May 2, 2012
commented on Testaments Old & New
I'm always weirded out by any conservative Christian who defends New Testament support for the Roman form of slavery by claiming it was supposedly less evil than the more modern version, given the contradiction between conservative Christian attitudes about homosexuality and what Seneca the Elder had to say about impudicitia (the willingness to be penetrated by another male, among other sexual characteristics).
In Rome, Seneca noted impudicitia was "...a crime for the freeborn, a necessity in a slave, a duty for the freedman." This "less evil" form of slavery included legally sanctioned homosexual availability among its duties even after the male slave involved was freed, which you'd think would be something of a stumbling block for its would-be conservative apologists. And I don't think I have to highlight for non-conservatives the coexisting, and genuinely morally vile, "who cares about your sexual preferences if I outrank you" attitude built into this "less evil" slavery.
The more these purists try to make a case for a modern morality based only on unedited Biblical sources, the more ignorant and/or awful they sound. I really am forced to agree "bullshit" is the proper term to use here.
May 2, 2012
joined My Stranger Face