GT Loved Ones, Help.

[Rick Otto]

owning another human being is immoral period.

I own my whole family & they own me. nothing at all immoral about it.
You have been seriously confused.

 

[racer]

Slavery as it was practiced then was not moraly wrong. It was a voluntary contract that was based on debt, not the rascist, oppression that was forced on Africans.

I believe you are speaking about "indentured servitude."

So, how far back are you speaking? During the lives of the apostles?

I believe that practice to be just as immoral as slavery.

 

[racer]

I own my whole family & they own me. nothing at all immoral about it.
You have been seriously confused.

Hey, I tell my husband to jump, and he says how high, how fast and how far!







Not really.

 

[catlover]

I own my whole family & they own me. nothing at all immoral about it.
You have been seriously confused.

You are confused to believe it's morally acceptable to own another human being-you are wrong. Period.

 

[sunlover1]

I am so much happier in this marriage...I truly know it will be til death do us part, because I can't imagine my life not being married to him.

Sorry to get all mooshy.

Don't be. It's beautiful !
Blesses God too:

There be three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not:
19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock;
the way of a ship in the midsth of the sea;
and the way of a man with a maid.​

 

[mont974x4]

You are confused to believe it's morally acceptable to own another human being-you are wrong. Period.

and you have continued to miss the point people in this thread are making...and ignore that Scripture tells how slaves and masters are supposed to act as opposed to denouncing your idea of what those terms mean.

 

[catlover]

and you have continued to miss the point people in this thread are making...and ignore that Scripture tells how slaves and masters are supposed to act as opposed to denouncing your idea of what those terms mean.

Why would God tell people how to act inside an absolutely immoral institution such as slavery?

 

[mont974x4]

Why would God tell people how to act inside an absolutely immoral institution such as slavery?

I'm just telling you it's in the Bible. Perhaps you should start another thread to discuss what those concepts actually mean as opposed to working with pre-concieved ideas.



BTW, none of us are free. We are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness.

 

[WarriorAngel]

All the experiences I have had where a Catholic wanted to date a protestant the protestant family was concerned but not overly worried while the Catholic families had hissy fits. My ex's family did not like me one bit, and they took every opportunity to tell me as such. My ex said this would stop once I became Catholic.

And, given what else I've experienced with Catholics dating protestants, I can't really blame them. In ALL cases where they ended up getting married, the Catholic was the one who switched to the other faith.

And when you think about the divorce rate in this country to begin with, why put added stress into an already stressful relationship?

I dated other people who weren't WELS and were other denoms like Presbyterian and Methodist. I was engaged to a man who was a Pentecostal/AOG mix of something. We had doctrinal issues, and we were young and we really thought we'd be able to work through them. We probably would've been faced with some very similar issues as a C & P couple would.

So this actually could be argued beyond the C & P perspective of things.

My family didnt worry.
My husbands family did!!

Must be bad Karma-now that I have my children I refuse to even think of men,<---(dramatic dramatization but you get the picture)not until they are grown.

Better to stay single, i would think.

I'm judging only what I see here Angel.
I see hate one for another.
That's why I dont care for religion
but rather relationship.
The kids are all fighting, yet they
are spose to all have the same daddy,
and take after the big Brother.



My concern isnt that he'll join the CC.
It's the compatibility issue.


He has, praise His Holy Name!
And I didnt even ask for one.

Well, it really depends on the couple.
If they genuinely love one another, then dont worry.
Besides... there is something about being a practicing Catholic that helps a marriage to last.
When i say practicing, i mean really Catholic.

Most Catholics will bend over backwards to keep the marriage going.

Mont if a girl is Protestant and marries a Catholic, do you still think that she should submit to his lead? If both are convinced that the faith tradition that they are in is the right one, how can either give it up for the other? I know that I could not give up the Catholic Faith for even my husband if he had been non-Catholic. I'm still not saying that a good marriage cannot exist, but it is more difficult.

God Bless,
Nancy

There is no way, no how, nada...that i was ever going to submit to my hubby's religion.
I told him up front...before ever marrying him.
Either take me with my faith as i am, or get lost.

I am serious too.
I didnt mince words.

The Bible is clear on the God ordained leadership of men and you have admitted to a (theoretical) willingness to sin.

My sister, who attends the same church I do, is married to a non-practicing rc. She still submits to him while praying for his salvation.

From what i have seen, heard, and know...Catholic men [for the most part] even unpracticing, dont usually [i said usually] dominate or force their wives to submit.
Its not a man's place to force that...since Paul was speaking to the wives to do this to be pleasing to God.

It is, like all choices, something we do to please God, not something for the 'insistence' from men.

Read Corinthians on what love is.
IT is NOT insistent...on its own way.

Why would God tell people how to act inside an absolutely immoral institution such as slavery?

Well, of course you are relating what 'you' think slavery is compared to what it really was.
Slavery was a means to be fed and taken care of [usually the poor indebted themselves to the wealthier families]
Its alot like what we call 'working for a living'...except they got meals, board and whatever they needed.

 

[mont974x4]

I beleive I pointed out earlier that wives are to see to it that they submit and respect their husbands..not forced by them. Just as we are to love our wives, not be be forced by them. Of course, the moment we begin to try to force the other to obey God, we have sinned in obedience on our part. For her to force me to love her would not be an act of submission or respect and for me to force her to submit and respect me would not be loving her.


All of which does not negate the God ordained structure of authority..and He has good reasons for insituting it.

 

[CathNancy]

Well, it really depends on the couple.
If they genuinely love one another, then dont worry.
Besides... there is something about being a practicing Catholic that helps a marriage to last.
When i say practicing, i mean really Catholic.

Most Catholics will bend over backwards to keep the marriage going.

I agree with you WA, my husband and I have been married for 36 years and although we have had our ups and downs in those years, divorce was never an option. I think this is one reason why I have a good marriage, if you know that it is for life, your choice is to work it out or be miserable, we chose to work it out.

Getting back to the OP and sunlovers problem, I think that a very real reason that my marriage has lasted so long is because we are both Catholic with the same faith and the same values. It does make it so much easier, there was never any question of how the kids would be raised, when they both asked to be alter servers, we supported them. And my husband is supporting me as I go through formation to enter the Secular Franciscan Order. I'm not sure if he would understand why this is important to me if he were not Catholic, even though he has no desire to become a Secular Franciscan himself.

God Bless,

Nancy

Edit: Just so I am not misunderstood, there are some marriages that should never have existed in the first place, domestic violence for example, and in those cases, I see nothing wrong with divorce or in the case of a Catholic, an annulment.

 

[catlover]

Well, of course you are relating what 'you' think slavery is compared to what it really was.
Slavery was a means to be fed and taken care of [usually the poor indebted themselves to the wealthier families]
Its alot like what we call 'working for a living'...except they got meals, board and whatever they needed.

So you wouldn't mind if your family was owned by someone else? Your husband and children etc?

 

[catlover]

Edit: Just so I am not misunderstood, there are some marriages that should never have existed in the first place, domestic violence for example, and in those cases, I see nothing wrong with divorce.

Yep-two of those-and of course I held on hoping it would get better, it does not.

 

[Rick Otto]

So you wouldn't mind if your family was owned by someone else? Your husband and children etc?

It was an alternative to starvation and criminal pursuit to survive. I'm glad we were able to disabuse you of the notion it was like what happened to the Africans much later.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yep-two of those-and of course I held on hoping it would get better, it does not.

They weren't owned...
they were indebted for being taken care of.
BTW, slaves were [supposed to be] treated like family.

What you are equating is the more recent understanding of slavery.

Back then, the poor had to 'work' but also, they 'worked' by having everything, including living and food, for them.
So the 'agreement' was...
You work for nothing, but me taking care of you.
And someone in poverty usually wanted this.

I dont think they were mistreated, [but in some cases, as with any nasty boss you ever worked for], would help you remember that sometimes 'masters' were mean.
BUT for the most part... the person who had money could afford to house and feed someone if they in turn worked for free.

It basically wasnt like the 'whips' and being mistreated you are probably thinking about.
It was a way for them to make a living...

Some would call this similar to a groundskeeper, except in modern days, they get paid besides living there.

 

[catlover]

They weren't owned...
they were indebted for being taken care of.
BTW, slaves were [supposed to be] treated like family.

What you are equating is the more recent understanding of slavery.

Back then, the poor had to 'work' but also, they 'worked' by having everything, including living and food, for them.
So the 'agreement' was...
You work for nothing, but me taking care of you.
And someone in poverty usually wanted this.

I dont think they were mistreated, [but in some cases, as with any nasty boss you ever worked for], would help you remember that sometimes 'masters' were mean.
BUT for the most part... the person who had money could afford to house and feed someone if they in turn worked for free.

It basically wasnt like the 'whips' and being mistreated you are probably thinking about.
It was a way for them to make a living...

Some would call this similar to a groundskeeper, except in modern days, they get paid besides living there.

Well see that is where I disagree, human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect-indentured servanthood is was not a nice pratice and neither was slavery. It is immoral to own another human being as one owns cattle. Of course in Biblical times men owned wife and children, but that again was cultural and now we know slavery is not moral and does not contribute to the worth and dignity of human beings.

 

[catlover]

They weren't owned...
they were indebted for being taken care of.
BTW, slaves were [supposed to be] treated like family.

What you are equating is the more recent understanding of slavery.

Back then, the poor had to 'work' but also, they 'worked' by having everything, including living and food, for them.
So the 'agreement' was...
You work for nothing, but me taking care of you.
And someone in poverty usually wanted this.

I dont think they were mistreated, [but in some cases, as with any nasty boss you ever worked for], would help you remember that sometimes 'masters' were mean.
BUT for the most part... the person who had money could afford to house and feed someone if they in turn worked for free.

It basically wasnt like the 'whips' and being mistreated you are probably thinking about.
It was a way for them to make a living...

Some would call this similar to a groundskeeper, except in modern days, they get paid besides living there.

The poor work now, they work two or three jobs to survive but they are not owned.

 

[Crazy Liz]

They weren't owned...
they were indebted for being taken care of.
BTW, slaves were [supposed to be] treated like family.

What you are equating is the more recent understanding of slavery.

Back then, the poor had to 'work' but also, they 'worked' by having everything, including living and food, for them.
So the 'agreement' was...
You work for nothing, but me taking care of you.
And someone in poverty usually wanted this.

I dont think they were mistreated, [but in some cases, as with any nasty boss you ever worked for], would help you remember that sometimes 'masters' were mean.
BUT for the most part... the person who had money could afford to house and feed someone if they in turn worked for free.

It basically wasnt like the 'whips' and being mistreated you are probably thinking about.
It was a way for them to make a living...

Some would call this similar to a groundskeeper, except in modern days, they get paid besides living there.

In the OT, there was both chattel slavery of women and foreigners and debt slavery of male ciizens. The rules for each were different. Chattel slavery of one's (male) fellow-citizen was not allowed. But having different classes of slavery for foreigners and citizen-debtors was not unknown in earlier ANE societies.

The main improvement the Mosaic Law introduced was a set of rules to limit sexual slavery of women to prostitution of female slaves to male slaves. If a non-slave man had sex with a slave woman, she thereby gained the right to be treated as a free woman.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The poor work now, they work two or three jobs to survive but they are not owned.

There is OT law, regarding slaves who could choose to stay with their masters. They were to be set free manditorily after a number of years, but they had an option to stay for life. There would be no need for this law, if they were all chaffing to escape. The assesment that slavery was not the same, as what you are thinking I.E. slavery in America, is correct.

does the whips and chains type of slavery sound to you like it would need to have a law for the slaves that wanted to stay? no? then there is predictably a difference.

 

[Crazy Liz]

There is OT law, regarding slaves who could choose to stay with their masters. They were to be set free manditorily after a number of years, but they had an option to stay for life. There would be no need for this law, if they were all chaffing to escape. The assesment that slavery was not the same, as what you are thinking I.E. slavery in America, is correct.

does the whips and chains type of slavery sound to you like it would need to have a law for the slaves that wanted to stay? no? then there is predictably a difference.

Sorry, but the Mosaic law put such slaves to a dilemma. They could leave, without their wives and children, or remain a slave.

The only incentive to submit to chattel slavery instead of freedom at the conclusion of debt slavery was marriage and parenthood.