OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 08:10:42 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Persons as Property  (Read 3052 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« on: May 12, 2009, 04:53:58 AM »

On what conceivable basis could the principle of persons as property be dismissed as fundamentally anti-Christian when the Old Testament, New Testament and the Fathers clearly accept it both implicitly and explicitly?  Also, marriage as traditionally practiced and many of the laws governing sexual behavior before, during and centuries after the time of Christ make absolutely no sense unless women are property, either of their fathers or of their husbands.
Logged
Myrrh23
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,639



« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2009, 05:09:45 AM »

As Christians, I've always thought we were followers mainly of the ideas and practices of the New Testament, rather that the Old Testament--hence the name "Christian". Wink

I'm no expert on what the Fathers wrote or believed, but if any of them happened to support the idea of people as property, then we should forgive them for it. You have to understand that these Holy men were human beings, subject to the same temptations and failings as the rest of us. Our #1 Authority on anything should be God in the Person of Jesus Christ, and he taught us to love one another. Treating a brother or sister like chattel is clearly against this teaching.

If you're referring to the Biblical quote that a husband is the head of the wife, you should realize it also states that a husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church--a relationship meant to be one of gentle love and support between both parties, not one of 1950's domination or Puritan control. Smiley

Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2009, 05:20:28 AM »

Myrrh23,

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20925.msg318946.html#msg318946

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2009, 05:24:19 AM »

Our #1 Authority on anything should be God in the Person of Jesus Christ, and he taught us to love one another. Treating a brother or sister like chattel is clearly against this teaching.

I agree with the bolded statement, but I deny that Christ or the Apostles had any problem with slavery or people as property per se as they clearly did not.  They were concerned about fairness and just treatment as understood by their cultural contemporaries.  Monasteries in the Christian East and West have traditionally owned slaves.  Note that before the welfare state the only alternative to slavery for many was begging/fighting/starving.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 05:35:57 AM by Cudgel » Logged
Myrrh23
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,639



« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2009, 05:38:01 AM »

Our #1 Authority on anything should be God in the Person of Jesus Christ, and he taught us to love one another. Treating a brother or sister like chattel is clearly against this teaching.

I agree with the bolded statement, but I deny that Christ or the Apostles had any problem with slavery or people as property per se as they clearly did not.

I don't know about the Apostles, but Christ was probably more concerned with other major problems that His People were experiencing, such as the legalism of the Scribes and Pharisees, and the reality of predatory theft by the sellers in the Temple. It's not that the Apostles weren't concerned about it, but that they were charged with telling of Christ's Sacrifice for the Whole World--His death and resurrection. You have to understand that the majority of the world at that time practiced some form of slavery. Like poverty, slavery was a problem that was not going to be wiped out overnight. It's the modern era, and there is still slavery in some form in our world. Perhaps Jesus and His Apostles had to choose which matter was more pressing: salvation or the elimination of people as property. I'm not sure, but perhaps Jesus did speak out against slavery inside a parable? I certainly see it in His quote about loving each other.

Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2009, 06:22:07 AM »

Did you look at the links I left you? I'm not at all ignorant of the Jewish and Christian perspectives on slavery before and after Christ until the modern era.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 06:24:38 AM by Cudgel » Logged
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,652



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2009, 06:38:45 AM »

The word translated as "slave" in Jewish and Christian scripture doesn't refer to chattel slavery. It refers to indentured servitude. Not that I'm saying that's a good thing either, but niether the Jews nor the early Christians practiced chattel slavery. Persons in bondage worked until they paid thier debt off, and had freedom to marry-thier children were not considered slaves.

Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2009, 07:35:28 AM »

I once had an exchange on this topic with a Presbyterian minister, who had a rather unusual take on the issue of slavery. He said, look, slavery did not go anywhere - it just changed its form. In the USA of today, we have thousands and thousands of prisoners who are, essentially, slaves of the state. We have to be kind to them, pray for them and with them, donate food, clothes, our time to them etc.
Logged

Love never fails.
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2009, 08:58:53 AM »

The word translated as "slave" in Jewish and Christian scripture doesn't refer to chattel slavery. 

I disagree; it refers to BOTH in Jewish and Roman contexts. 
Quote
“If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.” (Exodus 21:20-21)

‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

There also appears to be some brutal shock treatment and sex slavery in Numbers:

Quote
"...And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slew all the [adult] males. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones...And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses...And Moses was angry with the officers of the host And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Ba'laam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:1-18)

For the final "nail in the coffin," I will demonstrate how the Council of Chalcedon formally condemned abolitionism by raising the Synod of Gangra to ecumenical status:
Quote

CANON III.

IF any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.

http://www.synaxis.org/cf/volume37/ECF37THE_COUNCIL_OF_GANGRA_HISTORICAL.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III.

Anathema to him who persuades a slave to leave his master under pretence of religion.

This canon is framed in accordance with the doctrine of the Apostle, in I. Timothy, chapter six, verse 1. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." And again the same Apostle teaches his disciple Titus that he should "exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." (Titus ii. 9 and 10.)

These texts are likewise cited by Balsamon and Zonaras.

This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars. II., Causa XVII., Q. IV., c. xxxvij. in the version of Isidore, and again in c. xxxviij. from the collections of Martin Bracarensis (so says Van Espen) and assigned to a council of Pope Martin, Canon xlvii.

http://www.synaxis.org/cf/volume37/ECF37THE_COUNCIL_OF_GANGRA_HISTORICAL.htm
--------------------------------------
The First Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon, reads as follows: "We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force." And the Council in Trullo, in its second canon, has enumerated these synods in the following words. "We set our seal to all the rest of the canons which have been established by our holy and blessed fathers, that is to say by the 318 God-inspired fathers who met at Nice, and by those who met at Ancyra, and by those who met at Neocaeesarea, as well as by those who met at Gangra: in addition to these the canons adopted by those who met at Antioch in Syria, and by those who met at Laodicea in Phry-gia; moreover by the 150 fathers who assembled in this divinely kept and imperial city, and by the 200 who were gathered in the metropolis of Ephesus, and by the 630 holy and blessed fathers who met at Chalcedon," etc., etc.

http://www.synaxis.org/canon/ECF37THE_CANONS_OF_THE_COUNCILS_OF_AN.htm
-----------------------------------------

I am not looking for a history lesson, but for an answer to the question raised in my original post.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 09:23:11 AM by Cudgel » Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2009, 10:25:03 AM »

On what conceivable basis could the principle of persons as property be dismissed as fundamentally anti-Christian when the Old Testament, New Testament and the Fathers clearly accept it both implicitly and explicitly?  Also, marriage as traditionally practiced and many of the laws governing sexual behavior before, during and centuries after the time of Christ make absolutely no sense unless women are property, either of their fathers or of their husbands.
I would like to just make an observation here. It is not meant to be mean, or demeaning. I did a search of all your posts so far Cudgel, and they all relate to sex/marriage. You do not have to answer my questions, but are you living with someone? That you are not married to? It seems that you are looking for every possible route to say that the sexual mores/norms in the Judeo-Christian tradition are false, and no longer applicable. I can only come to the conclusion that you are living in opposition to these traditional (Orthodox) understandings of sex and marriage. Of course I don't expect an answer, because it would be a private matter, but it certainly seems that you are looking to "create" your own brand of Christianity that suits your own ends, and means. My 2 cents.
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2009, 10:56:32 AM »

On what conceivable basis could the principle of persons as property be dismissed as fundamentally anti-Christian when the Old Testament, New Testament and the Fathers clearly accept it both implicitly and explicitly?  Also, marriage as traditionally practiced and many of the laws governing sexual behavior before, during and centuries after the time of Christ make absolutely no sense unless women are property, either of their fathers or of their husbands.
I would like to just make an observation here. It is not meant to be mean, or demeaning. I did a search of all your posts so far Cudgel, and they all relate to sex/marriage. You do not have to answer my questions, but are you living with someone? That you are not married to? It seems that you are looking for every possible route to say that the sexual mores/norms in the Judeo-Christian tradition are false, and no longer applicable. I can only come to the conclusion that you are living in opposition to these traditional (Orthodox) understandings of sex and marriage. Of course I don't expect an answer, because it would be a private matter, but it certainly seems that you are looking to "create" your own brand of Christianity that suits your own ends, and means. My 2 cents.

No, I only created multiple threads because the discussions without fail led to rabbit trails that had nothing to do with my original point (with enough exceptions to keep me in.) I'm not saying that they were not intellectually intriguing in their own right, but a thorough thinking through of issues only started happening with my last thread. You also need to act like a Christian.  If you didn't expect a public answer then you should have had the character to ask me privately. I've discussed marriage/Jewish law/Byzantine law/property law/ dating/masturbation/premarital sex/cohabitation/spousal abuse/adultery/artificial and natural birth control methods/the adoption of stoic philosophy in christian moral reasoning/slavery/oppression of women with people on this forum, it's absolutely impossible to infer from that what my motivation must be.  Maybe you accuse because you feel guilty? Instead of wasting my time in this manner, why not answer my question and discuss the validity of the arguments being presented instead of attempting to fill in the utter void of intellectual rigor with vain attempts at character assassination? 

It's ironic that by merely quoting within context the actual canons, writings of the Fathers and liturgical texts, I have presented a vision of marriage and sexuality that few Orthodox left in this world are willing or in fact do accept on its own terms, and for some reason this demonstration of tensions has lead to the absolutely baseless claim that I'm attempting to justify my own secret life when if that were my goal I am more than capable of doing that without the help of anyone on this forum. It is ironic because perhaps no one takes the Scriptural, Patristic and liturgical texts more seriously than I do, which is why I'm attempting to distinguish the principles from their historically contingent applications and apply them to our situation as faithfully as possible and deepen our understanding of them so that I and others might salt the earth efficaciously.  Perhaps I came to the wrong place, but if you can't speak seriously on these issues with those on your own team; I don't see how you can possibly expect to speak coherently to those outside the Church.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 11:02:34 AM by Cudgel » Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2009, 10:58:44 AM »

No, I only created multiple threads because the discussions without fail led to rabbit trails that had nothing to do with my original point (with enough exceptions to keep me in.) I'm not saying that they were not intellectually intriguing in their own right, but a thorough thinking through of issues only started happening with my last thread. You also need to act like a Christian.  If you didn't expect a public answer then you should have had the character to ask me privately. I've discussed marriage/Jewish law/Byzantine law/property law/ dating/masturbation/premarital sex/cohabitation/spousal abuse/adultery/artificial and natural birth control methods/the adoption of stoic philosophy in christian moral reasoning/slavery/oppression of women with people on this forum, it's absolutely impossible to infer from that what my motivation must be.  Maybe you accuse because you feel guilty? Instead of wasting my time in this manner, why not answer my question and discuss the validity of the arguments being presented instead of attempting to fill in the utter void of intellectual rigor with vain attempts at character assassination? 

It's ironic that by merely quoting within context the actual canons, writings of the Fathers and liturgical texts, I have presented a vision of marriage and sexuality that few Orthodox left in this world are willing or in fact do accept on its own terms, and for some reason this demonstration of tensions lead to the absolutely baseless claim that I'm attempting to justify my own secret life when if that were my goal I am more than capable of doing that without the help of anyone on this forum. It is ironic because perhaps no one takes the Scriptural, Patristic and liturgical texts more seriously than I do, which is why I'm attempting to distinguish the principles from their historically contingent applications and apply them to our situation as faithfully as possible and deepen our understanding of them so that I and others might salt the earth efficaciously.[/i][/b]  Perhaps I came to the wrong place, but if you can't speak seriously on these issues with those on your own team; I don't how you can expect to speak coherently to those outside the Church.
I think that I have hit the nail right on the head with my previous post. Why get so angry? Did I, perhaps, infer correctly?
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2009, 11:05:14 AM »

I think that I have hit the nail right on the head with my previous post. Why get so angry? Did I, perhaps, infer correctly?

I'm not angry; I'm annoyed and attempting to close the fruitless line of inquiry you've opened up.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 11:06:31 AM by Cudgel » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2009, 11:12:20 AM »

Honestly, I agree with Cudgel on this one.  PFN has inferred only what he was looking for. 

[sarcasm]He's getting really good at reading other people's hearts and minds.[/sarcasm]
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2009, 11:16:26 AM »

Honestly, I agree with Cudgel on this one.  PFN has inferred only what he was looking for. 

[sarcasm]He's getting really good at reading other people's hearts and minds.[/sarcasm]
Oh, come on! I opened a couple threads in the Catholic forum and everyone was asking me if I was a secret catholic! Or what my motivations were for asking the questions that I was asking, some of them being moderators. I can't question a poster about their motivations for posting? [sarcasm]I wish that rule applied to my posts.[/sarcasm]
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 11:16:53 AM by PoorFoolNicholas » Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2009, 11:20:51 AM »

I can't question a poster about their motivations for posting?

You argued that the desire to defend my own unlawful sexual behavior was the only available means of explaining what I have wrote thus far on this forum; you publically asked if this was the case and stated that you did not expect a public response. 
Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2009, 11:35:04 AM »

You argued that the desire to defend my own unlawful sexual behavior was the only available means of explaining what I have wrote thus far on this forum; you publically asked if this was the case and stated that you did not expect a public response.
Well then, am I right, or not?
Quote
I would like to just make an observation here. It is not meant to be mean, or demeaning. I did a search of all your posts so far Cudgel, and they all relate to sex/marriage. You do not have to answer my questions, but are you living with someone? That you are not married to? It seems that you are looking for every possible route to say that the sexual mores/norms in the Judeo-Christian tradition are false, and no longer applicable. I can only come to the conclusion that you are living in opposition to these traditional (Orthodox) understandings of sex and marriage. Of course I don't expect an answer, because it would be a private matter, but it certainly seems that you are looking to "create" your own brand of Christianity that suits your own ends, and means. My 2 cents.
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2009, 11:45:51 AM »

It's not true, and I'm done talking to you.
Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2009, 11:50:08 AM »

It's not true, and I'm done talking to you.
I still don't know why my question wasn't valid....
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 11:50:27 AM by PoorFoolNicholas » Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2009, 11:57:35 AM »

It's not true, and I'm done talking to you.
I still don't know why my question wasn't valid....

1. Write on the topic of the original post
2. Find another thread

Please choose one. I answered your question. Stop wasting my time.
Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2009, 11:59:59 AM »

It's not true, and I'm done talking to you.
Apparently you're not? Do you accept the view of the Church regarding sexuality/sex and marriage?
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2009, 12:12:03 PM »

Do you accept the view of the Church regarding sexuality/sex and marriage?

What do you understand the view of the Church right now to be?  Marriage was raised to the level of a sacrament after the new testament. The Fathers and many ancient church canons discourage non-procreative sex within marriage. In both Jewish, ecclesiastical and Roman law, fornication and adultery consist in property rights violations, the first against the father alone and the latter against the husband (and perhaps the father as well). [Orthodoxy before the 20th century was also unambiguously anti-contraceptive across the board.] Read these canons of St. Basil carefully before you reply:

Quote
IX. The sentence of the Lord that it is unlawful to withdraw from wedlock, save on account of fornication, Matthew 5:32 applies, according to the argument, to men and women alike. Custom, however, does not so obtain. Yet, in relation with women, very strict expressions are to be found; as, for instance, the words of the apostle "He which is joined to a harlot is one body" 1 Corinthians 6:16 and of Jeremiah, If a wife "become another man's shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?" Jeremiah 3:1 And again, "He that has an adulteress is a fool and impious."  Yet custom ordains that men who commit adultery and are in fornication be retained by their wives. Consequently I do not know if the woman who lives with the man who has been dismissed can properly be called an adulteress; the charge in this case attaches to the woman who has put away her husband, and depends upon the cause for which she withdrew from wedlock. In the case of her being beaten, and refusing to submit, it would be better for her to endure than to be separated from her husband; in the case of hereto objecting to pecuniary loss, even here she would not have sufficient ground. If her reason is his living in fornication we do not find this in the custom of the church; but from an unbelieving husband a wife is commanded not to depart, but to remain, on account of the uncertainty of the issue. "For what do you know, O wife, whether you shall save your husband?" 1 Corinthians 7:16 Here then the wife, if she leaves her husband and goes to another, is an adulteress. But the man who has been abandoned is pardonable, and the woman who lives with such a man is not condemned. But if the man who has deserted his wife goes to another, he is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman's husband to come over to her.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202188.htm

Quote
XXI. If a man living with a wife is not satisfied with his marriage and falls into fornication, I account him a fornicator, and prolong his period of punishment. Nevertheless, we have no canon subjecting him to the charge of adultery, if the sin be committed against an unmarried woman. For the adulteress, it is said, "being polluted shall be polluted," Jeremiah 3:1 and she shall not return to her husband: and "He that keeps an adulteress is a fool and impious."  He, however, who has committed fornication is not to be cut off from the society of his own wife. So the wife will receive the husband on his return from fornication, but the husband will expel the polluted woman from his house. The argument here is not easy, but the custom has so obtained.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202199.htm
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 12:17:01 PM by Cudgel » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2009, 12:14:40 PM »

Honestly, I agree with Cudgel on this one.  PFN has inferred only what he was looking for. 

[sarcasm]He's getting really good at reading other people's hearts and minds.[/sarcasm]
Oh, come on! I opened a couple threads in the Catholic forum and everyone was asking me if I was a secret catholic! Or what my motivations were for asking the questions that I was asking, some of them being moderators. I can't question a poster about their motivations for posting? [sarcasm]I wish that rule applied to my posts.[/sarcasm]

For the record, I think some people were overreacting to your questions.  However, you were also actively seeking justification for the use of traditionally Western Catholic devotional practices.  I have not seen Cudgel attempt to justify any of his own behavior, especially since we do not even know if his questions are directly related to any personal behavior of his ownl; he has not seen fit to post such a revelation.  In fact, I find his questions to be quite academic in nature.  

The fact that you can apparently see his heart and motivations points to your clairvoyant powers and also your ability to derail a thread with personal accusations that would probably have been better mentioned through a personal message.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
si2008
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 96


« Reply #23 on: May 12, 2009, 01:23:40 PM »

I always thought that slavery was acknowledged by Christ but not condoned, necessarily.  All of the evils of human society were acknowledged, but could be put to good use by God, as it were.  If you were a slave, enduring your lot until the end could be a sacrifice to God.  I don't know what we should think as far as Church Fathers and monasteries owning slaves or supporting slavery, but C.S. Lewis talks about this briefly in Mere Christianity (I don't have a quote); I think to say that God allows certain evils among men as they grow into righteousness (like the killing of entire races by the Israelites, concubinage among kings and other OT figures, etc.).  Gradually it becomes apparent that certain things aren't right, and men move away from them.

As far as how this relates to marriage...I would like to ask if you think love has anything to do with human relationships, or whether you think they all come down to conquest and ownership?  Your posts are relentless in a way.  Do you think God intended a joyless, loveless existence of servitude for all of us, or what?  I don't get what you're driving at with your line of questioning.
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2009, 01:40:06 PM »

I always thought that slavery was acknowledged by Christ but not condoned, necessarily. 

You're wrong. The same underlying principle of persons owning persons implicit in slavery was present in marriage also as explicated in Torah, presupposed by the whole Old Testament, and as practiced by the contemporaries of Christ (marriage of Cana), the Apostles and no doubt Mary and Joseph.

I don't know what we should think as far as Church Fathers and monasteries owning slaves or supporting slavery,

Pre-Enlightenment notions of self-government and post-Enlightenment abolitionist thought had taken off yet so it was thought nothing wrong had occurred.  I don't completely disagree with them either, it's not just about affirming abstract human equality in the law, it's about fairness, justice and the viability of alternatives. Slavery per se was not seen as intrinsically evil, and it very well may not be in my opinion.  Feudal peasants no doubt fared better at times than so-called free persons working abysmally low wages at various times in American history.

Quote
As far as how this relates to marriage...I would like to ask if you think love has anything to do with human relationships, or whether you think they all come down to conquest and ownership? 


Do *I* think love has nothing to do with human relationships, but comes down to conquest and ownership?  Are you serious?! Yes, I am indeed human, I assure you.

Quote
Do you think God intended a joyless, loveless existence of servitude for all of us, or what?  I don't get what you're driving at with your line of questioning.

No, but Scripture has been repeatedly interpreted and applied in a manner that might suggest such:

What am I getting at? See here, I recommend reading both carefully:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21235.msg319929.html#msg319929

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20925.msg318946.html#msg318946
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 01:42:44 PM by Cudgel » Logged
si2008
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 96


« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2009, 01:49:47 PM »

Ok, dude, I'm in over my head.  I wish you luck in your research.  Just glad to know you're human.  Smiley
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2009, 01:57:49 PM »

Ok, dude, I'm in over my head.  I wish you luck in your research.  Just glad to know you're human.  Smiley

You may not be, here is all I believe one needs to know in order to make a contribution to the discussion:

1. Many marriage/sexual/social norms presupposed the categorization of persons as property (father/daughter, husband/wife).
2. Modern theological and legal thought thoroughly rejects this presupposition implicitly and explicitly.
3. Previous Christian thought on marriage/sex/sociology was an application of established theological principles to (1).
4. I want to know and discuss how we might apply those same principles to the theological and legal context described by (2).

This has been the primary objective of ALL my previous threads, but I have spent 95% of my energies having to prove that (1)-(3) are in fact true and so (4) has really yet to begin. That's why I kept creating new threads on similar topics when the conversation died. Hopefully this thread will take.  You do not have to be extremely well-read in church history, canon law, liturgical texts, etc. to make a contribution to this discussion. Just think through (1)-(4). If you make a factual error or two who cares, whoever would look down on you or make a big deal over that isn't acting like a Christian anyway.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 02:02:04 PM by Cudgel » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,929


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2009, 02:54:42 PM »

On what conceivable basis could the principle of persons as property be dismissed as fundamentally anti-Christian when the Old Testament, New Testament and the Fathers clearly accept it both implicitly and explicitly?  Also, marriage as traditionally practiced and many of the laws governing sexual behavior before, during and centuries after the time of Christ make absolutely no sense unless women are property, either of their fathers or of their husbands.
I would like to just make an observation here. It is not meant to be mean, or demeaning. I did a search of all your posts so far Cudgel, and they all relate to sex/marriage. You do not have to answer my questions, but are you living with someone? That you are not married to? It seems that you are looking for every possible route to say that the sexual mores/norms in the Judeo-Christian tradition are false, and no longer applicable. I can only come to the conclusion that you are living in opposition to these traditional (Orthodox) understandings of sex and marriage. Of course I don't expect an answer, because it would be a private matter, but it certainly seems that you are looking to "create" your own brand of Christianity that suits your own ends, and means. My 2 cents.
PoorFoolNicholas, such inquiry into Cudgel's private life borders on ad hominem and poses no real relevance to this discussion.  Therefore, I agree with Cudgel that you need to restrict yourself to discussing nothing more than the substance of his reasoning and take speculation on his personal life to the private messaging system.

- PeterTheAleut
Section Moderator
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 02:58:18 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2009, 08:37:10 PM »

On what conceivable basis could the principle of persons as property be dismissed as fundamentally anti-Christian when the Old Testament, New Testament and the Fathers clearly accept it both implicitly and explicitly?  Also, marriage as traditionally practiced and many of the laws governing sexual behavior before, during and centuries after the time of Christ make absolutely no sense unless women are property, either of their fathers or of their husbands.
I would like to just make an observation here. It is not meant to be mean, or demeaning. I did a search of all your posts so far Cudgel, and they all relate to sex/marriage. You do not have to answer my questions, but are you living with someone? That you are not married to? It seems that you are looking for every possible route to say that the sexual mores/norms in the Judeo-Christian tradition are false, and no longer applicable. I can only come to the conclusion that you are living in opposition to these traditional (Orthodox) understandings of sex and marriage. Of course I don't expect an answer, because it would be a private matter, but it certainly seems that you are looking to "create" your own brand of Christianity that suits your own ends, and means. My 2 cents.
PoorFoolNicholas, such inquiry into Cudgel's private life borders on ad hominem and poses no real relevance to this discussion.  Therefore, I agree with Cudgel that you need to restrict yourself to discussing nothing more than the substance of his reasoning and take speculation on his personal life to the private messaging system.

- PeterTheAleut
Section Moderator

Fair enough. You are right. Forgive me Cudgel, I am sorry.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2009, 08:44:52 PM »

Credit card debt = slavery
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 08:45:05 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
si2008
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 96


« Reply #30 on: May 13, 2009, 10:33:06 AM »

Credit card debt = slavery

Agreed.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2009, 11:43:16 AM »

Well, just a couple of things that came to me.  First, in the Old Testament the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt was neither limited nor acceptable in the long run.  God Himself arranged for them to be freed of their masters and their enslavement.  So I think that could be looked on as chattel slavery and that it was a bad thing.  Next, if there is the second Great Commandment to love ones neighbor as oneself which is then worked through to the Golden Rule of treating others as one would want to be treated.  Would you want to be a slave, a human being made in the image of God but "owned" by another as an object or work animal? 

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #32 on: May 14, 2009, 03:36:24 PM »

I am not looking for a history lesson, but for an answer to the question raised in my original post.
If I may suggest, the tone of your original post is such that it causes all the rest of those who are participating in this thread to be on the defensive. Perhaps instead of wording it "On what conceivable basis," which implies that there is no logical basis, you could write, "What is the basis?" This would allow for better answers to your question. Just a suggestion.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,929


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2009, 07:07:51 PM »

Tangent on the world's monetary system moved here:  The entire World Monetary System = slavery
Logged
si2008
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 96


« Reply #34 on: May 17, 2009, 05:54:40 PM »

I am reading Quo Vadis right now, and there's a scene of debauchery among Nero's courtiers that includes songbirds and doves tied with silver wires to trees- so they'll fly in circles and look beautiful for the partiers but won't actually escape to freedom.  This may be unrelated, but the sense of sickness this gave me is similar to the sense that most people have when contemplating slavery.  It doesn't just seem wrong and unnatural for our fallen world (although unsurprising), it is totally wrong for the Kingdom of God, where we will be free in spirit and truth.

Many Orthodox have noted this "enslavement" of nature after the fall...we all sense that there's just something wrong about not only US eating and using animals, but about the violence embedded in the natural world absent of humans (the wild).  Although we caused it with our sin.  How much more wrong is the enslavement of people?  God notes the fall of a sparrow, after all, and we are worth much more than sparrows.  I still say that slavery among humans, no matter how refined an institution it became among the Greeks and Romans, is wrong although perfectly understandable after the Fall.  What more explicit picture of our debasement could there be than one human using and owning another human for their own benefit?  Again, no matter how well fed and dressed that slave is compared to other bodily free people.  Manumission was often given upon a master's death to well-loved or longtime slaves as a magnanimous gift.  If slavery were natural and desired and all that Cudgel suggests it may be, manumission and slaves saving up to buy their freedom wouldn't have been encouraged at all.

Just my thoughts.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #35 on: May 17, 2009, 10:23:23 PM »

You have brought up a good point, I think, si2008 when you mentioned saving to buy ones freedom.  There are many cases of that happening in the United States such as that of Absolom Jones, the first Black Episcopal priest in the US.  http://www.historicalrenewal.com/biographies/bio_AJones.htm

The desire to be free from slavery would seem to be an indication that being "property" of another person like a chair or cow is wrong.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Tags: slavery 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.136 seconds with 63 queries.