I Shall Not Live by Lies

_{Barry Arrington

June 19, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A man is not a woman, and anyone who says or implies otherwise is a liar.

On June 15, 2020, this lie prevailed in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. This lie is now the law, and it will be enforced with all of the terrible power of the government.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn said this about lies:

Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.

And he said this about refusing to surrender one’s soul to a terrible lying government:

It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:“Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom? Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.”

This day I vow to defy this lie that has become law. I will never participate in the lie. I will never say a man is a woman, and I will never imply it by using feminine pronouns to refer to him. I call on you to join me. And if you refuse? Solzhenitsyn again:

And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, Let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.

Comments

KF
. I simply note that there is in fact a common pattern in the scriptures of recognising and regulating a widespread pre-existing social practice as the alternative given hardness of hearts is a worse evil, especially under relevant circumstances.
John Bowles
"Most slaves, whether they lived on small farms or plantations of broad acres, were allowed to cultivate garden plots. They tended their own crops either at the twilight end of the day or on Saturday afternoon or Sundays-practically every owner gave his hands time off for at least part of the weekend. Often the planter would buy fresh vegetables and eggs from his slaves . . . because by so doing he avoided the problem of theft commonly associated with a large plantation garden worked by slaves but for the table of the owner. Many slaves on Saturday would carry their surplus produce to crossroads stores or trading communities and sell or barter their items for money or other goods."
Ed George_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Human trafficking and slavery still exist, unfortunately.ET_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

PS: Start here: https://archives.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repositories/2/resources/2522 >> Papers of The Anti-Slavery Society, 1757-1982. Biographical / Historical The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery and Aborigines' Protection Society was formed in 1909 through the amalgamation of the two bodies that form its name. The roots of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society go back to the 18th century, and the beginnings of a largely Quaker-inspired movement to abolish the slave trade. However, even after the abolition of the trade in Britain in 1807, and the emancipation of slaves in the colonies in 1834, an alternative form of slavery, the 'apprenticeship system' continued until 1838 in the West Indies. Against this background, in 1823, a number of men led by William Wilberforce and Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton began to meet regularly in London to discuss the slave trade and slavery in British possessions. The resulting organisation, the Committee on Slavery, later changed its name to The Society for the Amelioration and Gradual Abolition of Slavery, and in 1835 to the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, committed to ending slavery worldwide. During the 19th century, the Society campaigned on a number of related issues, including the trade in slave-cultivated sugar from Brazil and Cuba, and the East African slave trade (resulting from its close contacts with Dr. Livingstone). In the 1890s its mandate began to include the ill treatment of indigenous peoples, leading to its eventual merger with the Aborigines' Protection Society. The Aborigines' Protection Society was founded in 1837 by Dr. Thomas Hodgkin and others through a Parliamentary Select Committee set up in 1835 to investigate means of ensuring justice, spreading civilization, etc. among the indigenous peoples of the Empire. Its first president was Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, and its early work included the establishment of correspondence with "intelligent and benevolent individuals abroad", the publication of several reports, including on the natives of Australia, Upper Canada and South Africa, and the general arousal of public opinion. For most of the 19th century it continued to lobby in the same geographical areas, as well as against encroachments on the North American Indians, the traffic in Coolie and Polynesian labour, and the sale of liquor to natives. After World War One the newly amalgamated British and Foreign Anti-Slavery and Aborigines' Protection Society attempted to work with the League of Nations to make the respect of human rights part of international law. This work culminated in 1956 with the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, which listed and defined all slave-related practices. In 1975 it campaigned for the setting up of a panel of experts in the United Nations, later known as the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery. In 1990 the Society changed its name to Anti-Slavery International. Its main current areas of interest include debt bondage, the trafficking of human beings and the worst forms of child labour. In terms of related organisations relevant to this collection, the Mico Charity administered funds for the education of negroes (though the legacy was not used for this purpose until after the establishment of the apprenticeship system in the West Indies and the subsequent setting up of schools for apprentices and their children); the National Freedmen's Aid Society was in close communication with an American society of the same name established after the Civil War; and the Committee for the Welfare of Africans in Europe was formed during World War One to protect the welfare of native labour contingents in France and to care for native fighting forces. Anti-Slavery International was formed in 1839 as the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. Over the years the organisation's name has changed several times: 1839-1909: The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society 1909-1947: The Anti-Slavery Society and Aborigines Protection Society 1947-1956: The Anti-Slavery Society 1956-1990: The Anti-Slavery Society for the Protection of Human Rights 1990-1995: Anti-Slavery International for the Protection of Human Rights 1995-present: Anti-Slavery International >> I note, this is to significant degree a side tracking of a thread on a pivotal issue. That issue should not be lost sight of. KF PS: Bodelian Library should itself be a significant point.kairosfocus_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Hence the answer to "The Christian church had nothing to do with the British and American abolitionist movement?" is emphatically "no".daveS_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

DS, the abolitionist movement began with Christians. KFkairosfocus_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

JAD, Do you have a particular interlocutor in mind? I don't know much history but it is well known that many abolitionists were Christians and that their views on slavery were founded on their religious beliefs.daveS_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

The question was not meant for you KF. It was meant for our regular interlocutors, who have no knowledge of history. Please don’t sabotage what I am trying to do here. PLEASE let them try to answer the question. Here it is again: The Christian church had nothing to do with the British and American abolitionist movement?john_a_designer_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

F/N: Ponder:
. . . there were questions about [Christian] compromise with the political and social system. Gregory of Nyssa boldly attacked the institution of slavery. Augustine thought the domination of man over his neighbour an inherent wrong, but saw no way of ending it and concluded that, since the ordering of society prevented the misery of anarchic disintegration, slavery was both a consequence of the fall of man and at the same time a wrong that providence prevented from being wholly harmful. Slaves were not a very large proportion of the ancient labour force, since the cost of a slave to his owner exceeded that of employing free wage-labourers. Slaves in a good household with a reasonable master enjoyed a security and standard of living that seldom came the way of free wage labourers. But not all slaves had good masters, and in special cases the bishops used the church chest to pay the cost of emancipation. Refusal on moral grounds to own slaves became a rule for monasteries. [Henry Chadwick, "Envoi: On taking Leave of Antiquity," in The Oxford History of the Roman World, Eds. Boardman, Griffin & Murray, (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press paperback, 1991), p. 471. Links added. NB: In the very next paragraph, the contributor goes on to discuss how the church also deeply disapproved of capital punishment [which in many cases of course would be by the utterly degrading death on the cross, and which would thus sharply contrast with Paul's remarks on the magistrates' power of the sword in Rom 13:1 - 7] and judicial torture. Indeed, he notes that "[a] Roman church-order of about 200 forbids a Christian magistrate to order an execution on pain of excommunication. No Christian layman could tolerably bring a charge against anyone if the penalty might be execution or a beating with lead-weighted leather thongs . . . Torture forced so many innocent people to confess to crimes they had not committed that the Christian hatred of it commanded wide assent . . ." In short, the picture is far more complex than we might have thought.]
KFkairosfocus_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

JAD, the Abolitionist movement had its literal beginnings in churches. The anti slavery society's motto came from Philemon. Wilberforce's campaign grew out of his sense of mission. His campaign was in effect the work of a church commune that lived together. KFkairosfocus_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

The Christian church had nothing to do with the British and American abolitionist movement?john_a_designer_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

MS. you are amateurish at best in addressing the Scriptures; you would be well advised to be restrained in your conclusions. I simply note that there is in fact a common pattern in the scriptures of recognising and regulating a widespread pre-existing social practice as the alternative given hardness of hearts is a worse evil, especially under relevant circumstances. We must never over generalise from a gospel ethics and revivals softened situation that buttresses constitutional democracies to what was there in the long haul of history and is liable to return if Red Guards rioting and their backers have their way. . A classic example is in the Mt 19 exchange on divorce where Jesus corrects questioners that the proper purpose of marriage had been perverted so that there was need to refer to the original foundation of marriage. So, no, Divorce was not a command but the Mosaic law undertook a regulation and amelioration given hard hearts dull to the proper intent. In that context, Malachi 2:16 is striking: I hate divorce says the Lord. We must never conflate recognition, regulation and discussion of a social fact for establishment or endorsement. Where, further, it is precisely the heart softening work of the Spirit who indwells and the genuine enlightenment of the gospel that allows for material improvement. Divorce is still with us, legal under law and a widespread plague. A sign of a civilisation with hard heart problems. Slavery in various forms is still there, for similar reasons, though it is illegal and has been the target of the first civil rights movement. A movement energised by gospel awakenings and for which the manumission letter of Onesimus, Paul to Philemon, has been not only a model but a source of its very motto. Namely, am I not a man and a brother, and parallel, am I not a woman and a sister. Further to this, it is clear that the invention of printing, ferment of the Reformation, circulation of the Bible in the vernacular that helped energise democratising and cultural stabilising forces that made significant progress on social and legal as well as governmental reforms possible and sustainable. In that context, it is the persistent accuse accuse, refuse to listen hostility we are seeing that is diagnostic of the sad, benighted, hard hearted, evil-addicted state of much of our civilisation today. Some rethinking is in order. KFkairosfocus_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit: “They found the Bible, which endorses slavery in dozens of passages,…” EDTA: "Endorses? Or sets rules for? Big difference there." Both. Get an electronic Bible (I use www.biblegateway.com) and search for "slave". Hit return and sit back. Page after page will scroll past, full of lines from the Bible, each with the word "slave" bolded. Here's a great endorsement of slavery in Leviticus 25. (This is The Lord, speaking to Moses) Lev 25:44 "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." Note that, according to the Bible, God himself tells Moses that he can have slaves and that he can buy them from foreigners, and foreigners living in Israel. They are your property forever and you can leave them to your son. I'd say that was a pretty authoritative endorsement of slavery. EDTA: "The NT (which has more force for Christians than the OT) states that masters are to treat slaves well, because both have the same Master in heaven. That’s a command that lots of employers could use to follow even today." Let's see about that. Here's a good passage from Exodus: Exodus 21:20-21 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." So are you saying it would be a better world if employers could beat their employees to death, so long as they survive a day or two after the beating? This doesn't have anything to do with slavery, but I have to include the next verse: Exodus 21:22 “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Again, this is God speaking. If men are fighting and hurt a pregnant women so badly that she has a miscarriage, the man who hit her will be fined. If the woman is further harmed, the man responsible will be punished "... life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn "burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." KairosFocus, God's talking to you here. A lot of Conservative Christians wonder how the rest of the world can possibly support abortion. We're just following God's orders. Back to slavery. This is one of my 'favorite' Bible passages: Exodus 21 “Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life. Israeli slaves have to be released after 7 years. But if he gets married to another slave of his master's and has children during that time, the wife and children belong to his master and he keeps them forever. The slave who loves his wife and children has to make a choice: either going free or accepting permanent slavehood and gets his ear pierced. Now that's male Israeli slaves. Female Israeli slaves are treated differently by God and the Bible: Exodus 21:7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." She might get off easier if she doesn't "displease" her master. He can give her to his son or let her go. EDTA: "The NT (which has more force for Christians than the OT) states that masters are to treat slaves well, because both have the same Master in heaven." A lot of early Christians were slaves, which makes NT Christianity better disposed towards them. I'd like to think that Paul was anti-slavery, but the Romans were very suspicious towards Christianity because of its attractions to slaves. Now you would think that a man who had the favor of God himself would fight this, but Paul decided to co-operate. Nothing in the NT positively endorses slavery, but nothing forbids it, either. The entire book of Philemon is a letter from Paul, talking to Philemon about his runaway slave, Onesimus (which means Useful), who has attached himself to Paul. This undoubtedly put Paul and his new religion in considerable danger from the Romans and he tells Philemon he's sending him back and hopes he will be kind to him. There's nothing said about what happened after that. One warning: Be careful of which Bible you search. All my quotes are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, but some versions refuse to use the word slave. The King James version translates 'slave' as 'servant', for instance. England had banned slavery hundreds of years before and apparently they solved the problem of Englishmen having better morals than God by mis-translating the Bible. As I've said, most of the problems on this blog are caused by Christian's bad morals and the Bible is where they get a lot of them. Want to talk about massacres next?MatSpirit_{June 25, 2020
June
06
Jun
25
25
2020
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

EDTA: "... there are plenty of Southern Dems who need to apologize for voting against the ’64 Civil Rights Act." One minor problem with your thesis: all those Southern Dems are Republican today. The big switch started in the Nixon administration. The Dixiecrats (Southern Dems) had been getting more and more disgusted with the Democratic party after FDR turned it Liberal in 1932. Then Tricky Dick came along and noticed this and began his Southern Strategy of appealing to the South with the sleazy, immoral tactics he was famous for and sure enough, they started switching. I remember that time well. Every week we'd hear that another (Southern) Democrat had switched to the Republican party and the Republicans enjoyed rubbing our noses in it. Meanwhile, the Democrats didn't do too much about it because, frankly, we didn't want to associate with the Dixiecrats. It didn't much matter, nationally, because the Dixiecrats were nothing but obstructionists who fought the rest of the party at every step. But that set up a trope that is currently very popular in conservative circles: You've probably heard by now that the Democrats supported slavery in the Civil War. This is true. You've obviously heard the some (Southern) Dems voted against the '64 Civil Rights act. This is true. There are a few other 'Bad Democrat' memes that don't come immediately to mind, but if you follow right wing talk radio you'll hear them. The problem is that those Evil Democrats are the Heart of the GOP today and 100% Trump Lovers. They don't like to mention that. Spoils the joke, I guess.MatSpirit_{June 25, 2020
June
06
Jun
25
25
2020
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

Again, if all the Southern Baptists who opposed abolition and black civil rights are dead, and all the people they wanted to deny abolition and civil rights to are dead, why are we still bringing these things up? Just to tar-and-feather by association. Doesn't work. But if it did, then there are plenty of Southern Dems who need to apologize for voting against the '64 Civil Rights Act.EDTA_{June 24, 2020
June
06
Jun
24
24
2020
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

The Southern Baptists of today have nothing to apologize for, in regards to slavery. All they have to do is fight against racism.ET_{June 24, 2020
June
06
Jun
24
24
2020
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

@matSpirit
I believe the Southern Baptist denomination even apologized for slavery a few years ago.
They indeed have something to apologize for.
Southern Baptist Convention The word Southern in Southern Baptist Convention stems from it having been organized in 1845 at Augusta, Georgia, by Baptists in the Southern United States who split with northern Baptists over the issue of slavery, with Southern Baptists strongly opposed to abolition and black civil rights.[4] After the American Civil War, another split occurred when most freedmen set up independent black congregations, regional associations, and state and national conventions, such as the National Baptist Convention, which became the second-largest Baptist convention by the end of the 19th century.
Retired Physicist_{June 24, 2020
June
06
Jun
24
24
2020
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Completely Ridiculous Assertions, Pretension & Posturing (CRAP&P) are not arguments. They are little more than an intolerant effort to shut down honest discussion and debate using empty rhetoric as ploy to obstruct, obfuscate, demonize, vilify and undermine other people’s God given natural rights. Who is being dogmatic and intolerant? It’s not people on the ID, theistic, traditionalist side of the debate. Please stop enabling people like MatSpirit. Whatever his motives they are not ethically or intellectually honest. He is certainly not infallible. (Though apparently he thinks he is.) Personally I don’t think he is very smart. I have said this before but let me say it once again: YOU CAN’T REASON WITH THESE PEOPLE.john_a_designer_{June 24, 2020
June
06
Jun
24
24
2020
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

MS, "I wish your ancestors had done the same." Actually, I cannot trace my lineage to any slave holders. My oldest known American ancestor was living in the North, and had no slaves. But I do wish that no American had ever owned slaves. And now that all slave owners are dead and all those owned as slaves are dead, I wish we could get past this issue, and move on to discussing issues that are actually still with us today. "They found the Bible, which endorses slavery in dozens of passages,..." Endorses? Or sets rules for? Big difference there. The NT (which has more force for Christians than the OT) states that masters are to treat slaves well, because both have the same Master in heaven. That's a command that lots of employers could use to follow even today. At a higher level, any belief system that has been around for many generations will have people who abuse it and use it deceitfully to justify doing evil. You don't really want to wander into the swamp of arguing over belief systems in general and which ones harbor the greatest potential for evil.EDTA_{June 24, 2020
June
06
Jun
24
24
2020
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

EG, "All that means is that people today are more discerning." Yes, people are rejecting other people more often now. And that's partially because people are less attractive (physically and psychologically) than they could be. This has impacts beyond just less dating/marriage happening. You failed to address the loneliness epidemic and its impact on people's health and longevity, etc. But you do tend to fail to address the difficult parts of other people's statements, I've noticed. (When will the Left take responsibility for the harm it is causing?) "Sometimes, a woman just wants to laugh and dance." More than just sometimes for many. Yes, hedonism has infected womankind too. Sad really. And bad for everyone's future. MS, "But there are still some activities going on that virgins don’t do because 40% of all births are out of wedlock today." Ah yes, the metric of how much sex is being had. You have seen the stats that show young people (even before covid) are having less sex these days? "My next door neighbor is one such mother, ...she has lots of other moms and children visiting her and her son appears to be very healthy. " I'm not sure you have studied the statistics and demographics surrounding children from broken homes, and their health (physical and mental). Not pretty. Your use of anecdotal evidence to rationalize that there's supposedly no harm going on is concerning.EDTA_{June 24, 2020
June
06
Jun
24
24
2020
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

MS, motive mongering and projection of hate. Meanwhile, on evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow traveller ideologies, there is no basis adequate to bear the weight of ought. Talk of good morals on your part is little more than manipulative noise, absent such a base. Meanwhile, the fundamental point remains, that the inescapable first truths are all mutually interdependent, deeply mutually intertwined and binding. So, to impose under false colour of law, super-rights and progress or even caring, a new order in which people are forced to lie on pain of severe penalty imposed by the powers that be is utterly incoherent and demonically oppressive. The only solution is to accept the obvious: as your claimed rights would entail our duties, no rights claims are sound unless one is in the right so that what is claimed is compatible with others being able to freely fulfill their own first duties. In short, to justly claim a right one must first demonstrably be in the right. This criterion obviously cannot be fulfilled by the various impositions of political correctness. Where it is a notorious observations that modern tyrannies seek to create an entangling mesh of demands that cannot be met by the ordinary person so that everyone is in a state of perpetual fear and liability. That makes them more readily intimidated. Such is of course monstrously evil. KF PS: It remains the case that a contract or imposition after the fact that forces people into lies etc and generally into upholding evil is evil.kairosfocus_{June 24, 2020
June
06
Jun
24
24
2020
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

EDTA, the number of women marrying today is at an all time low, too. But there are still some activities going on that virgins don't do because 40% of all births are out of wedlock today. My next door neighbor is one such mother, but her boyfriend, whose work keeps him all over the state, is home every weekend, she has lots of other moms and children visiting her and her son appears to be very healthy. Things seem to be working out. This may violate your moral code, but you're a Christian and Christian morals are bad. EDTA: "And no Christian today is pro-slavery." Well good! Congratulations on deciding not to follow the Bible and base at least part of your moral code on the Golden Rule. I wish your ancestors had done the same. What we call the Bible Belt today used to be called the slave states. They found the Bible, which endorses slavery in dozens of passages, very congenial and used it relentlessly when arguing for slavery. After all, if the Bible says you can do it, who are you to challenge the Word of God? I believe the Southern Baptist denomination even apologized for slavery a few years ago. There's hope.MatSpirit_{June 24, 2020
June
06
Jun
24
24
2020
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Acartia Eddie's motto: "I Shall Live by Lies" or "If I ain't lying, I ain't living"ET_{June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

Except that the people of today aren't discerning, at all. And that means that a pathological liar and sociopath, like Acartia Eddie, would do very well in the dive bars, rest areas and mall bathrooms of today. added via edit: I wouldn't quote scripture on a date and I don't have any fake war exploits to brag about.ET_{June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Mattspirit ." Hint: The Golden Rule is in the Bible. And everywhere else. It’s actually pretty obvious unless your morals are already corrupted" What about a master humility in washing his servant's feet? Is that everywhere too? "Personally, I think Christians do have terrible morals and this is just one small example. Christians have the morals of an iron age middle east tribesman with the word “Jesus” on top." The first half is subjective and the 2nd half isn't even true. Jesus is from the classical era, not iron age.He also wasn't a tribesman, he was a handyman. ince you were “kind” enough to give me bad moral advice from the Bible, here’s some Bible verses back to you: Matthew 25:45: Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Oh look you found one of those bad morals.Gostbuster_{June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

EDTA
Those people who can’t get a date today could 75 years ago with no trouble at all.
All that means is that people today are more discerning. After all, could you imagine any woman today willing to date Joe Gallien, BA77 or KF? :) :) :) I cant see them being any fun on a date. One would brag about his fake war exploits and the other two would just quote scripture. Sometimes, a woman just wants to laugh and dance.Ed George_{June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

Matspirit. You can't be for real with these statements. " What is it about conservative Christianity that gives you and ET and the gang such undying hatred towards adolescents whose sexual orientation doesn’t meet your arbitrary standards" Christians don't hate the lgbt community or any one of these tumblr genders. In fact of we did hate them, we wouldn't tell them what the bible actually says about sexual orientation or gender identity. Speaking of arbitrary, if a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man, why can't love become hate and hate become love? Your standards are just as wonky as you accuse ours to be. ” The Bible says I can own slaves and that God gave David 20 of Saul’s wives as a reward. If you’re not willing to say slavery and bigamy by the dozen are OK, then look for a better foundation for your morality. " By exclaiming that slavery and bigamy are wrong, you are insisting that there is a right and where is your foundation for that? You are also removing context as you antichristians tend to do. Your ignorance of the topic of slavery is, sadly, very common, and, in our society, epidemic, probably due to the “it is a word that starts emotions and ends thought” syndrome. Slavery of all kinds has existed throughout human history, and continues to exist even to this day in various parts of the world. Failure to differentiate reasons for, and types of, slavery, has led to a wildly inane ignorance of the topic. Slavery as defined in the Hebrew Bible, for example, had different kinds, had to be ended on the Year of Jubilee, and could even lead to a slave desiring to remain as a servant, a true member of the household. This is very different from Roman slavery, and different again from the form of slavery that existed in Africa and Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries (yes, slavery was very common in Africa, with many Africans enslaving their fellow Africans—or traveling across the Mediterranean to enslave Europeans). In the biblical context, slavery was often the last resort, and as such, was a life-saving institution, allowing a person to remain alive when all other possibilities were exhausted, even with a hope of redemption and eventual freedom. David did not have 20 wives. The bible says he had many but only name 8. While I will admit in the old testament, God does not condemn polygamy, he does regulate to in terms of widowhood, famine and female infertility and says Kings can't practice it, david being the exception to secure his throne. It also warns of what happens if you do it wrong which is what happens to solomon. Not to mention, this later use to reiterate how unjustified david was for sleeping with Bathsheba as he already he had so many wives. Proving that even when God provides man with many, man will still seeks more .Gostbuster_{June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

Those people who can't get a date today could 75 years ago with no trouble at all. The number of males who will never marry is at an all-time high and getting higher with each passing generation. Loneliness is epidemic, and acknowledged (by those who care about other people anyway) to be a mental and physical health problem. The fact that they were not raised better is now everybody's problem, not just theirs. And no Christian today is pro-slavery. We gotta get you up to the present! You've been working with out-dated information, MS!EDTA_{June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

EDTA @ 166 "If they’re mostly Trumpers, then maybe they do see how it happened. It started before the Sexual Revolution of the 60’s, but for practical purposes, trace it there. It was a perfect storm of waning influence of Christianity, left-moving politics, enlarging gov’t which thought it could solve every problem, social engineering, increasing numbers of people going off to college, urbanization, and other things." I think you got it at "waning influence of Christianity". That's a phenomena in the entire Western world with the US dragging along at the rear. I think that when more and more people have the finances to take a moment to look around them once in a while and the education to know what they're looking at, religions don't do very well. The fact is that nearly every religion has a lot of really atrocious morality built into it. These morals usually date back to the morality of 1000+ years ago when they were founded. Little wonder Christian influence is waning. We don't believe in slavery anymore. However, I won't interfere if you want multiple wives. EDTA: "The proof is that the Left never saw the incel movement coming. They had no idea. They did not predict it in the slightest." Well, you got me there! We knew all about people who couldn't get a date, of course. Three or four of my high school classmates probably died virgins (class of '65). But we never dreamed they would start shooting people because of it. Thanks for the incels.net link. Yep, I'd almost swear I know some of them. I wonder if any of them have noticed that they're probably not popular with anybody. Their problems are deeper than they realize.MatSpirit_{June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Lying is a sin. Period. End of story. Just because MatSpirit is too stupid to understand that basic fact is meaningless to me. I use SCIENTIFIC standards. But I understand why the confuses MatSpiritET_{June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Es58: "How frequently do students get to change their preferred pronoun? If they change it mid-sentence without informing the teacher is the teacher still liable?" The student asked the teacher to use one particular pronoun. I would imagine it would stay that way until he makes another request.MatSpirit_{June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply