves they are dishonourable or impious unless they rebel.
No, it was mainly the forced labour that did it. Slavery.
Either you or the paper is getting it exactly backwards. It’s radical Hindus persecuting Christians.
The history of slavery in the U.S. is quite complex but I believe there were times when, in some of the slave states, no Black people could be free citizens. In the Catholic countries in the Americas at the time, such as Brazil and Peru, there was never any explicitly racial legislation of that kind, though of course slavery was slavery everywhere.
You’re pointing to a proclamation made in the middle of the 15th century, speaking of war against Islamic forces that had enslaved and persecuted Christians for centuries, and were still doing so at the time the document was published.
The fact that a belief existed among Christians does not prove it is a Christian teaching. There once were Christians who thought the world was flat. That doesn’t mean the Church taught that the earth was flat. Still less that it does so now.
At no point did I say that it was. I agree that such teaching was not officially taught by the Church. The quote I was responding to said in part “…somehow justified by (anti-Christian) ideas of racial inferiority.” as if to say only those against Christianity had ideas of racial inferiority. Only those of a Judeo-Chrstian faith would believe the Curse of Ham was real, let one that it was referring to those of African descent.
How is purchasing a slave from a neighboring nation or passing it down as an inheritance not treating someone as not a person? How is allowing someone to be born, toil, be beaten, and die as a slave (which God is perfectly fine with) not denying that person his or her humanity?Mike_from_NJ:
Because ownership of the person in such a way that they are no longer persons in their own right — chattel slavery — that was the practice in the ancient world, could not be reconciled with the Christian belief that all human beings have equal worth and dignity under God.
Tell Jehovah that. Tell him that it was wrong to twice call slaves property.
Give me a situation where a person serving in perpetual servitude would be morally forced into servitude AND there is no other solution to allow this person his or her subsistence while retaining his rights and dignity. Before you touch the keyboard remember three things:
It’s not the problem the evil. There’s a bright line between saying that evil things may happen to you and telling his people to perform evil. God didn’t tell people to murder innocents and then ween them off that. He didn’t tell his people to rape and then ween them off that. He certainly didn’t tell his people to neglect the Sabbath then ween them off that. And using your analogy we don’t teach our children to hit others and then ween them off that. It’s very basic and simple at first, but a child is taught early on not to hit others.
Why would I need to protect God? Surely you realize that’s ridiculous. I’m trying to make sense of existence just like you are; but I do still believe in the gospel. I believe the Old Testament is divinely inspired as a record of salvation history. I do not believe slavery or divorce, or capital punishment, are good. Jesus revealed a distinction between the permissions given in the Mosaic law and the original justice of human beings (Matthew 19:8).
No. You are reversing the cause and effect. When one of the parties asks a Church tribunal to investigate and decide whether a marriage is valid, the first and primary aim of the tribunal is to effect and assist a reconciliation of the parties (if they are estranged). only IF and WHEN it is proven that this cannot be done, then one of the grounds for a declaration of nullity of a purported marriage (NOT “annulment” of a marriage. The Tribunal doesn’t MAKE the marriage null, it simply declares what it has found based on the evidence presented (and it may be mistaken, Tribunals are not infallible.) is that the spouses have permanently separated. The proof of this varies depending on the country. In the USA the usual proof is a civil divorce certificate, though there may be other proofs. The Church does not accept divorce under any circumstances whatsoever. She regards a civil “divorce” as merely a legally enforced separation of the husband and wife, who remain validly married unless and until found and declared otherwise.
