My father used to claim I turned out to be left handed because my mother would put the spoon in my left hand as a baby. When I was about nine I got a hand me down set of old golf clubs from my grandfather and they were right handed clubs so I learned to golf right handed. I cannot golf left handed even though I'm left handed. I believe it could be the result of conditioning and learned behavior.
Yingxu Wang
"We proposed a Neural Circuit Calibration (NCC) theory in neuroinformatics [Wang and Fariello (Harvard), 2012, JAMA 1(2)], which can be applied to explain handedness. The NCC theory is based on a fundamental principle that the neural signals transmitting in human nervous system are unique in the form of Pulse Frequency Modulations (PFM) [Wang, 2013].
The NCC theory indicates that, although all neural circuits have been built-in and ready when a baby is born, the brain of the baby cannot yet distinguish the locations and empirical meanings of all mixed neural signals, because they are identical inside the central nervous system as PFM signals.
Therefore, there is a necessary initialization process known as NCC for any new-born baby. NCC is a cognition process that identifies and matches the sources/targets of neural signals as well as their spatial and cognitive meanings interpreted in the brain. The calibration process will take about one to two years to be mature. That is why a new-born baby has to try (or play) almost everything accessible by any hand, and even to taste his/her own toes or shoes.
It’s apparent that before NCC, both hands are equivalent in principle because the symmetry of human nervous system, particularly the peripheral subsystem. Therefore, the theoretical distribution of left-handers and right-handers would be even. However, parents’ and social selections during the NCC period do greatly biased the results of the normal distribution. After the NCC process, the dominate hand of a baby is established and then be strengthen during 2 to 3 years old. (Typical parents’ and social selections during the NCC period will be discussed later.)"
it could be the result of conditioning and learned behavior
I have a kid who uses one hand for one thing and the other for other stuff. Like, she writes right-handed, but throws left-handed. We never tried to make her do one or the other. We just let her do whatever she felt like doing.
I wonder who this hate monger voted for in 2016. Well, not really. The higher the hate, the more likely they supported Trump.
I wonder when this religious prick will be found with either a rentboy in a fleabag hotel, a dead prostitute in his trunk or gigs of kiddie porn on his computer? It's not normal to be this hateful about the sexuality of others, and in the past his outrage is almost always a prelude to one of the above occurring.
I can not agree with any certainty with your comment, but is is clear that this man is enraged over homosexuals. It is unseemly and undignified to teach spiritual lessons with such a haughty tone. I would like you to consider something: This young man is so-called "teaching" a forceful message of hate which lacks any semblance of love.
Since love is the model of Christianity in this day and age, we should wonder whether he is a(n):
Cultural Christian. (One brought up in a clique or fundamentalist sect of Christianity. For we have many denominational strains in Christendom.)
Authentic Christian (One brought up in the Spirit of Love and humility.
Sorry, if I have dropped these terms on you unexpectedly. However, I felt mentally accosted just now listening to this young man's 'rant.' And, some overall distinction is called for here and now about who and what we Christians are and appear to be.
Don't accept the words of ancient men as divine. Don't accept as truth the words of modern men pointing to ancient words as divine truth. So much better to use your brain and reason through the issues of life.
So which is the Smartest ? Those before, those now, or those that seem to know better than all now, now.
Don't forget, Those "before" thought they were "Smarter than all" at the time too.
Ancient Man used their brains to think things through for the times. Man these day use their brains to think things through for their times, and even I use my brain from time to time to think things through based on the times I live in now.
Ancient Man used their brains to think things through for the times. Man these day use their brains to think things through for their times, and even I use my brain from time to time to think things through based on the times I live in now.
true, but we do have the advantage of so much more information available to each of us now. With Knowledge comes power. Power over our environment and many times power over each other.
There is some Weird "Knowledge" out there my Friend
Boy ain't that the truth. Don't believe everything you hear or read is an understanding for sure in todays 24/7 race to publish each parties agenda's side of anything, that does create problems getting to the facts many times.
Ancient Man used their brains to think things through for the times. Man these day use their brains to think things through for their times, and even I use my brain from time to time to think things through based on the times I live in now.
Some do, most do not. If most people thought things through (rather than simply believe what they are told) then we would see far less religion and far less pure partisanship.
Imagine the benefit, for example, of people not teaching bigotry justified by ancient words in books like the Bible. Imagine, for example, people reasoning through the biology of homosexuality and rejecting ancient condemnations (with the death penalty) in favor of modern strong evidence that homosexuality is a minority biological variation such as left handedness and red hair.
Imagine people rejecting the bigot in the seeded video rather than praising this asshole as a 'man of God'.
Ancient Man used their brains to think things through for the times. Man these day use their brains to think things through for their times
Intelligent human these days use their brains to think things through for their times. The opposite of that is looking back to ancient humans for wisdom. Ancients didn’t get that we live on a planet that revolves around a sun, or what a germ is, or what causes weather. These ‘mysteries’ and thousands of other ones were all given the same ignorant explanation: goddidit.
To me the greatest shame is that many people hold as divine truth what other human beings merely claim (oral or written; present or past). People should not be driven from or to God based on what some human being (or book) claims.
No, I thought the best response is the one I actually wrote. Read it:
TiG @7.1 - People should not be driven from or to God based on what some human being (or book) claims.
I am suggesting that we should not "hold as divine truth what other human beings merely claim (oral or written; present or past)". I am suggesting we use our brains and think critically.
I am suggesting that we should not hold as divine truth what other human beings merely claim (oral or written; present or past). I am suggesting we use our brains and think critically.
I fully agree,I read all the major religious books written by other men then I took time to think and decided what I really believed. I differ from a great deal of what I read in my believes. But whatever others want to believe I think is their own business and right as well. To each their own !
I am suggesting we use our brains and think critically.
If you believe religious people are capable of thinking critically, then I am happy to reassess your response. However, that sentiment has not been evident in much of your commenting history. To employ a favored leftist perspective, when people like you and Gordy suggest religious people should think critically, I hear an atheistic dog whistle.
If you believe religious people are capable of thinking critically, then I am happy to reassess your response.
To even think that I would categorically hold that religious people are not able to think critically is an illustration that you are not reading what I write and instead presuming.
Of course religious people can think critically. Most every human being can think critically. However, we do not always do so. Sometimes we suppress our critical thinking faculties. Religion and politics are two primary domains in which critical thinking is defeated by emotion and desire. But even the most devout religious person or partisan is quite capable of critical thinking and demonstrate this in other domains.
when people like you and Gordy suggest religious people should think critically, I hear an atheistic dog whistle.
Everyone should think critically. Critical thinking is something to be encouraged. Religious people, like anyone else, can think critically. But they also tend to suppress critical thinking when it comes to religious belief and/or claims.
To even think that I would categorically hold that religious people are not able to think critically is an illustration that you are not reading what I write and instead presuming.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing it with you, but you might consider taking a modicum of responsibility for your own reputation.
but you might consider taking a modicum of responsibility for your own reputation.
I doubt TiG is overly concerned about his "reputation." He seems more concerned with providing facts and knowledge along with rational and critical thinking. If anything, that is his reputation, and that's one I am just fine with too.
but I also think anyone can do that in any context.
Of course. But religious belief tends to actively counter critical thinking, especially where the tenets of said belief is concerned.
Disappointing that you have paid so little attention to what I have written that you think that was an admission. There was nothing to admit. I routinely note that intelligence (or lack thereof) is not what makes people religious. Better to actually read rather than presume. Unfortunately far too many seem to presume ... probably because snap judgements are easier than actually thinking things through.
... you might consider taking a modicum of responsibility for your own reputation
Not sure what that is supposed to mean. People (as you have just illustrated) will operate on a stereotypical level. For example, if one claims to not be convinced there is a god some will jump to the conclusion that the person is evil. If one attempts to explain socialism some jump to the conclusion that the person is a socialist.
I have no concern for people who jump to conclusions rather than attempt to understand what a person is saying. Their opinions are clearly half-baked and thus irrelevant. And if you are trying to suggest that I should be silent and not object to religious thinking so as to better fit in with the majority and preserve my reputation, then that advice will not be taken.
A straw man argument does not include a conditional like: "if you are trying to suggest ...". However, a preemptive answer that avoids presumption (such as what I actually wrote) would necessarily start with a conditional. Merely tossing the label 'strawman' instead of forming a rebuttal is a poor tactic.
As for 'classy', if someone jumps to conclusions rather than attempt to understand what you have written, would you consider their opinion fully-baked and thus relevant? I doubt it. So maybe reread what I wrote because your response makes no sense.
the difference in Christianity is that God speaks to and through men and they write what the Holy Spirit gives them. the Word of God that testifies of Christ and teaches us how to live in and through Him is PERFECT AND INFALLIBLE
No, that is not what Gordy wrote. He made no comment on intelligence. Rather he was talking about employing our logic / reasoning faculties and not just accept what some bozo claims is truth.
Thank you very much for playing.
You are the one playing games here Tacos! since we all know you have the ability to author genuine rebuttals. Faux victim quips are counter productive.
You have more faith in Gordy than I do. Based on past experience, I see Gordy taking the usual opportunity to skip over the issue and just slam religious people as rejecting logic and reason by definition. Believe me, I'd be happy to be wrong, but that would entail Gordy admitting that people of faith actually deal in things like logic and reason. That would be delightfully new.
Your contribution is to just slam religious people as stupid. Great. Thank you very much for playing
That is not what I said. That is how you chose to interpret it.
You have more faith in Gordy than I do.
That doesn't really mean anything to me.
Based on past experience, I see Gordy taking the usual opportunity to skip over the issue and just slam religious people as rejecting logic and reason by definition.
I addressed a specific point you made. Some people actually question of challenge their own beliefs and even abandon them when they actually think about it logically and rationally. By definition, religious belief is irrational.
Believe me, I'd be happy to be wrong, but that would entail Gordy admitting that people of faith actually deal in things like logic and reason. That would be delightfully new.
You are wrong! I never said people of faith are incapable of dealing with logic or reasoning. Only that religious faith is irrational and some people use logic and reasoning to question their faith rather than just accepting it without question.
Maybe I read Gordy more carefully. Gordy is clearly not of the opinion that having religious belief means one is stupid or is incapable of logic and reason.
It is the religious belief that is challenged, not the intellect of the believer. People, whether dealing with religion, politics, relationships, etc. are often irrational. Our emotions get in the way of critical thinking ... so much so that it takes real effort to think critically. It does not come naturally.
So here is a comment from me that you might think is slamming religious people but it is actually criticizing a thought process:
One who is convinced that a 'holy book' such as the Bible is the divine word of a perfect god is not thinking critically about said holy book.
Maybe I read Gordy more carefully. Gordy is clearly not of the opinion that having religious belief means one is stupid or is incapable of logic and reason.
You clearly did read me more carefully and correctly TiG. Tacos, not so much. His rather defensive and pessimistic response is something that epistte might describe as emotional.
that is a tactic employed by many of the conservative minded including most of the religious conservative minded (as shown on NT in many articles) - makes me wonder how many "victim cards" a person can have to play ? seems like a deck went from 52 cards to an endless supply..
A wedding magazine took an anti-LGBT stance and their advertisers pulled the plug. Now they are folding. Good riddance to bigoted trash. Is it any surprise that they are Christian? It's amusing that they are complaining that others are being judgemental of their anti-LGBT bigotry.
White is an Australian publication all about weddings: what to wear, what couples should know heading into the big day, what the latest trends are, etc. If you’ve ever had a wedding, these are the kinds of publications that start piling up inside your home.
After the nation legalized marriage equality last year, Luke and Carla Burrell , the husband and wife team that started the magazine, decided they didn’t want to show gay or lesbian couples in their pages because their Christian faith doesn’t accept same-sex marriage as legitimate.
White Magazine has always been a secular publication, but as its publishers, we are Christian. We have no agenda but to love. We have no desire to create a social, political or legal war, which only divides people further and does more damage than good. To us, our faith is anchored in love without judgement .
Recently we’ve experienced a flood of judgement. We know much of that comes hand-in-hand with running a public magazine. But we are also just two humans fumbling our way through these big questions and like anyone else, and we don’t have all the answers.
Instead of allowing us the space to work through our thoughts and feelings, or being willing to engage in brave conversations to really hear each other’s stories, some have just blindly demanded that we pick a side. We’re not about sides, we’re about love, patience and kindness. A campaign was launched targeting the magazine, our team and our advertisers. Couples who have featured in our magazine have also been the subject of online abuse despite their individual beliefs. We’re really saddened by this.
That’s all just Christianese for “We don’t think gay marriage counts and LGBTQ people are icky.” It doesn’t matter how many times you say the word “love” when your actions scream “hate.”
They can call it a secular publication all they want, but they didn’t need to put Bible verses in the pages to make their point of view comes through. They have freedom of religion, but advertisers have freedom not to support bigotry. If the Burrells can’t make money by promoting their brand of only-straight-couples-matter, that’s their problem. It’s no different from if they refused to post images of interracial couples because their faith says that’s wrong; they’re welcome to have that policy and others are free to ignore their magazine and pull advertising from it.
All of this became public a few months ago when Lara Hotz , who photographed three covers for the magazine, was told they didn’t want gay couples in their pages. Hotz found that problematic as she’s in a same-sex relationship herself. She told a local radio station that she had no desire to force the couple to include same-sex couples in the publication, but she believed their stance should be public knowledge. She was right about that. If the magazine’s publishers don’t want to celebrate marriage equality, then advertisers should be able to take that into consideration when making business decisions.
It’s the same reason bigoted Christian bakers and florists and photographers should have signs on their doors saying “We don’t provide services for same-sex weddings.” If they already have that policy, why not be open about it? Are they ashamed of their own beliefs? They would likely say no. So why not be open about it?
You bring up a good point about religious business owners who do not want to serve gays should post a notice to that effect. Why do they no dot so in advance before a gay customer patronizes their business? That might save the owner time and trouble from having to deal with such a customer. Of course, such business practices would be quite reminiscent of the "no coloreds served here" store signs of the 1950's.
That would be advertising discrimination against a protected class. That is against the law.
What they should do (and I am confident you agree) is serve all human beings equally. If they do not want to make certain products (e.g. a wedding cake with a homosexual theme) then that is what they should state upfront. But if an openly homosexual couple comes in and wants a traditional wedding cake, the bakery legally must serve them (and, I might add, morally and ethically).
In the case of White, I can see them focusing on heterosexual weddings. That is the (large) niche they wish to service and that is their choice. But I can also see that as an unwise business decision.
They must sell their mag to homosexual patrons, but they are not required to offer a product that would serve a homosexual audience. Again, their choice - but unwise IMO.
You bring up a good point about religious business owners who do not want to serve gays should post a notice to that effect. Why do they no dot so in advance before a gay customer patronizes their business? That might save the owner time and trouble from having to deal with such a customer. Of course, such business practices would be quite reminiscent of the "no coloreds served here" store signs of the 1950's.
They don't want to publically admit their bigotry.
Perhaps they enjoy the opportunity to confront a homosexual and show them how they feel about gay marriage. Not putting up a sign is like bait.
There are many people who support LGBT equality and they would not willingly support a business run by bigots. The death of this marriage magazine is proof of that. Reasonable people don't want to be seen supporting bigotry, even if it is by proxy.
Christian businesses (and any business for that matter) should have the right to serve whomever they wish. That is what occurs in a free society vs the totalitarian state we now have in this country
Christian businesses (and any business for that matter) should have the right to serve whomever they wish. That is what occurs in a free society vs the totalitarian state we now have in this country
Was Jesus a bigot, or does that idea only appear in the Ayn Rand/Jeff Sessions translation of the Bible?
The King James version was supported by a gay English king.
If that does not improve student attendance, I don’t know what will.
On the downside, King James was a raving homosexual. Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it, saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by “Queen James.”
His favorite lover was the Duke of Buckingham. Anyone who doubts this needs to read “King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire” by David Bergeron. James’ tomb lies beside that of Buckingham in Westminster Abbey.
If the Constitution was properly upheld those totalitarian laws would never be allowed
What part of the constitutional protection of equal rights confuses you, or is that just for WASP heterosexuals? Is the 14th Amendment unconstitutional?
There is nothing bigoted about not associating with people who are determined to rebel against God
When a waitress serves someone breakfast in a diner, is it "associating"? When a baker bakes a cake to sell in his cake business, does he "associate" with his customer? Does it require making friends to be civil and treat everyone in our public spaces with the same respect you would appreciate? No one is asking you to be gay, no one is asking you to take a gay American home with you, no one is asking you to befriend gays, all anyone is asking is that you treat them as any other tax paying law abiding American citizen. If I ran a gas station and you pulled in with all your "I love Jesus" stickers on your run down pickup, should I be allowed to say "Sorry, we don't serve your kind here."? You weren't asking me to convert, you weren't asking to be my friend, you just wanted gas, and I should, as the owner of a public business, treat you as I would any other customer regardless of how much I loathed your religious affiliation. This shouldn't be hard to understand, but for some reason some religious persons think themselves exempt from having to be civil to others.
And by the way, quoting scripture to try and convince someone of the veracity or value of something is about as worthless as quoting Popeye the sailor man. "I am what I am what I am what I am..."....
the 14th amendment was to guarantee former slaves equality before the law.
The 14th amendment applies to all people equally. It was never applied only to former slaves.
There is NO Constitutional right to purchase from a business in the Constitution. That would make us all slaves of government which is what you leftists support.
How does guaranteeing equal access for all make you a slave to the government?
I never said I condone racism or slavery. They are evil before God and man.
Jesus taught how people were supposed to treat their slaves.
Why is racism and slavery wrong but its acceptable to you to discriminate against LGBT people? By your ideas shouldn't businesses be able to refuse service to blacks if they can refuse service to gays/trans and other races, or do you make exceptions for some?
Christian businesses (and any business for that matter) should have the right to serve whomever they wish.
That's what some businesses said when they were require to serve black people too.
That is what occurs in a free society vs the totalitarian state we now have in this country
Spare me the hyperbolic nonsense. Or you have no idea what totalitarianism really is.
then let those who engage in or support those perversions go to businesses that agree with them and stop harrassing Christians
Or maybe Christians should just follow the law, including business laws, they agree to abide by when operating a business! But bigoted businesses will probably end up going out of business for their discriminatory business practices. And they deserve to!
it's you totalitarians that demand laws controlling businesses
Nice transparent ad hom attack. There are good reasons laws are in place for businesses. One of which is to prevent discriminatory practices.
I'm saying that businesses have a right of freedom to serve which customers they want to serve.
Demonstrably false! Everyone must be served equally. But it's clear you seem to support discriminatory business practices.
I have no problem with any business that doesn't want to serve me as a White Christian conservative. That's what freedom is all about.
Not everyone is content to be discriminated against. But I doubt you have to worry much about that.
There is nothing bigoted about not associating with people who are determined to rebel against God and His moral standards.
Sure there is, no matter how much you try to hide such bigotry behind religion.
If the Constitution was properly upheld those totalitarian laws would never be allowed
How is the Constitution not upheld exactly?
It's enforced by God at a person's death. Happens daily
That's nice. prove it! otherwise, that statement is meaningless!
There is NO Constitutional right to purchase from a business in the Constitution.
There is NO constitutional right to own or operate a business either.
That would make us all slaves of government which is what you leftists support.
You go from ad hom attack to a sweeping generalization.
I never said I condone racism or slavery.
That's pretty much what you're advocating when you support a business' "right" to discriminate!
I never said I condone racism or slavery. They are evil before God and man.
You claim to accept everything the Hebrew God condones and he has condoned slavery and racism in the bible and never repeals those commands. Not only were there laws supposedly given by this God to govern slavery, but they had two separate laws for the Jewish indentured servant slaves and slaves taken from the surrounding non-Jewish populaces. You were allowed to own a non-Israelite slave indefinitely, owning their children and children's children in perpetuity.
“If a fellow Hebrew, man or woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall set him free." Deuteronomy 15:12
Very different from Leviticus that defines non-Israelite slavery, and if having two separate and unequal laws based on race is the very definition of racism.
"Such male and female slaves as you may have—it is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you, or from their families that are among you, whom they begot in your land. These shall become your property: 46 you may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time.Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other." Leviticus 25:44-46
So while quoting scripture to claim something is true or more valid because it's written in scripture is, as I said, as pointless as a broken pencil, quoting scripture to point out the actual beliefs written down by those bible authors as they condoned things like slavery and incest, is perfectly acceptable.
1. No one should be forced to have any customer they don’t want in a free society
That is not how it works in the US. You must serve everyone equally or nobody at all. I can only suggest that you don't open a public business if you claim to have the right to discriminate because discrimination is not one of your constitutional rights.
This was already decided in Newman v. Piggie Park where the owner of Piggie Park BBQ claimed to have a religious right not to serve blacks. The SCOTUS said nope by a unanimous decision.
The lower courts didn’t think much of his argument. And neither did the Supreme Court, which resoundingly rejected Bessinger’s plea to allow his religious beliefs to serve as a shield for his obligations under the newly enacted civil-rights statute—an obligation that included serving Mungin and other black customers. In a footnote joined by all the justices, the high court made plain that “this is not even a borderline case” of discrimination, and shot down Bessinger’s defense that the federal public-accommodations law was unconstitutional “because it contravenes the will of God and constitutes an interference with the free exercise of the Defendant’s religion.”
When men could discriminate they denied dying people rides in ambulances to hospitals that would not treat them just because of something as dumb as skin tone. If you were darker than a brown paper bag you could die because white Christians believed they got cooties from sharing. If cruel men are allowed to deny people help, comfort or assistance based on any dumb ignorant stupid thing they claim to believe then anything goes and the civil society we all know, love an underappreciate ends...
While racism is wrong, in a free society people have a right to be racists. They will likely lose a lot of business for engaging in that behavior, but a free society allows for people to make bad business decisions.
Does not matter. Yahweh made rules for proper enslavement. He did not condemn as immoral the owning of another human being as property - quite the opposite. Your argument is that the arbiter of objective morality deems it moral for some people to enslave others and holds it immoral otherwise. If that were true not only is Yahweh not condemning slavery as immoral, He is sending mixed messages. But first, show where the biblical god states that slavery is immoral.
That decision does not support your contention in it's final context. Nor does SCOTUS always get it right, in fact they are often on the wrong side of the Constitution.
The Court held 8-0 (Marshall not participating) that full attorney's fees should generally be recoverable, based on the intent and practical effect of the law. The Court wrote:
When a plaintiff brings an action under that Title, he cannot recover damages. If he obtains an injunction, he does so not for himself alone, but also as a " private attorney general ," vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority. If successful plaintiffs were routinely forced to bear their own attorneys' fees, few aggrieved parties would be in a position to advance the public interest by invoking the injunctive powers of the federal courts. Congress therefore enacted the provision for counsel fees -- not simply to penalize litigants who deliberately advance arguments they know to be untenable but, more broadly, to encourage individuals injured by racial discrimination to seek judicial relief under Title II. It follows that one who succeeds in obtaining an injunction under that Title should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-SCOTUS-1" > [1]
.
While racism is wrong, in a free society people have a right to be racists. They will likely lose a lot of business for engaging in that behavior, but a free society allows for people to make bad business decisions.
If racism is wrong then why isn't the refusal to serve LGBT equally wrong? People do not choose to be LGBT any more than they choose their race/skin color.
Your libertarian views are almost the antipathy of jesus's teachings. Are you first a Christian or are you a libertarian first because logically you cannot be both?
The district court found, on undisputed evidence, that Piggie Park had discriminated against African-Americans at all six restaurants. However, the district court found that Title II did not apply to drive-in restaurants, and thus only enjoined discrimination at the sandwich shop. The court of appeals reversed the denial of the injunction against the drive-in restaurants, finding that Title II applied to drive-in restaurants.
You and others abuse both the context and the Hebrew language of this subject as we have discussed previously
I will cite a Jewish perspective to illustrate
It must be observed that there is no specific differentiation in the Hebrew between what in English we could call a slave or a servant. The Hebrew word eved ( עֶ֣בֶד ) means both “slave ” and “servant ” (CHALOT) [1]. Likewise, the Greek term doulos ( δοῦλος ), often used to render eved in the Septuagint and whose usage carries over into the Apostolic Scriptures, means “a born bondman or slave ” (LS) [2]. Some English translations like the NASU provide the rendering “bond-servant” for either eved or doulos in some locations, but the source vocabulary in either Hebrew or Greek does not provide a specific term that would substantiate something beyond “slave” or “servant.”
Any kind of slavery or servanthood regulated in the Tanach primarily concerns Ancient Israel functioning in an Ancient Near Eastern economic system. The Torah’s commandments regarding slavery can most often be divided into categories regarding debt-bondage and manumission (Exodus 21; Leviticus 25; Deuteronomy 15) [3], whereas a great deal of slavery in the surrounding cultures—primarily of Mesopotamia and Egypt—was focused around the people of those societies being the subjects of a deity-monarch.
The Ancient Mesopotamian creation story Atrahasis depicts humanity being created by the gods specifically so that they could serve as slaves [4], when set against the Biblical creation account where humanity is made to commune with God in a garden planted by Him (Genesis 3:8). While even a slavery for repayment of debt may have never been something desirable, the rules for such slavery as seen in the Torah do afford the slave considerable rights.
When one reviews the Torah instructions regarding slavery, one sees that male and female slaves within Israel were expected to participate in the Passover (Genesis 17:13; Exodus 12:44), to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14), to live wherever they please (Deuteronomy 23:15-16), and severe penalties are placed upon masters who abuse their slaves (Exodus 21:20-27). G.H. Haas notes in the Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, “Israelites who must sell themselves into bondservice (because of personal impoverishment or inability to pay a debt or a fine) are not permitted to be treated like foreign slaves. They may not be sold as chattel slaves to other masters. Their time of service to fellow Israelites is limited to six years, and to resident aliens it is limited to the Jubilee Year.” [5]
This kind of “slavery” is what is witnessed in Exodus 21:1-6, specifically in what is often termed the law of the bondservant. A Hebrew slave was only allowed to sell himself into service for a maximum of up to six years (Exodus 21:2), and had to leave the master’s care with adequate provision (Deuteronomy 15:12-15). If he went into servitude with his wife, he and his wife were to leave together (Exodus 21:3). However, should the slave’s master provide him with a wife resulting in children, such a wife and children could not leave the master’s house with him (Exodus 21:4).
What this would do, in many cases, is create a permanent bond between the slave and his master’s household, as Exodus 21:5 records a slave saying “I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man.” The male slave could take a physical mark on his ear designating his permanent bond to his master’s house (Exodus 21:6). The reason for allowing a male slave to be permanently bonded to his master’s house is a clear, if obvious one when this regulation is set against its ANE context. Sarna indicates:
“In the ancient Near East it was common practice for a master to mate a slave with a foreign bondwoman for the purpose of siring ‘house born’ slaves. In such instances, no matrimonial or emotional bond was necessarily involved, and the woman and her offspring remained the property of the master.” [6]
Allowing a slave to willingly be bonded to his master’s house was a safeguard so that the master would never treat the wife he provided, and the children sired, as some kind of expendable property. If a slave showed love (Heb. verb ahev , אָהַב ) toward his master, wanting to become a permanent member of his household, by necessity the master would have to show some respect and care for his family who would now be bonded to him. While this is difficult for many people in the Twenty-First Century to understand, we have to put ourselves back into ancient times. Selling oneself into bondage was the only way for some to exit financial straits. This is where the Pentateuch parallels contemporary law codes of its period, as the Code of Hammurabi from almost one-thousand years earlier had allowed for something similar:
“If a man incur[s] a debt and sell[s] his wife, son, or daughter for money, or bind[s] them out to forced labor, three years shall they work in the house of their taskmaster; in the fourth year they shall be set free” (117). [7]
Peter Enns reminds us, “the point of the law [in Exodus] is not to question the existence of this social condition, but to give clear guidelines for how people in such a condition must be treated” [8]. While in Hammurabi’s Code the period of servitude is shorter, the stipulation in the Torah is that when such a slave is let go, the master “shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you” (Deuteronomy 15:14). The significance of the Exodus 21 instruction being delivered right after the occurrence of the deliverance from Egypt was for the Ancient Israelites to never treat such slaves, having to sell themselves to pay off debts, the way that they were treated harshly and unfairly by the Egyptians. Here, we see a direct example of the Torah instructing Ancient Israel in its ancient world, and it is safe to say that the Exodus 21:1-6 commandments classify as casuistic law applying to a specific situation and not for all times.
I said racism is wrong but in a free society people have a right to be racists. likewise people have a right to engage in perverse behavior and others equally have a right not to associate or do business with them.
libertarianism most closely reflects Christianity. your assumption is illogical
Nowhere did Jesus tell us to be slaves of government. Nowhere did Jesus ever call people to be under the thumb of others.
I'm a Christian minarchist (a distinct type of libertarianism) who believes govt should be as small as possible. National defense, a uniform system of justice (court system), protection of creativity (patents), a uniform monetary system, and negotiation of treaties and trade. That is the legitimate function of our central govt. I oppose all drug laws, censorship, laws against prostitution, or laws on marriage and divorce. These are private moral issues and not the purview of government Christian libertarianism describes the synthesis of Christian beliefs concerning free will, human nature, and God-given inalienable rights with libertarian political philosophy. It is also an ideology to the extent that its supporters promote their cause to others and join together as a movement. In contrast to the Christian left and the Christian right respectively, they believe charity and enforcement of personal-level morality should be the purview of the (voluntary) church and not the state. These responsibilities must not be abrogated, though any non-governmental organization (NGO) not publicly financed is free to pursue them as well. Secular libertarianism, socialism, fascism, and crony capitalism are strongly opposed, as is theocracy. The latter does not include merely being influenced by Christian concepts; whereas in a theocracy, government derives its powers from a divine or religious authority directly exercising governmental control. The use of force is never justified to achieve purely political, social, or religious goals, but is reserved solely to uphold natural rights.
And as I said, SCOTUS often gets it wrong and goes against the Constitution.
How is mandating equal service in a public business unconstitutional? Nobody has ever been required to open a business, so they know the rules that will be required of them before they make that step. Is defending equal rights unconstitutional because there will be some people who will not be able to discriminate if everyone has equal rights?
How is being LGBT a perversion if they are born LGBT, as science now supports?
You offer a single generic passage which does not specifically deal with the owning of one person by another. No doubt that is the very best response you can muster.
Where does God condemn as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property? The Bible was written (OT and NT) during times where slavery was replete. Slavery was everywhere in common practice. Given humanity was immersed in slavery one would expect God to make mention of it. Note that He does specifically mention it. He mentions it to make rules but not to condemn as immoral.
Nowhere in the Bible does God condemn the owning of another human being as property to be immoral.
We're not debating whether the laws are for everyone, I'm simply pointing out that the Hebrew God obviously condoned slavery and had a double standard when it came to race and the application of laws.
You claim to worship that same God who condoned such behavior for his past disciples, from slavery, murder, genocide and the stoning to death of disobedient children. Whether or not that God has said people today should follow those rules is immaterial to the fact that he/it did condone them at one time.
Because in a free society you must have the right to control your own business including who your customers are. Anything less is at the minimum a fascist state
That would be advertising discrimination against a protected class. That is against the law.
Actually, it's NOT. Except in housing, there is NO federal law that prohibits a business from advertising that they intend to discriminate against the LGBT community. However some states DO prohibit such discrimination and that kind of advertising would show a 'conspiracy to commit'. As we've seen, the religious right is finding 'work arounds' even in those states.
When Indiana was debating their RFRA, an Amendment was offered to REQUIRE that businesses post a notice on their entrance, in their advertising and @ their online sites. They GOP had a FIT and voted it down overwhelmingly. Now in Indiana, there are some municipalities that have protections but the rest of the state can discriminate at will.
They want their animus on the down low. It's ironic when they get 'outed' online and then whine about the intolerance of their intolerance.
I sometimes think that the want the 'joy' of denying service to the LGBT community face to face.
My comment was not that the advertising is illegal - but that 'discrimination against a protected class' is illegal. It would be advertising intent (as you later note) to discriminate against a protected class (advertising intent to break the law). Seems like a very dumb thing to do.
The LGBT community are not a Federal 'protected class'. Trump's DOJ has filed amicus briefs against their inclusion under Title IX, especially when it comes to employment.
Again, some states have included 'sexual orientation and gender identity' in their anti-discrimination protections and some municipalities have too. That hasn't kept cake bakers from filing suit.
Because in a free society you must have the right to control your own business including who your customers are. Anything less is at the minimum a fascist state
I can only suggest to you not to open a business that serves the general public or to not own a business. You should operate your business as a private club where you can choose who can and cannot be a member.
In the US we are required to serve everyone equally, so you should take that into account before you decide to hang out your shingle as a proprietor.
Mandating equal service for all people is the opposite of what fascism is.
Because in a free society you must have the right to control your own business including who your customers are. Anything less is at the minimum a fascist state
Then the U.S. has been a fascist state since at least 1964.
Can you feel the love?
No I can't, and you damn well know why.
Consider moving to a country that fosters free speech.
... are you done yet?
Consider THAT to be an example of "Christian Love".
Oxymoron?
My father used to claim I turned out to be left handed because my mother would put the spoon in my left hand as a baby. When I was about nine I got a hand me down set of old golf clubs from my grandfather and they were right handed clubs so I learned to golf right handed. I cannot golf left handed even though I'm left handed. I believe it could be the result of conditioning and learned behavior.
I have a kid who uses one hand for one thing and the other for other stuff. Like, she writes right-handed, but throws left-handed. We never tried to make her do one or the other. We just let her do whatever she felt like doing.
Naughty, naughty!
Unmercifully? That applies to gays, and not him?
Hmmmmmm.
I wonder who this hate monger voted for in 2016. Well, not really. The higher the hate, the more likely they supported Trump.
I wonder when this religious prick will be found with either a rentboy in a fleabag hotel, a dead prostitute in his trunk or gigs of kiddie porn on his computer? It's not normal to be this hateful about the sexuality of others, and in the past his outrage is almost always a prelude to one of the above occurring.
Yup, this guy is so in the closet it's sickening. I put my money that he's raping little girls or boys.
I can not agree with any certainty with your comment, but is is clear that this man is enraged over homosexuals. It is unseemly and undignified to teach spiritual lessons with such a haughty tone. I would like you to consider something: This young man is so-called "teaching" a forceful message of hate which lacks any semblance of love.
Since love is the model of Christianity in this day and age, we should wonder whether he is a(n):
Sorry, if I have dropped these terms on you unexpectedly. However, I felt mentally accosted just now listening to this young man's 'rant.' And, some overall distinction is called for here and now about who and what we Christians are and appear to be.
Don't accept the words of ancient men as divine. Don't accept as truth the words of modern men pointing to ancient words as divine truth.
So much better to use your brain and reason through the issues of life.
So much the pity that many, if not most people seem unable or unwilling to do so.
So which is the Smartest ? Those before, those now, or those that seem to know better than all now, now.
Don't forget, Those "before" thought they were "Smarter than all" at the time too.
You missed the point. It is not about who is smartest, it is about thinking things through - doing your own thinking.
The point is: don't simply accept what other people claim as truth. That is why I closed with:
I missed NOTHING !
Ancient Man used their brains to think things through for the times. Man these day use their brains to think things through for their times, and even I use my brain from time to time to think things through based on the times I live in now.
[Removed]
"Monkeys are superior to men in this: when a monkey looks into a mirror, he sees a monkey."
Malcolm de Chazal
Some !
true, but we do have the advantage of so much more information available to each of us now. With Knowledge comes power. Power over our environment and many times power over each other.
There is some Weird "Knowledge" out there my Friend.
Boy ain't that the truth. Don't believe everything you hear or read is an understanding for sure in todays 24/7 race to publish each parties agenda's side of anything, that does create problems getting to the facts many times.
I don't think actual "FACTS" are available anymore.
Everything is "Conjecture", "Could be", "Might be", "Possibly"....etc....NOW !
It does seem the are harder to get to more and more all the time.
Usually it seems somewhere in the middle of both side's spinning.
"Opinion Based" reporting actually "Hurts" society.
Take Milli Vanilli. Everyone loved them.....but it was ALL Fake.
.
I'd say so as well. Unfortunately we the people also allowed and somewhat even encouraged the reporting to get to this point.
It's like when I refuse to buy something when I consider they are asking way too much for something. We "vote" with what we accept.
Yep they still may even raise the price, but the less they sell the more reluctant they are.
That's why I no longer have cable.
They Tried to take me from $128 a month to $177 a month.
Meanwhile a new customer deal just like I already had was advertised for $89.
Bye Bye cable !
when things are Not acceptable to you I think you need to act or at least speak up and try to enact change.
Hell NO I'm Not paying that much for that trash ! Bye Bye
lol
Some do, most do not. If most people thought things through (rather than simply believe what they are told) then we would see far less religion and far less pure partisanship.
Imagine the benefit, for example, of people not teaching bigotry justified by ancient words in books like the Bible. Imagine, for example, people reasoning through the biology of homosexuality and rejecting ancient condemnations (with the death penalty) in favor of modern strong evidence that homosexuality is a minority biological variation such as left handedness and red hair.
Imagine people rejecting the bigot in the seeded video rather than praising this asshole as a 'man of God'.
Ancient Man used their brains to think things through for the times. Man these day use their brains to think things through for their times
Intelligent human these days use their brains to think things through for their times. The opposite of that is looking back to ancient humans for wisdom. Ancients didn’t get that we live on a planet that revolves around a sun, or what a germ is, or what causes weather. These ‘mysteries’ and thousands of other ones were all given the same ignorant explanation: goddidit.
What a surprise!
You win the award for the wisest words of the week.
Well stated, if only they would heed them.
Christian Love
Fully clothed?
eve got fig leaves. adam got an orphan sock out of god's dryer
That's where all my missing socks went?
Wow, what an asshole.
I doubt any force drives people away from God as much as mean people like this.
To me the greatest shame is that many people hold as divine truth what other human beings merely claim (oral or written; present or past). People should not be driven from or to God based on what some human being (or book) claims.
IMO.
And you thought the best response to this would be to just slam people of faith generally.
No, I thought the best response is the one I actually wrote. Read it:
I am suggesting that we should not "hold as divine truth what other human beings merely claim (oral or written; present or past)". I am suggesting we use our brains and think critically.
I fully agree,I read all the major religious books written by other men then I took time to think and decided what I really believed. I differ from a great deal of what I read in my believes. But whatever others want to believe I think is their own business and right as well. To each their own !
If you believe religious people are capable of thinking critically, then I am happy to reassess your response. However, that sentiment has not been evident in much of your commenting history. To employ a favored leftist perspective, when people like you and Gordy suggest religious people should think critically, I hear an atheistic dog whistle.
To even think that I would categorically hold that religious people are not able to think critically is an illustration that you are not reading what I write and instead presuming.
Of course religious people can think critically. Most every human being can think critically. However, we do not always do so. Sometimes we suppress our critical thinking faculties. Religion and politics are two primary domains in which critical thinking is defeated by emotion and desire. But even the most devout religious person or partisan is quite capable of critical thinking and demonstrate this in other domains.
Everyone should think critically. Critical thinking is something to be encouraged. Religious people, like anyone else, can think critically. But they also tend to suppress critical thinking when it comes to religious belief and/or claims.
Agreed, but I also think anyone can do that in any context.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing it with you, but you might consider taking a modicum of responsibility for your own reputation.
I am gratified to see you admit it.
I doubt TiG is overly concerned about his "reputation." He seems more concerned with providing facts and knowledge along with rational and critical thinking. If anything, that is his reputation, and that's one I am just fine with too.
Of course. But religious belief tends to actively counter critical thinking, especially where the tenets of said belief is concerned.
Disappointing that you have paid so little attention to what I have written that you think that was an admission. There was nothing to admit. I routinely note that intelligence (or lack thereof) is not what makes people religious. Better to actually read rather than presume. Unfortunately far too many seem to presume ... probably because snap judgements are easier than actually thinking things through.
Not sure what that is supposed to mean. People (as you have just illustrated) will operate on a stereotypical level. For example, if one claims to not be convinced there is a god some will jump to the conclusion that the person is evil. If one attempts to explain socialism some jump to the conclusion that the person is a socialist.
I have no concern for people who jump to conclusions rather than attempt to understand what a person is saying. Their opinions are clearly half-baked and thus irrelevant. And if you are trying to suggest that I should be silent and not object to religious thinking so as to better fit in with the majority and preserve my reputation, then that advice will not be taken.
Reinforcing my original assessment of your comments. Sometimes you would do better to let a thing go.
Classy.
Oh look! A straw man. How adorable. Have fun beating him up. You can do it without me.
A straw man argument does not include a conditional like: "if you are trying to suggest ...". However, a preemptive answer that avoids presumption (such as what I actually wrote) would necessarily start with a conditional. Merely tossing the label 'strawman' instead of forming a rebuttal is a poor tactic.
As for 'classy', if someone jumps to conclusions rather than attempt to understand what you have written, would you consider their opinion fully-baked and thus relevant? I doubt it. So maybe reread what I wrote because your response makes no sense.
Which means very little to me.
Says the guy responding to my comments.
the difference in Christianity is that God speaks to and through men and they write what the Holy Spirit gives them. the Word of God that testifies of Christ and teaches us how to live in and through Him is PERFECT AND INFALLIBLE
Then why is the bible chock full of ludicrous nonsense and false history from cover to cover?
Logic and reasoning can work well too. It's a shame so many people often ignore or reject them.
That's deep. Your contribution is to just slam religious people as stupid. Great. Thank you very much for playing.
No, that is not what Gordy wrote. He made no comment on intelligence. Rather he was talking about employing our logic / reasoning faculties and not just accept what some bozo claims is truth.
You are the one playing games here Tacos! since we all know you have the ability to author genuine rebuttals. Faux victim quips are counter productive.
I disagree not wanting to see the point a poster is making is maybe though.
Follow what others want you to believe or think for yourself, the choice belongs to each of us. but, To each their own.
Have a good evening
You have more faith in Gordy than I do. Based on past experience, I see Gordy taking the usual opportunity to skip over the issue and just slam religious people as rejecting logic and reason by definition. Believe me, I'd be happy to be wrong, but that would entail Gordy admitting that people of faith actually deal in things like logic and reason. That would be delightfully new.
That is not what I said. That is how you chose to interpret it.
That doesn't really mean anything to me.
I addressed a specific point you made. Some people actually question of challenge their own beliefs and even abandon them when they actually think about it logically and rationally. By definition, religious belief is irrational.
You are wrong! I never said people of faith are incapable of dealing with logic or reasoning. Only that religious faith is irrational and some people use logic and reasoning to question their faith rather than just accepting it without question.
Maybe I read Gordy more carefully. Gordy is clearly not of the opinion that having religious belief means one is stupid or is incapable of logic and reason.
It is the religious belief that is challenged, not the intellect of the believer. People, whether dealing with religion, politics, relationships, etc. are often irrational. Our emotions get in the way of critical thinking ... so much so that it takes real effort to think critically. It does not come naturally.
So here is a comment from me that you might think is slamming religious people but it is actually criticizing a thought process:
One who is convinced that a 'holy book' such as the Bible is the divine word of a perfect god is not thinking critically about said holy book.
You clearly did read me more carefully and correctly TiG. Tacos, not so much. His rather defensive and pessimistic response is something that epistte might describe as emotional.
Aanndd there it is. And you wonder why people read your comments through a jaundiced lens.
Apparently it's just you. TiG read me just fine. I suspect if epistte were here, she would too.
I read you just fine too.
Thank you Hal. It seems great minds really do think alike.
Perhaps if you dummy it down a bit or tweet it? Try using small words and throw in "bigly" or "believe me".
I thought I did? I'm not sure if I can dumb it down any further.
Playing the victim is an emotional tactic. Sometimes things are what they seem to be.
that is a tactic employed by many of the conservative minded including most of the religious conservative minded (as shown on NT in many articles) - makes me wonder how many "victim cards" a person can have to play ? seems like a deck went from 52 cards to an endless supply..
Yep and by nature the true victims of our society pay the price.
Now everybody's crying Wolf wolf wolf.. so... Who cares ?
Don't leave me out!
I get you.
I wouldn't dream of it Sandy.
Why yes, yes you do.
I wonder if tacos is going to claim that everyone else is reading me wrong, except for him?
Yeah, how about that.
Classy.
Is this what you come here to do?
Responding to particular points made, yes.
Hey! Stop criticizing my bigly attempt to communicate with you.
A wedding magazine took an anti-LGBT stance and their advertisers pulled the plug. Now they are folding. Good riddance to bigoted trash. Is it any surprise that they are Christian? It's amusing that they are complaining that others are being judgemental of their anti-LGBT bigotry.
You bring up a good point about religious business owners who do not want to serve gays should post a notice to that effect. Why do they no dot so in advance before a gay customer patronizes their business? That might save the owner time and trouble from having to deal with such a customer. Of course, such business practices would be quite reminiscent of the "no coloreds served here" store signs of the 1950's.
That would be advertising discrimination against a protected class. That is against the law.
What they should do (and I am confident you agree) is serve all human beings equally. If they do not want to make certain products (e.g. a wedding cake with a homosexual theme) then that is what they should state upfront. But if an openly homosexual couple comes in and wants a traditional wedding cake, the bakery legally must serve them (and, I might add, morally and ethically).
In the case of White, I can see them focusing on heterosexual weddings. That is the (large) niche they wish to service and that is their choice. But I can also see that as an unwise business decision.
They must sell their mag to homosexual patrons, but they are not required to offer a product that would serve a homosexual audience. Again, their choice - but unwise IMO.
I agree completely.
They don't want to publically admit their bigotry.
wink-wink-nudge..........
Why do they no dot so in advance before a gay customer patronizes their business?
Perhaps they enjoy the opportunity to confront a homosexual and show them how they feel about gay marriage. Not putting up a sign is like bait.
There are many people who support LGBT equality and they would not willingly support a business run by bigots. The death of this marriage magazine is proof of that. Reasonable people don't want to be seen supporting bigotry, even if it is by proxy.
Christian businesses (and any business for that matter) should have the right to serve whomever they wish. That is what occurs in a free society vs the totalitarian state we now have in this country
then let those who engage in or support those perversions go to businesses that agree with them and stop harrassing Christians
That is what bigots said to justify Jim Crow laws way back when...
I haven't called for any laws. it's you totalitarians that demand laws controlling businesses
What did Jesus have to say about LGBT people or about how you treat others?
Is treating other people as you would want to be treated a problem for you?
Do you support "whites only" businesses if the owner is a racist?
Was Jesus a bigot, or does that idea only appear in the Ayn Rand/Jeff Sessions translation of the Bible?
The King James version was supported by a gay English king.
Jesus said that anyone who engages in sex outside of marriage is defiled (Matthew 15, 1 Corinthians 6, Romans 1, Acts 15, Revelation 21 and 22)
I'm not saying anything about mistreating someone. I'm saying that businesses have a right of freedom to serve which customers they want to serve.
I have no problem with any business that doesn't want to serve me as a White Christian conservative. That's what freedom is all about.
Does that apply to heterosexuals or only gay people?
In the US you are required to serve everyone equally when you voluntarily choose to open a public business.
There is nothing bigoted about not associating with people who are determined to rebel against God and His moral standards.
[Deleted]
yes it applies also to heterosexuals
If the Constitution was properly upheld those totalitarian laws would never be allowed
When was that enforced last?
What part of the constitutional protection of equal rights confuses you, or is that just for WASP heterosexuals? Is the 14th Amendment unconstitutional?
So bigots and slaveowners are acceptable your god but LGBT people aren't.
I'll pass on your supposed idea of morality.
It's enforced by God at a person's death. Happens daily
the 14th amendment was to guarantee former slaves equality before the law.
There is NO Constitutional right to purchase from a business in the Constitution. [Deleted]
I never said I condone racism or slavery. They are evil before God and man.
When a waitress serves someone breakfast in a diner, is it "associating"? When a baker bakes a cake to sell in his cake business, does he "associate" with his customer? Does it require making friends to be civil and treat everyone in our public spaces with the same respect you would appreciate? No one is asking you to be gay, no one is asking you to take a gay American home with you, no one is asking you to befriend gays, all anyone is asking is that you treat them as any other tax paying law abiding American citizen. If I ran a gas station and you pulled in with all your "I love Jesus" stickers on your run down pickup, should I be allowed to say "Sorry, we don't serve your kind here."? You weren't asking me to convert, you weren't asking to be my friend, you just wanted gas, and I should, as the owner of a public business, treat you as I would any other customer regardless of how much I loathed your religious affiliation. This shouldn't be hard to understand, but for some reason some religious persons think themselves exempt from having to be civil to others.
And by the way, quoting scripture to try and convince someone of the veracity or value of something is about as worthless as quoting Popeye the sailor man. "I am what I am what I am what I am..."....
The 14th amendment applies to all people equally. It was never applied only to former slaves.
How does guaranteeing equal access for all make you a slave to the government?
Jesus taught how people were supposed to treat their slaves.
Why is racism and slavery wrong but its acceptable to you to discriminate against LGBT people? By your ideas shouldn't businesses be able to refuse service to blacks if they can refuse service to gays/trans and other races, or do you make exceptions for some?
Odd then that the Bible never condemned the practice of slavery but, instead, made rules for how slavery is to be conducted.
That's what some businesses said when they were require to serve black people too.
Spare me the hyperbolic nonsense. Or you have no idea what totalitarianism really is.
Or maybe Christians should just follow the law, including business laws, they agree to abide by when operating a business! But bigoted businesses will probably end up going out of business for their discriminatory business practices. And they deserve to!
Nice transparent ad hom attack. There are good reasons laws are in place for businesses. One of which is to prevent discriminatory practices.
Demonstrably false! Everyone must be served equally. But it's clear you seem to support discriminatory business practices.
Not everyone is content to be discriminated against. But I doubt you have to worry much about that.
Sure there is, no matter how much you try to hide such bigotry behind religion.
How is the Constitution not upheld exactly?
That's nice. prove it! otherwise, that statement is meaningless!
There is NO constitutional right to own or operate a business either.
You go from ad hom attack to a sweeping generalization.
That's pretty much what you're advocating when you support a business' "right" to discriminate!
You claim to accept everything the Hebrew God condones and he has condoned slavery and racism in the bible and never repeals those commands. Not only were there laws supposedly given by this God to govern slavery, but they had two separate laws for the Jewish indentured servant slaves and slaves taken from the surrounding non-Jewish populaces. You were allowed to own a non-Israelite slave indefinitely, owning their children and children's children in perpetuity.
“If a fellow Hebrew, man or woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall set him free." Deuteronomy 15:12
Very different from Leviticus that defines non-Israelite slavery, and if having two separate and unequal laws based on race is the very definition of racism.
"Such male and female slaves as you may have—it is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you, or from their families that are among you, whom they begot in your land. These shall become your property: 46 you may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time. Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other." Leviticus 25:44-46
So while quoting scripture to claim something is true or more valid because it's written in scripture is, as I said, as pointless as a broken pencil, quoting scripture to point out the actual beliefs written down by those bible authors as they condoned things like slavery and incest, is perfectly acceptable.
1. No one should be forced to have any customer they don’t want in a free society
2. I have no problem with anyone exercising their freedom not to want my business
3. My scripture quotes were a direct response to Episette specifically asking what Jesus said
We’ve had this dialogue before. The Laws of Moses pertain only to Jews. No Christian or even a non Christian gentile is subject to the Laws of Moses.
Then they shouldn't open a business.
Like I said, I highly doubt you have that problem.
Are otherwise meaningless tripe!
Then why do you keep repeating the same nonsense?
That is not how it works in the US. You must serve everyone equally or nobody at all. I can only suggest that you don't open a public business if you claim to have the right to discriminate because discrimination is not one of your constitutional rights.
This was already decided in Newman v. Piggie Park where the owner of Piggie Park BBQ claimed to have a religious right not to serve blacks. The SCOTUS said nope by a unanimous decision.
When men could discriminate they denied dying people rides in ambulances to hospitals that would not treat them just because of something as dumb as skin tone. If you were darker than a brown paper bag you could die because white Christians believed they got cooties from sharing. If cruel men are allowed to deny people help, comfort or assistance based on any dumb ignorant stupid thing they claim to believe then anything goes and the civil society we all know, love an underappreciate ends...
While racism is wrong, in a free society people have a right to be racists. They will likely lose a lot of business for engaging in that behavior, but a free society allows for people to make bad business decisions.
Does not matter. Yahweh made rules for proper enslavement. He did not condemn as immoral the owning of another human being as property - quite the opposite. Your argument is that the arbiter of objective morality deems it moral for some people to enslave others and holds it immoral otherwise. If that were true not only is Yahweh not condemning slavery as immoral, He is sending mixed messages. But first, show where the biblical god states that slavery is immoral.
That decision does not support your contention in it's final context. Nor does SCOTUS always get it right, in fact they are often on the wrong side of the Constitution.
The Court held 8-0 (Marshall not participating) that full attorney's fees should generally be recoverable, based on the intent and practical effect of the law. The Court wrote:
When a plaintiff brings an action under that Title, he cannot recover damages. If he obtains an injunction, he does so not for himself alone, but also as a " private attorney general ," vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority. If successful plaintiffs were routinely forced to bear their own attorneys' fees, few aggrieved parties would be in a position to advance the public interest by invoking the injunctive powers of the federal courts. Congress therefore enacted the provision for counsel fees -- not simply to penalize litigants who deliberately advance arguments they know to be untenable but, more broadly, to encourage individuals injured by racial discrimination to seek judicial relief under Title II. It follows that one who succeeds in obtaining an injunction under that Title should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.#cite_note-SCOTUS-1" > [1] .If racism is wrong then why isn't the refusal to serve LGBT equally wrong? People do not choose to be LGBT any more than they choose their race/skin color.
Your libertarian views are almost the antipathy of jesus's teachings. Are you first a Christian or are you a libertarian first because logically you cannot be both?
Newman v. Piggie Park was a two-part decision,
You and others abuse both the context and the Hebrew language of this subject as we have discussed previously
I will cite a Jewish perspective to illustrate
It must be observed that there is no specific differentiation in the Hebrew between what in English we could call a slave or a servant. The Hebrew word eved ( עֶ֣בֶד ) means both “slave ” and “servant ” (CHALOT) [1]. Likewise, the Greek term doulos ( δοῦλος ), often used to render eved in the Septuagint and whose usage carries over into the Apostolic Scriptures, means “a born bondman or slave ” (LS) [2]. Some English translations like the NASU provide the rendering “bond-servant” for either eved or doulos in some locations, but the source vocabulary in either Hebrew or Greek does not provide a specific term that would substantiate something beyond “slave” or “servant.”
Any kind of slavery or servanthood regulated in the Tanach primarily concerns Ancient Israel functioning in an Ancient Near Eastern economic system. The Torah’s commandments regarding slavery can most often be divided into categories regarding debt-bondage and manumission (Exodus 21; Leviticus 25; Deuteronomy 15) [3], whereas a great deal of slavery in the surrounding cultures—primarily of Mesopotamia and Egypt—was focused around the people of those societies being the subjects of a deity-monarch.
The Ancient Mesopotamian creation story Atrahasis depicts humanity being created by the gods specifically so that they could serve as slaves [4], when set against the Biblical creation account where humanity is made to commune with God in a garden planted by Him (Genesis 3:8). While even a slavery for repayment of debt may have never been something desirable, the rules for such slavery as seen in the Torah do afford the slave considerable rights.
When one reviews the Torah instructions regarding slavery, one sees that male and female slaves within Israel were expected to participate in the Passover (Genesis 17:13; Exodus 12:44), to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14), to live wherever they please (Deuteronomy 23:15-16), and severe penalties are placed upon masters who abuse their slaves (Exodus 21:20-27). G.H. Haas notes in the Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, “Israelites who must sell themselves into bondservice (because of personal impoverishment or inability to pay a debt or a fine) are not permitted to be treated like foreign slaves. They may not be sold as chattel slaves to other masters. Their time of service to fellow Israelites is limited to six years, and to resident aliens it is limited to the Jubilee Year.” [5]
This kind of “slavery” is what is witnessed in Exodus 21:1-6, specifically in what is often termed the law of the bondservant. A Hebrew slave was only allowed to sell himself into service for a maximum of up to six years (Exodus 21:2), and had to leave the master’s care with adequate provision (Deuteronomy 15:12-15). If he went into servitude with his wife, he and his wife were to leave together (Exodus 21:3). However, should the slave’s master provide him with a wife resulting in children, such a wife and children could not leave the master’s house with him (Exodus 21:4).
What this would do, in many cases, is create a permanent bond between the slave and his master’s household, as Exodus 21:5 records a slave saying “I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man.” The male slave could take a physical mark on his ear designating his permanent bond to his master’s house (Exodus 21:6). The reason for allowing a male slave to be permanently bonded to his master’s house is a clear, if obvious one when this regulation is set against its ANE context. Sarna indicates:
Peter Enns reminds us, “the point of the law [in Exodus] is not to question the existence of this social condition, but to give clear guidelines for how people in such a condition must be treated” [8]. While in Hammurabi’s Code the period of servitude is shorter, the stipulation in the Torah is that when such a slave is let go, the master “shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you” (Deuteronomy 15:14). The significance of the Exodus 21 instruction being delivered right after the occurrence of the deliverance from Egypt was for the Ancient Israelites to never treat such slaves, having to sell themselves to pay off debts, the way that they were treated harshly and unfairly by the Egyptians. Here, we see a direct example of the Torah instructing Ancient Israel in its ancient world, and it is safe to say that the Exodus 21:1-6 commandments classify as casuistic law applying to a specific situation and not for all times.
Where does this illustrate God condemning the owning of another human being as property to be immoral?
That was what we were discussing after all.
I noted upfront that Yahweh made rules for slavery. Offering a quote of some of these rules is not much of a rebuttal.
[deleted, proselytizing]
I said racism is wrong but in a free society people have a right to be racists. likewise people have a right to engage in perverse behavior and others equally have a right not to associate or do business with them.
libertarianism most closely reflects Christianity. your assumption is illogical
Nowhere did Jesus tell us to be slaves of government. Nowhere did Jesus ever call people to be under the thumb of others.
I'm a Christian minarchist (a distinct type of libertarianism) who believes govt should be as small as possible. National defense, a uniform system of justice (court system), protection of creativity (patents), a uniform monetary system, and negotiation of treaties and trade. That is the legitimate function of our central govt. I oppose all drug laws, censorship, laws against prostitution, or laws on marriage and divorce. These are private moral issues and not the purview of government
Christian libertarianism describes the synthesis of Christian beliefs concerning free will, human nature, and God-given inalienable rights with libertarian political philosophy. It is also an ideology to the extent that its supporters promote their cause to others and join together as a movement. In contrast to the Christian left and the Christian right respectively, they believe charity and enforcement of personal-level morality should be the purview of the (voluntary) church and not the state. These responsibilities must not be abrogated, though any non-governmental organization (NGO) not publicly financed is free to pursue them as well.
Secular libertarianism, socialism, fascism, and crony capitalism are strongly opposed, as is theocracy. The latter does not include merely being influenced by Christian concepts; whereas in a theocracy, government derives its powers from a divine or religious authority directly exercising governmental control. The use of force is never justified to achieve purely political, social, or religious goals, but is reserved solely to uphold natural rights.
And as I said, SCOTUS often gets it wrong and goes against the Constitution.
Two part answer with the second part contained in 10.1.42
How is mandating equal service in a public business unconstitutional? Nobody has ever been required to open a business, so they know the rules that will be required of them before they make that step. Is defending equal rights unconstitutional because there will be some people who will not be able to discriminate if everyone has equal rights?
How is being LGBT a perversion if they are born LGBT, as science now supports?
You offer a single generic passage which does not specifically deal with the owning of one person by another. No doubt that is the very best response you can muster.
Where does God condemn as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property? The Bible was written (OT and NT) during times where slavery was replete. Slavery was everywhere in common practice. Given humanity was immersed in slavery one would expect God to make mention of it. Note that He does specifically mention it. He mentions it to make rules but not to condemn as immoral.
Nowhere in the Bible does God condemn the owning of another human being as property to be immoral.
We're not debating whether the laws are for everyone, I'm simply pointing out that the Hebrew God obviously condoned slavery and had a double standard when it came to race and the application of laws.
You claim to worship that same God who condoned such behavior for his past disciples, from slavery, murder, genocide and the stoning to death of disobedient children. Whether or not that God has said people today should follow those rules is immaterial to the fact that he/it did condone them at one time.
What makes you more of an expert on the Constitution than the SCOTUS?
And yet you seem to advocate it, especially when you think business should be allowed to freely discriminate.
Sure they do. But not when they voluntarily open a business and agree to abide by business laws.
See previous statement.
Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated.
That's nice. Prove it!
See first statement, especially since your understanding of the Constitution and SCOTUS precedents appears to be flawed at best.
As they should.
Because in a free society you must have the right to control your own business including who your customers are. Anything less is at the minimum a fascist state
you seem to confuse a free society with anarchy. There is a reason we have business laws on the books.
You don't seem to understand what fascism means. Or are just trying to be melodramatic. Which is it?
Actually, it's NOT. Except in housing, there is NO federal law that prohibits a business from advertising that they intend to discriminate against the LGBT community. However some states DO prohibit such discrimination and that kind of advertising would show a 'conspiracy to commit'. As we've seen, the religious right is finding 'work arounds' even in those states.
When Indiana was debating their RFRA, an Amendment was offered to REQUIRE that businesses post a notice on their entrance, in their advertising and @ their online sites. They GOP had a FIT and voted it down overwhelmingly. Now in Indiana, there are some municipalities that have protections but the rest of the state can discriminate at will.
They want their animus on the down low. It's ironic when they get 'outed' online and then whine about the intolerance of their intolerance.
I sometimes think that the want the 'joy' of denying service to the LGBT community face to face.
My comment was not that the advertising is illegal - but that 'discrimination against a protected class' is illegal. It would be advertising intent (as you later note) to discriminate against a protected class (advertising intent to break the law). Seems like a very dumb thing to do.
The LGBT community are not a Federal 'protected class'. Trump's DOJ has filed amicus briefs against their inclusion under Title IX, especially when it comes to employment.
Again, some states have included 'sexual orientation and gender identity' in their anti-discrimination protections and some municipalities have too. That hasn't kept cake bakers from filing suit.
I can only suggest to you not to open a business that serves the general public or to not own a business. You should operate your business as a private club where you can choose who can and cannot be a member.
In the US we are required to serve everyone equally, so you should take that into account before you decide to hang out your shingle as a proprietor.
Mandating equal service for all people is the opposite of what fascism is.
Then the U.S. has been a fascist state since at least 1964.
deleted duplicate