saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Since you're 'new' here, I'm generous with my 'first one is free' copy/pastes of an exact excerpt:

The social condition of people is often mentioned in the Bible. For example, the book of Leviticus is all about the law, the right, fair, just living/existence amongst all people on earth. The Bible speaks out against 'corrupt scales' in the market/economy, exploiting the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates/usury, acquiring multiple properties at the expense of the poor/unjust housing, exploiting widows and orphans i.e. misuse of power, welcoming immigrants & treating them well, paying day laborers fairly & quickly and the list goes on, and treating others with love and grace above all else, just to name a few of our responsibilities in the short 80+ years or so we spend on this earth.

So, if the Bible is true, social justice, equality and our role in addressing it, in fact are a concern to God (Hat tip: OldBear & others still questioning that Biblical reference).

And for those not yet convinced, Jesus cared as much as God instructed us to on earth in his reality... He healed people, fed people, embraced the outcast & crossed racial / ethnic barriers, AND he defended women & children in a culture in a time when that was even less popular to do so than it is today on the free boards.

---

Tying this back to a few posts above, on your prompting, I've been reading thru Leviticus looking for the part where God commands Moses to include healthcare benefits to homosexual spouses for the Children of Israel. Can you tell me what chapter that is in? I only see a few references to homosexuals in Leviticus, but they don't address this topic specifically.

BearN said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Since you're 'new' here, I'm generous with my 'first one is free' copy/pastes of an exact excerpt:

The social condition of people is often mentioned in the Bible. For example, the book of Leviticus is all about the law, the right, fair, just living/existence amongst all people on earth. The Bible speaks out against 'corrupt scales' in the market/economy, exploiting the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates/usury, acquiring multiple properties at the expense of the poor/unjust housing, exploiting widows and orphans i.e. misuse of power, welcoming immigrants & treating them well, paying day laborers fairly & quickly and the list goes on, and treating others with love and grace above all else, just to name a few of our responsibilities in the short 80+ years or so we spend on this earth.

So, if the Bible is true, social justice, equality and our role in addressing it, in fact are a concern to God (Hat tip: OldBear & others still questioning that Biblical reference).

And for those not yet convinced, Jesus cared as much as God instructed us to on earth in his reality... He healed people, fed people, embraced the outcast & crossed racial / ethnic barriers, AND he defended women & children in a culture in a time when that was even less popular to do so than it is today on the free boards.

---

Tying this back to a few posts above, on your prompting, I've been reading thru Leviticus looking for the part where God commands Moses to include healthcare benefits to homosexual spouses for the Children of Israel. Can you tell me what chapter that is in? I only see a few references to homosexuals in Leviticus, but they don't address this topic specifically.

---

It's enjoyable to see someone with so little to add parroting the arguments they have heard from someone else parroting another person, still. None of them ever reaching an analysis more thoughtful than a puddle at a men's urinal.

These topics have been covered here recently and the twisted left wing vision of 'social justice' has been soundly and roundly dispensed with. As copy and paste is the order of the day...

Quote:

---

Justice (MISHPAT or MISPAT) and Righteousness (SEDEK or TZEDAKAH or TSEDEQ) are paired so often in the bible precisely because they are not the same thing. Justice is most often a judicial/legal/procedural concept within the Bible, related most often to getting what one deserves. Where it references the poor, it is nearly always referring to equality under that law and delivered as prohibitions on oppression of same. Justice toward the poor as conceived of in the Bible is a negative obligation to not oppress, which includes equal treatment under the law and equal treatment with regard to things like delivering wages on time and so forth. That doesn't differ from the English concept of justice and it doesn't include government-imposed wealth redistribution.

Where charitable giving is prescribed, it's generally under the rubric of Righteousness (SEDEK) or Mercy (HESED) as in Micah 6:8. In any charitable sense, MISHPAT is really only used when referring to what God did for the Hebrews (Deut 10:18) not charity they are to give as individuals. SEDEK is an unusual word because it is more or less a general sense of doing what is right, being right or being in the right. It can refer to actions of kings, weights and measures, speech, being vindicated, being pure, being unblemished and so forth. If pairing is important, it's also very commonly paired with (juxtaposed against) wickedness or sin.

With regard to social justice, we often hear about the Jubilee year and the guidance. If those who used the Jubilee year to justify their views on Social Justice and claims that it is biblical actually read the entirety of the instructions for Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8-55), they would probably think better of using that particular justification.

Ultimately, the Bible doesn't really possess the common modern idea of Social Justice, unless by that you mean the Tribe of Israel condemned and fought against and subdued other tribes, because of their ethnicity and religion, and redistributed those tribes' wealth to themselves by use of force of arms (government). Social Justice is tribalism. It is group justice that expressly denies the individual as an image of God. It has nothing to do with MISHPAT or SEDEK or even HESED. A just society is a society filled with voluntary charitable institutions and a government that doesn't pervert justice by showing favoritism to one group or another, but rather holding to extraordinarily strict equality under the law.

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/83392/replies/2078923

---

Canon said:

---

BearN said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Since you're 'new' here, I'm generous with my 'first one is free' copy/pastes of an exact excerpt:

The social condition of people is often mentioned in the Bible. For example, the book of Leviticus is all about the law, the right, fair, just living/existence amongst all people on earth. The Bible speaks out against 'corrupt scales' in the market/economy, exploiting the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates/usury, acquiring multiple properties at the expense of the poor/unjust housing, exploiting widows and orphans i.e. misuse of power, welcoming immigrants & treating them well, paying day laborers fairly & quickly and the list goes on, and treating others with love and grace above all else, just to name a few of our responsibilities in the short 80+ years or so we spend on this earth.

So, if the Bible is true, social justice, equality and our role in addressing it, in fact are a concern to God (Hat tip: OldBear & others still questioning that Biblical reference).

And for those not yet convinced, Jesus cared as much as God instructed us to on earth in his reality... He healed people, fed people, embraced the outcast & crossed racial / ethnic barriers, AND he defended women & children in a culture in a time when that was even less popular to do so than it is today on the free boards.

---

Tying this back to a few posts above, on your prompting, I've been reading thru Leviticus looking for the part where God commands Moses to include healthcare benefits to homosexual spouses for the Children of Israel. Can you tell me what chapter that is in? I only see a few references to homosexuals in Leviticus, but they don't address this topic specifically.

---

It's enjoyable to see someone with so little to add parroting the arguments they have heard from someone else parroting another person, still. None of them ever reaching an analysis more thoughtful than a puddle at a men's urinal.

These topics have been covered here recently and the twisted left wing vision of 'social justice' has been soundly and roundly dispensed with. As copy and paste is the order of the day...

Quote:

---

Justice (MISHPAT or MISPAT) and Righteousness (SEDEK or TZEDAKAH or TSEDEQ) are paired so often in the bible precisely because they are not the same thing. Justice is most often a judicial/legal/procedural concept within the Bible, related most often to getting what one deserves. Where it references the poor, it is nearly always referring to equality under that law and delivered as prohibitions on oppression of same. Justice toward the poor as conceived of in the Bible is a negative obligation to not oppress, which includes equal treatment under the law and equal treatment with regard to things like delivering wages on time and so forth. That doesn't differ from the English concept of justice and it doesn't include government-imposed wealth redistribution.

Where charitable giving is prescribed, it's generally under the rubric of Righteousness (SEDEK) or Mercy (HESED) as in Micah 6:8. In any charitable sense, MISHPAT is really only used when referring to what God did for the Hebrews (Deut 10:18) not charity they are to give as individuals. SEDEK is an unusual word because it is more or less a general sense of doing what is right, being right or being in the right. It can refer to actions of kings, weights and measures, speech, being vindicated, being pure, being unblemished and so forth. If pairing is important, it's also very commonly paired with (juxtaposed against) wickedness or sin.

With regard to social justice, we often hear about the Jubilee year and the guidance. If those who used the Jubilee year to justify their views on Social Justice and claims that it is biblical actually read the entirety of the instructions for Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8-55), they would probably think better of using that particular justification.

Ultimately, the Bible doesn't really possess the common modern idea of Social Justice, unless by that you mean the Tribe of Israel condemned and fought against and subdued other tribes, because of their ethnicity and religion, and redistributed those tribes' wealth to themselves by use of force of arms (government). Social Justice is tribalism. It is group justice that expressly denies the individual as an image of God. It has nothing to do with MISHPAT or SEDEK or even HESED. A just society is a society filled with voluntary charitable institutions and a government that doesn't pervert justice by showing favoritism to one group or another, but rather holding to extraordinarily strict equality under the law.

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/83392/replies/2078923

---

---

"Soundly and roundly dispensed with"... as in... for example... your last three usernames on this site pre-Canon?

Or... as in... the "thoughtful intelligent sparring" you claimed to value most here with other diverse points of view, which you disperse with as self-proclaimed?

Please explain it for those of us in the cheap seats, who add nothing more here than the equivalent to piss, as you so graciously articulated, on the floor of the Floyd Casey men's restroom... students' side, no doubt?

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

BearN said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Since you're 'new' here, I'm generous with my 'first one is free' copy/pastes of an exact excerpt:

The social condition of people is often mentioned in the Bible. For example, the book of Leviticus is all about the law, the right, fair, just living/existence amongst all people on earth. The Bible speaks out against 'corrupt scales' in the market/economy, exploiting the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates/usury, acquiring multiple properties at the expense of the poor/unjust housing, exploiting widows and orphans i.e. misuse of power, welcoming immigrants & treating them well, paying day laborers fairly & quickly and the list goes on, and treating others with love and grace above all else, just to name a few of our responsibilities in the short 80+ years or so we spend on this earth.

So, if the Bible is true, social justice, equality and our role in addressing it, in fact are a concern to God (Hat tip: OldBear & others still questioning that Biblical reference).

And for those not yet convinced, Jesus cared as much as God instructed us to on earth in his reality... He healed people, fed people, embraced the outcast & crossed racial / ethnic barriers, AND he defended women & children in a culture in a time when that was even less popular to do so than it is today on the free boards.

---

Tying this back to a few posts above, on your prompting, I've been reading thru Leviticus looking for the part where God commands Moses to include healthcare benefits to homosexual spouses for the Children of Israel. Can you tell me what chapter that is in? I only see a few references to homosexuals in Leviticus, but they don't address this topic specifically.

---

It's enjoyable to see someone with so little to add parroting the arguments they have heard from someone else parroting another person, still. None of them ever reaching an analysis more thoughtful than a puddle at a men's urinal.

These topics have been covered here recently and the twisted left wing vision of 'social justice' has been soundly and roundly dispensed with. As copy and paste is the order of the day...

Quote:

---

Justice (MISHPAT or MISPAT) and Righteousness (SEDEK or TZEDAKAH or TSEDEQ) are paired so often in the bible precisely because they are not the same thing. Justice is most often a judicial/legal/procedural concept within the Bible, related most often to getting what one deserves. Where it references the poor, it is nearly always referring to equality under that law and delivered as prohibitions on oppression of same. Justice toward the poor as conceived of in the Bible is a negative obligation to not oppress, which includes equal treatment under the law and equal treatment with regard to things like delivering wages on time and so forth. That doesn't differ from the English concept of justice and it doesn't include government-imposed wealth redistribution.

Where charitable giving is prescribed, it's generally under the rubric of Righteousness (SEDEK) or Mercy (HESED) as in Micah 6:8. In any charitable sense, MISHPAT is really only used when referring to what God did for the Hebrews (Deut 10:18) not charity they are to give as individuals. SEDEK is an unusual word because it is more or less a general sense of doing what is right, being right or being in the right. It can refer to actions of kings, weights and measures, speech, being vindicated, being pure, being unblemished and so forth. If pairing is important, it's also very commonly paired with (juxtaposed against) wickedness or sin.

With regard to social justice, we often hear about the Jubilee year and the guidance. If those who used the Jubilee year to justify their views on Social Justice and claims that it is biblical actually read the entirety of the instructions for Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8-55), they would probably think better of using that particular justification.

Ultimately, the Bible doesn't really possess the common modern idea of Social Justice, unless by that you mean the Tribe of Israel condemned and fought against and subdued other tribes, because of their ethnicity and religion, and redistributed those tribes' wealth to themselves by use of force of arms (government). Social Justice is tribalism. It is group justice that expressly denies the individual as an image of God. It has nothing to do with MISHPAT or SEDEK or even HESED. A just society is a society filled with voluntary charitable institutions and a government that doesn't pervert justice by showing favoritism to one group or another, but rather holding to extraordinarily strict equality under the law.

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/83392/replies/2078923

---

---

"Soundly and roundly dispensed with"... as in... for example... your last three usernames on this site pre-Canon?

Or... as in... the "thoughtful intelligent sparring" you claimed to value most here with other diverse points of view, which you disperse with as self-proclaimed?

Please explain it for those of us in the cheap seats, who add nothing more here than the equivalent to piss, as you so graciously articulated, on the floor of the Floyd Casey men's restroom... students' side, no doubt?

---

Analysis of the original Hebrew is uncomfortable. The Bible doesn't say what you want it to say simply because you want it to. We get it.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

It's really sad to me that you all think taking care of fellow humans regardless of their "worthiness" is not Biblical. Or that excluding *is* Biblical. We have very different interpretations of Christianity, and we will never agree here.

also, newsflash: we already pay the government thousands of dollars and we get very little in return. I would be SO on board with my tax dollars being used to benefit actual people. Right now, we are also paying insurance companies thousands of dollars, and someone who has cancer or a heart attack is probably STILL going to have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. But people are just supposed to be okay with a system that doesn't work for a lot of people and relies on fellow citizens to donate to GoFundMe, I guess.

---

You know what is really sad to me? That this is the way it usually goes: If you don't agree with my policy ideas, like having the Federal government run the healthcare system, you don't care about people and you are either a bad Christian or not a Christian at all. It is such a non-starter for actually reaching solutions.

---

You could say it even more succinctly. "I feel so strongly about this that anyone who disagrees with me is a horrible person."

Classic example of intentions uber alles. How dare we subject compassion to reason?

Thee University said:

---

You will be happy to know that very few Baylor folks agree with much of anything I post here. You would be surprised though at the "fan mail" and free drinks I receive. Some folks like to hear the TRUTH.

---

And I'm sure that has NOTHING to do with your efforts to hide your true thoughts behind an anonymous screen name and the fact that you used to play football, buddy!

Buddy?

Are we becoming friends?

Amy Pagitt said:

---

You're right, I'm using benefits and rights interchangeably. (But I've also said that I believe healthcare and all that it entails IS a right, so at least I'm consistent in my little woman brain.)

---

Healthcare is a right. The gov't shouldn't block access to it or allow anyone else to block access to it. Not providing healthcare benefits to a spouse through an employee's compensation structure is not the equivalent of blocking access to it.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

It's really sad to me that you all think taking care of fellow humans regardless of their "worthiness" is not Biblical. Or that excluding *is* Biblical. We have very different interpretations of Christianity, and we will never agree here.

also, newsflash: we already pay the government thousands of dollars and we get very little in return. I would be SO on board with my tax dollars being used to benefit actual people. Right now, we are also paying insurance companies thousands of dollars, and someone who has cancer or a heart attack is probably STILL going to have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. But people are just supposed to be okay with a system that doesn't work for a lot of people and relies on fellow citizens to donate to GoFundMe, I guess.

---

You said... we already pay the gov't and get very little return. Why in the hell would we want them to take more control, force us to pay them even more money and get even a worse ROI?

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Thee University said:

---

You will be happy to know that very few Baylor folks agree with much of anything I post here. You would be surprised though at the "fan mail" and free drinks I receive. Some folks like to hear the TRUTH.

---

And I'm sure that has NOTHING to do with your efforts to hide your true thoughts behind an anonymous screen name and the fact that you used to play football, buddy!

---

So you are opposed to privacy and the use of screen names for style and entertainment?

BTW, Amy, since you prefer Twitter and don't respond to posts you don't want to address, it may be helpful for you to learn that this site, like many forums, has private messaging available, which allows people to contact each other off-screen and share information not related to the thread discussion.

The claim that having a screen name means someone is "hiding" is not true of that screen name. As for screen names which appear real, I once came across a man who used his wife's name and pretended to be her, so in that case an actual real-person name turned out to be less honest than a whimsical screen persona.

Many members here know not only my real name, but many details about me, from private messages and also from information I have chosen to share in various discussions. This is true for most of us here, but you'd have to drop the visceral hatred and pay attention without judging to pick up on that.

People who take issue with screen names are universally bereft of anything valuable to say. They either want to focus on personal attacks over policy or philosophical discussions, or they want a true name to doxx with a real life they can mobilize their left wing mob to destroy.

Anonymity makes the argument solely about the topic at hand or the failure of one of the interlocutors to sufficiently or accurately address that topic. Ineffective and emotional debaters will always demand personal information.

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Ahhhh, yes. My idea is different than your own so *I* must be the ignorant, clueless one.

---

Well it's not so much that your ideas are different than his as that every idea you have posted here has been either a blatant straw man, tantamount to a lie, a complete distortion of Christian principles, an absurd redefinition of an existing term or just an irrational, illogical train wreck.

This board that you mock as unchristian for its use of logical standards in discussion (and because of your apparent obsession with homosexuality, which you incessantly bring up) is filled with people on the left and right who have spent a great deal of time in thoughtful intellectual sparring over big ideas. They aren't always pleasant, but I'd stack 90% of the minds here against the Twitter mob in which you seem to prefer membership any day.

---

Hoody Hoo! The Intro to Logic 101 board police are back. That train is never late.

More seriously, to the broader commentary & challenges posed as to how the Bible doesn't at all support or reference anything related to modern "social justice" or equality, as Amy & many others here have advocated for passionately... I'd urge us to consider there are in fact undeniable calls to action for those who interpret the Bible maybe in a different way than what many of you (aka all members other than the '12 liberals' who actively post here, as referenced above on this thread) may feel called to act on personally in your own lives.

For some of us who graduated from Baylor, depending on your life experiences, upbringing, even your unique Baylor experience, for which everyone was likely quite different... we may all also interpret the Bible very differently. God designed us that way. Remember - none of us interpreting the Bible in 2021 are perfect, only those through whom he used to originally capture His infallible Word.

So we all could be wrong. We all could be right. We all could be a little of both. (Spoiler: It's the third one).

That said, if we have to take it back to a logic debate, it's pretty hard to overlook the two thousand references to justice and poverty and our calling in response in the Bible.

The social condition of people is mentioned in the Bible often. For example, the book of Leviticus is all about the law, the right, fair, just living/existence amongst all people on earth.

The Bible speaks out against 'corrupt scales' in the market/economy, exploiting the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates/usury, acquiring multiple properties at the expense of the poor/unjust housing, exploiting widows and orphans i.e. misuse of power, welcoming immigrants & treating them well, paying day laborers fairly & quickly and the list goes on, and treating others with love and grace above all else, just to name a few of our responsibilities in the short 80+ years or so we spend on this earth.

So, if the Bible is true, social justice, equality and our role in addressing it, in fact are a concern to God (Hat tip: OldBear & others questioning a Biblical reference).

And for those not yet convinced, Jesus cared as much as God instructed us to on earth in his own reality... He healed people, fed people, embraced the outcast & crossed racial / ethnic barriers, AND he defended women & children in a culture in a time when that was even less popular to do so than it is today, even on the free boards.

No small feat, yo.

Jesus spoke sternly against those who hid behind religion/religious ceremony while they also 'neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy & faith.'

So.. I think these same matters were, in practice, a concern and a reality in terms of Jesus's time, works, calling and purpose on this earth. And thus, at least I believe, they are our own.

All of the above, agree or not, are valid interpretations of the Bible and our role as Christians to love & give to others more than we hate and withhold. That is what is odd to me to be what you vehemently oppose with 'crazy liberal' views from others like Amy or myself (read: actually much less liberal / previously conservative Christians who in fact now interpret the Bible and our role as Christians on this earth differently than you might based on different life experiences & callings... and just like you do, we feel called to no longer sit silently by & ignore the tug on our own hearts He has placed on us, again, just as you are. So, we speak louder.)

What would you have instead for me or Amy or anyone else with that belief or calling?

What in love are you hopeful for my or her calling on this earth to instead be?

What would you have of others with similar callings in our own walks with Christ... ignore it and follow the common opinions found on a board, which has never felt right or never been what I felt Christ was calling me in my life to do?

Specifically when it comes to equality, injustice, oppression and most notably our calling to love all, ESPECIALLY the outcasts, the rejected, the Gay Christians or non-Christians. And yes, the former of the two, is in fact a thing.

As the Baylor minority with those beliefs, instead of railing on us for standing up for what we know and believe with all of our hearts that Christ has called of us uniquely to do... maybe we can rally around a greater purpose? What we all believe Baylor's mission in fact calls it uniquely to do in an effort to bring more people to Christ... to treat others equally, with love, to stand up for the oppressed... and to produce VERY DIFFERENT types of Christians in its alumni, all sent out in the world with the knowledge, desire and foundation to draw others to Him, into the gift we all have received and were blessed to learn more about as Baylor students ourselves.

Maybe, instead of all of that, just tip your hat, laugh at us and our ignorance in your eyes and even DM us to tell us that's TOTAL HORSE-ISH... but publicly (and yes, that includes the unofficially associated w/ our alma mater free boards) celebrate and support all ideas that could in fact make Baylor University more of an institution where increasingly more non-believers are loved & brought closer to Christ, no matter what cross they bear when they arrive or depart. We want them all able to learn about Christ, His love for us, and the love He calls for us to give freely to others while on His earth, right?

And publicly supporting inequality in official BU policies, especially those related to health and well-being, I believe, does not optimize our ability to do just that. At all.

For real... strip it all away... and what are we called to. What does our heart reveal. I imagine much more alike than different when it counts.

And personally, FWIW, I'd pay more than a Natty mid-court ticket to be a +1 with Amy at the pearly gates any day of the week. He's likely to ask her if she really is willing to vouch for me... and I'll gladly take my shack in heaven's slums over the Highland Park of Heaven if I get to be neighbors for eternity with my gay Christian cousin in heaven b/c I continued to love, support and advocate for them like Jesus did when He came to earth for our sorry selves until my last, dying breath.

All my love,
Keko Keeper of the S365 Logic Police Dog Whistle
D.C. Bear's Favorite Poster
Crazy Liberal Board Disciple #12

---

Great post! Thanks!

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Here you go:

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

George Truett said:

---

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Here you go:

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

---

Ok.

BearN said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Since you're 'new' here, I'm generous with my 'first one is free' copy/pastes of an exact excerpt:

The social condition of people is often mentioned in the Bible. For example, the book of Leviticus is all about the law, the right, fair, just living/existence amongst all people on earth. The Bible speaks out against 'corrupt scales' in the market/economy, exploiting the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates/usury, acquiring multiple properties at the expense of the poor/unjust housing, exploiting widows and orphans i.e. misuse of power, welcoming immigrants & treating them well, paying day laborers fairly & quickly and the list goes on, and treating others with love and grace above all else, just to name a few of our responsibilities in the short 80+ years or so we spend on this earth.

So, if the Bible is true, social justice, equality and our role in addressing it, in fact are a concern to God (Hat tip: OldBear & others still questioning that Biblical reference).

And for those not yet convinced, Jesus cared as much as God instructed us to on earth in his reality... He healed people, fed people, embraced the outcast & crossed racial / ethnic barriers, AND he defended women & children in a culture in a time when that was even less popular to do so than it is today on the free boards.

---

Tying this back to a few posts above, on your prompting, I've been reading thru Leviticus looking for the part where God commands Moses to include healthcare benefits to homosexual spouses for the Children of Israel. Can you tell me what chapter that is in? I only see a few references to homosexuals in Leviticus, but they don't address this topic specifically.

---

I'll be glad to jump in.

It's probably near the passages that say eating a animal in its mother's milk is an abomination and disobedient children should be stoned to death.

Our application of Leviticus is spotty at best, and rightfully so. But if you're going to be a Pharisee, you need to be consistent.

Any and Saykay are looking to Jesus and saying that his commands and attitudes are more consistent with giving benefits to these folks than not doing so.

BTW, Jesus talked a lot of about divorce but said nothing about homosexuality. In fact, he said that anyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery. So would you be in favor of denying benefits to spouses of people who are in second marriages? That's what your logic would demand.

Of course we don't do that, and I'm sure you're not in favor of that. Why? Because of grace and mercy. We extend grace and mercy to divorced persons but not to gay persons, though Jesus talked plainly about the sin of divorce.

Even if you regard gay marriage is sinful according to the scriptures, divorce and remarriage are also sinful according to the scriptures. If you're going to extend grace to one, you must extend grace to the other.

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

People who take issue with screen names are universally bereft of anything valuable to say. They either want to focus on personal attacks over policy or philosophical discussions, or they want a true name to doxx with a real life they can mobilize their left wing mob to destroy.

Anonymity makes the argument solely about the topic at hand or the failure of one of the interlocutors to sufficiently or accurately address that topic. Ineffective and emotional debaters will always demand personal information.

---

Um, sir? Did you mean to post this? Same guy who admittedly trolled LinkedIn & started an entire thread to mobilize a new echo chamber about what people who do give their real names are sharing in their public profiles? Feels like that whole "personal attacks or philosophical discussions" allergy you had cleared right up... (checks notes)... like 15 minutes ago. Happy for you.

I'll give you a mulligan on this hole today. Pick a lane.

---

You are referencing a thread on keeping personal politics out of business, where the premise was that people should not share personal and absurd political information on a business networking site. Yet you somehow draw the conclusion that the thread is similar in kind to demanding personal information about anonymous posters. You are either unfamiliar with sound reasoning or have simply decided it's unnecessary for you to use. For someone to be too clever by half, they first need to be clever at all. Perhaps you should inform your posts with that truism.

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

People who take issue with screen names are universally bereft of anything valuable to say. They either want to focus on personal attacks over policy or philosophical discussions, or they want a true name to doxx with a real life they can mobilize their left wing mob to destroy.

Anonymity makes the argument solely about the topic at hand or the failure of one of the interlocutors to sufficiently or accurately address that topic. Ineffective and emotional debaters will always demand personal information.

---

Um, sir? Did you mean to post this? Same guy who admittedly trolled LinkedIn & started an entire thread to mobilize a new echo chamber about what people who do give their real names are sharing in their public profiles? Feels like that whole "personal attacks or philosophical discussions" allergy you had cleared right up... (checks notes)... like 15 minutes ago. Happy for you.

I'll give you a mulligan on this hole today. Pick a lane.

---

You are referencing a thread on keeping personal politics out of business, where the premise was that people should not share personal and absurd political information on a business networking site. Yet you somehow draw the conclusion that the thread is similar in kind to demanding personal information about anonymous posters. You are either unfamiliar with sound reasoning or have simply decided it's unnecessary for you to use. For someone to be too clever by half, they first need to be clever at all. Perhaps you should inform your posts with that truism.

---

Thank you, Sergeant Logic Police Officer, sir. While we're on the subject... your response & entire thread are based on the flawed assumption I guess you chose to ignore in my reply there... that sharing your pronouns have absolutely zero to do with politics. You made that incorrect and baseless assumption, which I have never heard before in my life, completely absent of any data or a shred of actual real world experience on the topic, other than your... what... LinkedIn search history? You used flawed inputs to draw the wrong conclusion based on what actually happens in the real world... but you are now stating that conclusion as fact, which has biased your entire thread from the start.

---

If you were around here more, you would learn not to bother interacting much with Canon, who has probably been banned at least once under another username for, to put it diplomatically, incendiary rhetoric.

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

People who take issue with screen names are universally bereft of anything valuable to say. They either want to focus on personal attacks over policy or philosophical discussions, or they want a true name to doxx with a real life they can mobilize their left wing mob to destroy.

Anonymity makes the argument solely about the topic at hand or the failure of one of the interlocutors to sufficiently or accurately address that topic. Ineffective and emotional debaters will always demand personal information.

---

Um, sir? Did you mean to post this? Same guy who admittedly trolled LinkedIn & started an entire thread to mobilize a new echo chamber about what people who do give their real names are sharing in their public profiles? Feels like that whole "personal attacks or philosophical discussions" allergy you had cleared right up... (checks notes)... like 15 minutes ago. Happy for you.

I'll give you a mulligan on this hole today. Pick a lane.

---

You are referencing a thread on keeping personal politics out of business, where the premise was that people should not share personal and absurd political information on a business networking site. Yet you somehow draw the conclusion that the thread is similar in kind to demanding personal information about anonymous posters. You are either unfamiliar with sound reasoning or have simply decided it's unnecessary for you to use. For someone to be too clever by half, they first need to be clever at all. Perhaps you should inform your posts with that truism.

---

Thank you, Sergeant Logic Police Officer, sir. While we're on the subject... your response & entire thread are based on the flawed assumption I guess you chose to ignore in my reply there... that sharing your pronouns have absolutely zero to do with politics. You made that incorrect and baseless assumption, which I have never heard before in my life, completely absent of any data or a shred of actual real world experience on the topic, other than your... what... LinkedIn search history? You used flawed inputs to draw the wrong conclusion based on what actually happens in the real world... but you are now stating that conclusion as fact, which has biased your entire thread from the start.

I bet if you put in half the energy mansplaining to yourself your highlights in that Phil 1306 textbook you held onto...and hiding behind anonymity to try to diagram my sentences as an actual response... you'd wouldn't have now landed in your own fun little paradox, now wouldn't you.

---

I observe this last post was far more about attacking Canon, than addressing what he said.

Pharisaical behavior, that.

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

People who take issue with screen names are universally bereft of anything valuable to say. They either want to focus on personal attacks over policy or philosophical discussions, or they want a true name to doxx with a real life they can mobilize their left wing mob to destroy.

Anonymity makes the argument solely about the topic at hand or the failure of one of the interlocutors to sufficiently or accurately address that topic. Ineffective and emotional debaters will always demand personal information.

---

Um, sir? Did you mean to post this? Same guy who admittedly trolled LinkedIn & started an entire thread to mobilize a new echo chamber about what people who do give their real names are sharing in their public profiles? Feels like that whole "personal attacks or philosophical discussions" allergy you had cleared right up... (checks notes)... like 15 minutes ago. Happy for you.

I'll give you a mulligan on this hole today. Pick a lane.

---

You are referencing a thread on keeping personal politics out of business, where the premise was that people should not share personal and absurd political information on a business networking site. Yet you somehow draw the conclusion that the thread is similar in kind to demanding personal information about anonymous posters. You are either unfamiliar with sound reasoning or have simply decided it's unnecessary for you to use. For someone to be too clever by half, they first need to be clever at all. Perhaps you should inform your posts with that truism.

---

Thank you, Sergeant Logic Police Officer, sir. While we're on the subject... your response & entire thread are based on the flawed assumption I guess you chose to ignore in my reply there... that sharing your pronouns have absolutely zero to do with politics. You made that incorrect and baseless assumption, which I have never heard before in my life, completely absent of any data or a shred of actual real world experience on the topic, other than your... what... LinkedIn search history? You used flawed inputs to draw the wrong conclusion based on what actually happens in the real world... but you are now stating that conclusion as fact, which has biased your entire thread from the start.

I bet if you put in half the energy mansplaining to yourself your highlights in that Phil 1306 textbook you held onto...and hiding behind anonymity to try to diagram my sentences as an actual response... you wouldn't have landed in your own fun little paradox, now would you.

---

Good grief. If you are suggesting posting personal pronouns is not political, you are either lying or you are, well, lying. That's the only answer. In the history of the English language this has never been necessary. It still isn't. It's a deconstructionist political tactic. You can claim to disagree but no one of consequence will believe you.

saykay said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

People who take issue with screen names are universally bereft of anything valuable to say. They either want to focus on personal attacks over policy or philosophical discussions, or they want a true name to doxx with a real life they can mobilize their left wing mob to destroy.

Anonymity makes the argument solely about the topic at hand or the failure of one of the interlocutors to sufficiently or accurately address that topic. Ineffective and emotional debaters will always demand personal information.

---

Um, sir? Did you mean to post this? Same guy who admittedly trolled LinkedIn & started an entire thread to mobilize a new echo chamber about what people who do give their real names are sharing in their public profiles? Feels like that whole "personal attacks or philosophical discussions" allergy you had cleared right up... (checks notes)... like 15 minutes ago. Happy for you.

I'll give you a mulligan on this hole today. Pick a lane.

---

You are referencing a thread on keeping personal politics out of business, where the premise was that people should not share personal and absurd political information on a business networking site. Yet you somehow draw the conclusion that the thread is similar in kind to demanding personal information about anonymous posters. You are either unfamiliar with sound reasoning or have simply decided it's unnecessary for you to use. For someone to be too clever by half, they first need to be clever at all. Perhaps you should inform your posts with that truism.

---

Thank you, Sergeant Logic Police Officer, sir. While we're on the subject... your response & entire thread are based on the flawed assumption I guess you chose to ignore in my reply there... that sharing your pronouns have absolutely zero to do with politics. You made that incorrect and baseless assumption, which I have never heard before in my life, completely absent of any data or a shred of actual real world experience on the topic, other than your... what... LinkedIn search history? You used flawed inputs to draw the wrong conclusion based on what actually happens in the real world... but you are now stating that conclusion as fact, which has biased your entire thread from the start.

I bet if you put in half the energy mansplaining to yourself your highlights in that Phil 1306 textbook you held onto...and hiding behind anonymity to try to diagram my sentences as an actual response... you'd wouldn't have now landed in your own fun little paradox, now wouldn't you.

---

I observe this last post was far more about attacking Canon, than addressing what he said.

Pharisaical behavior, that.

---

What he said was that pronouns are political, which isn't accurate. And it also wasn't based on sound reasoning or logic. I addressed that. What else did I miss?

---

Go back and read your comments again:

"Thank you, Sergeant Logic Police Officer, sir"

" other than your... what... LinkedIn search history"

"I bet if you put in half the energy mansplaining to yourself your highlights in that Phil 1306 textbook you held onto"

are not evidence of appropriate discussion.

In short, you are being a jerk and then some, which blows apart whatever point you were trying to make.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back.

Rare indeed on a politics and religion board, but still relevant. WE all are guilty here.

---

I am truly grateful that the Lord is patient.

We seem very determined to test that patience, though.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Wow, have any of the people who did that at CPAC been excluded from their churches yet?

I would definitely say that anyone breaking the first commandment shouldn't be allowed to do so in church. I would also hope that their fellow Christians would wonder what went wrong and how someone worshiping another god snuck in while they were too busy worrying about who people love.

---

If you can prove those two guys with the golden trump statue at CPAC were worshiping it....vs just trying to be stupid jokers/pranksters....then yes.

There is no place for idol worship in Christian churches. And they should be excluded until they repent.

That includes making an idol of unnatural human sexual practices as much as physical golden statues.

Also, lets be very clear one person sticking their sexual organ in another persons rectum has nothing to do with Love.

Deviant sexual practices might make the cut for eros...but never Agape, Storge, or Philia...the real true Loves.

If you have not figured that out now by your age then I feel sorry for you.

George Truett said:

---

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Here you go:

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

---

We are to first love God above all else, with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.

We are to love each other ONLY AS OURSELVES, not as we do God. Love for God must be supreme.

When you compromise or distort God's word and truth in an effort to "love" others, then you are breaking the first rule. You are loving others above God, or as God.

Canon said:

---

BearN said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Since you're 'new' here, I'm generous with my 'first one is free' copy/pastes of an exact excerpt:

The social condition of people is often mentioned in the Bible. For example, the book of Leviticus is all about the law, the right, fair, just living/existence amongst all people on earth. The Bible speaks out against 'corrupt scales' in the market/economy, exploiting the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates/usury, acquiring multiple properties at the expense of the poor/unjust housing, exploiting widows and orphans i.e. misuse of power, welcoming immigrants & treating them well, paying day laborers fairly & quickly and the list goes on, and treating others with love and grace above all else, just to name a few of our responsibilities in the short 80+ years or so we spend on this earth.

So, if the Bible is true, social justice, equality and our role in addressing it, in fact are a concern to God (Hat tip: OldBear & others still questioning that Biblical reference).

And for those not yet convinced, Jesus cared as much as God instructed us to on earth in his reality... He healed people, fed people, embraced the outcast & crossed racial / ethnic barriers, AND he defended women & children in a culture in a time when that was even less popular to do so than it is today on the free boards.

---

Tying this back to a few posts above, on your prompting, I've been reading thru Leviticus looking for the part where God commands Moses to include healthcare benefits to homosexual spouses for the Children of Israel. Can you tell me what chapter that is in? I only see a few references to homosexuals in Leviticus, but they don't address this topic specifically.

---

It's enjoyable to see someone with so little to add parroting the arguments they have heard from someone else parroting another person, still. None of them ever reaching an analysis more thoughtful than a puddle at a men's urinal.

These topics have been covered here recently and the twisted left wing vision of 'social justice' has been soundly and roundly dispensed with. As copy and paste is the order of the day...

Quote:

---

Justice (MISHPAT or MISPAT) and Righteousness (SEDEK or TZEDAKAH or TSEDEQ) are paired so often in the bible precisely because they are not the same thing. Justice is most often a judicial/legal/procedural concept within the Bible, related most often to getting what one deserves. Where it references the poor, it is nearly always referring to equality under that law and delivered as prohibitions on oppression of same. Justice toward the poor as conceived of in the Bible is a negative obligation to not oppress, which includes equal treatment under the law and equal treatment with regard to things like delivering wages on time and so forth. That doesn't differ from the English concept of justice and it doesn't include government-imposed wealth redistribution.

Where charitable giving is prescribed, it's generally under the rubric of Righteousness (SEDEK) or Mercy (HESED) as in Micah 6:8. In any charitable sense, MISHPAT is really only used when referring to what God did for the Hebrews (Deut 10:18) not charity they are to give as individuals. SEDEK is an unusual word because it is more or less a general sense of doing what is right, being right or being in the right. It can refer to actions of kings, weights and measures, speech, being vindicated, being pure, being unblemished and so forth. If pairing is important, it's also very commonly paired with (juxtaposed against) wickedness or sin.

With regard to social justice, we often hear about the Jubilee year and the guidance. If those who used the Jubilee year to justify their views on Social Justice and claims that it is biblical actually read the entirety of the instructions for Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8-55), they would probably think better of using that particular justification.

Ultimately, the Bible doesn't really possess the common modern idea of Social Justice, unless by that you mean the Tribe of Israel condemned and fought against and subdued other tribes, because of their ethnicity and religion, and redistributed those tribes' wealth to themselves by use of force of arms (government). Social Justice is tribalism. It is group justice that expressly denies the individual as an image of God. It has nothing to do with MISHPAT or SEDEK or even HESED. A just society is a society filled with voluntary charitable institutions and a government that doesn't pervert justice by showing favoritism to one group or another, but rather holding to extraordinarily strict equality under the law.

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/83392/replies/2078923

---

---

Bubbadog was suddenly and unjustly permanently banned from here, apparently because the moderators are thin-skinned and can't take criticism.

So I'm passing on what he wanted to say in response to Golem, I, II, III Canon:

"Of course, justice and righteousness aren't the same thing. What I claim is that they are inextricably connected to each other. That's why they are so often paired. Like thunder and lightning, which also aren't identical. Where there is lightning, there will be thunder. Where there is no justice, there is no being right with God.

"Golem, this is basic. Why are you so intent on denying the truth of the Bible? Because you fear its implication for our own society?"

I agree with Bubba 100%.

I would add that the quote above takes a modern laissez faire approach and imposes it on the scriptures. First, you can't take laws addressed to monarchies and apply them to democracies. Second, the laws in relation to gleaning, etc., shows that interest in helping the poor goes far beyond not oppressing. Third, even applying the calls to not oppress the poor would be transformative for our country.

Oldbear83 said:

---

saykay said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

People who take issue with screen names are universally bereft of anything valuable to say. They either want to focus on personal attacks over policy or philosophical discussions, or they want a true name to doxx with a real life they can mobilize their left wing mob to destroy.

Anonymity makes the argument solely about the topic at hand or the failure of one of the interlocutors to sufficiently or accurately address that topic. Ineffective and emotional debaters will always demand personal information.

---

Um, sir? Did you mean to post this? Same guy who admittedly trolled LinkedIn & started an entire thread to mobilize a new echo chamber about what people who do give their real names are sharing in their public profiles? Feels like that whole "personal attacks or philosophical discussions" allergy you had cleared right up... (checks notes)... like 15 minutes ago. Happy for you.

I'll give you a mulligan on this hole today. Pick a lane.

---

You are referencing a thread on keeping personal politics out of business, where the premise was that people should not share personal and absurd political information on a business networking site. Yet you somehow draw the conclusion that the thread is similar in kind to demanding personal information about anonymous posters. You are either unfamiliar with sound reasoning or have simply decided it's unnecessary for you to use. For someone to be too clever by half, they first need to be clever at all. Perhaps you should inform your posts with that truism.

---

Thank you, Sergeant Logic Police Officer, sir. While we're on the subject... your response & entire thread are based on the flawed assumption I guess you chose to ignore in my reply there... that sharing your pronouns have absolutely zero to do with politics. You made that incorrect and baseless assumption, which I have never heard before in my life, completely absent of any data or a shred of actual real world experience on the topic, other than your... what... LinkedIn search history? You used flawed inputs to draw the wrong conclusion based on what actually happens in the real world... but you are now stating that conclusion as fact, which has biased your entire thread from the start.

I bet if you put in half the energy mansplaining to yourself your highlights in that Phil 1306 textbook you held onto...and hiding behind anonymity to try to diagram my sentences as an actual response... you'd wouldn't have now landed in your own fun little paradox, now wouldn't you.

---

I observe this last post was far more about attacking Canon, than addressing what he said.

Pharisaical behavior, that.

---

What he said was that pronouns are political, which isn't accurate. And it also wasn't based on sound reasoning or logic. I addressed that. What else did I miss?

---

Go back and read your comments again:

"Thank you, Sergeant Logic Police Officer, sir"

" other than your... what... LinkedIn search history"

"I bet if you put in half the energy mansplaining to yourself your highlights in that Phil 1306 textbook you held onto"

are not evidence of appropriate discussion.

In short, you are being a jerk and then some, which blows apart whatever point you were trying to make.

---

Oh, I didn't realize you must have missed his entire last six pages of posts, including my personal favorite when calling me a useless person, comparing me to "a puddle of piss under a urinal" and on this page alone a liar. Since you're all about people not being a jerk here, and if they are, it blowing apart whatever point they are trying to make...

Wouldn't that put... Canon just about... here...?


If you'd like a little time to reread all seven pages to provide equal opportunity jerk reprimanding on this board... no rush, I'll wait.

George Truett said:

---

Canon said:

---

BearN said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Since you're 'new' here, I'm generous with my 'first one is free' copy/pastes of an exact excerpt:

The social condition of people is often mentioned in the Bible. For example, the book of Leviticus is all about the law, the right, fair, just living/existence amongst all people on earth. The Bible speaks out against 'corrupt scales' in the market/economy, exploiting the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates/usury, acquiring multiple properties at the expense of the poor/unjust housing, exploiting widows and orphans i.e. misuse of power, welcoming immigrants & treating them well, paying day laborers fairly & quickly and the list goes on, and treating others with love and grace above all else, just to name a few of our responsibilities in the short 80+ years or so we spend on this earth.

So, if the Bible is true, social justice, equality and our role in addressing it, in fact are a concern to God (Hat tip: OldBear & others still questioning that Biblical reference).

And for those not yet convinced, Jesus cared as much as God instructed us to on earth in his reality... He healed people, fed people, embraced the outcast & crossed racial / ethnic barriers, AND he defended women & children in a culture in a time when that was even less popular to do so than it is today on the free boards.

---

Tying this back to a few posts above, on your prompting, I've been reading thru Leviticus looking for the part where God commands Moses to include healthcare benefits to homosexual spouses for the Children of Israel. Can you tell me what chapter that is in? I only see a few references to homosexuals in Leviticus, but they don't address this topic specifically.

---

It's enjoyable to see someone with so little to add parroting the arguments they have heard from someone else parroting another person, still. None of them ever reaching an analysis more thoughtful than a puddle at a men's urinal.

These topics have been covered here recently and the twisted left wing vision of 'social justice' has been soundly and roundly dispensed with. As copy and paste is the order of the day...

Quote:

---

Justice (MISHPAT or MISPAT) and Righteousness (SEDEK or TZEDAKAH or TSEDEQ) are paired so often in the bible precisely because they are not the same thing. Justice is most often a judicial/legal/procedural concept within the Bible, related most often to getting what one deserves. Where it references the poor, it is nearly always referring to equality under that law and delivered as prohibitions on oppression of same. Justice toward the poor as conceived of in the Bible is a negative obligation to not oppress, which includes equal treatment under the law and equal treatment with regard to things like delivering wages on time and so forth. That doesn't differ from the English concept of justice and it doesn't include government-imposed wealth redistribution.

Where charitable giving is prescribed, it's generally under the rubric of Righteousness (SEDEK) or Mercy (HESED) as in Micah 6:8. In any charitable sense, MISHPAT is really only used when referring to what God did for the Hebrews (Deut 10:18) not charity they are to give as individuals. SEDEK is an unusual word because it is more or less a general sense of doing what is right, being right or being in the right. It can refer to actions of kings, weights and measures, speech, being vindicated, being pure, being unblemished and so forth. If pairing is important, it's also very commonly paired with (juxtaposed against) wickedness or sin.

With regard to social justice, we often hear about the Jubilee year and the guidance. If those who used the Jubilee year to justify their views on Social Justice and claims that it is biblical actually read the entirety of the instructions for Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8-55), they would probably think better of using that particular justification.

Ultimately, the Bible doesn't really possess the common modern idea of Social Justice, unless by that you mean the Tribe of Israel condemned and fought against and subdued other tribes, because of their ethnicity and religion, and redistributed those tribes' wealth to themselves by use of force of arms (government). Social Justice is tribalism. It is group justice that expressly denies the individual as an image of God. It has nothing to do with MISHPAT or SEDEK or even HESED. A just society is a society filled with voluntary charitable institutions and a government that doesn't pervert justice by showing favoritism to one group or another, but rather holding to extraordinarily strict equality under the law.

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/83392/replies/2078923

---

---

Bubbadog was suddenly and unjustly permanently banned from here, apparently because the moderators are thin-skinned and can't take criticism.

So I'm passing on what he wanted to say in response to Golem, I, II, III Canon:

"Of course, justice and righteousness aren't the same thing. What I claim is that they are inextricably connected to each other. That's why they are so often paired. Like thunder and lightning, which also aren't identical. Where there is lightning, there will be thunder. Where there is no justice, there is no being right with God.

"Golem, this is basic. Why are you so intent on denying the truth of the Bible? Because you fear its implication for our own society?"

I agree with Bubba 100%.

I would add that the quote above takes a modern laissez faire approach and imposes it on the scriptures. First, you can't take laws addressed to monarchies and apply them to democracies. Second, the laws in relation to gleaning, etc., shows that interest in helping the poor goes far beyond not oppressing. Third, even applying the calls to not oppress the poor would be transformative for our country.

---

What on earth did he say? He's one of the most level-headed thoughtful posters you can find.

D. C. Bear said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Canon said:

---

BearN said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Since you're 'new' here, I'm generous with my 'first one is free' copy/pastes of an exact excerpt:

The social condition of people is often mentioned in the Bible. For example, the book of Leviticus is all about the law, the right, fair, just living/existence amongst all people on earth. The Bible speaks out against 'corrupt scales' in the market/economy, exploiting the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates/usury, acquiring multiple properties at the expense of the poor/unjust housing, exploiting widows and orphans i.e. misuse of power, welcoming immigrants & treating them well, paying day laborers fairly & quickly and the list goes on, and treating others with love and grace above all else, just to name a few of our responsibilities in the short 80+ years or so we spend on this earth.

So, if the Bible is true, social justice, equality and our role in addressing it, in fact are a concern to God (Hat tip: OldBear & others still questioning that Biblical reference).

And for those not yet convinced, Jesus cared as much as God instructed us to on earth in his reality... He healed people, fed people, embraced the outcast & crossed racial / ethnic barriers, AND he defended women & children in a culture in a time when that was even less popular to do so than it is today on the free boards.

---

Tying this back to a few posts above, on your prompting, I've been reading thru Leviticus looking for the part where God commands Moses to include healthcare benefits to homosexual spouses for the Children of Israel. Can you tell me what chapter that is in? I only see a few references to homosexuals in Leviticus, but they don't address this topic specifically.

---

It's enjoyable to see someone with so little to add parroting the arguments they have heard from someone else parroting another person, still. None of them ever reaching an analysis more thoughtful than a puddle at a men's urinal.

These topics have been covered here recently and the twisted left wing vision of 'social justice' has been soundly and roundly dispensed with. As copy and paste is the order of the day...

Quote:

---

Justice (MISHPAT or MISPAT) and Righteousness (SEDEK or TZEDAKAH or TSEDEQ) are paired so often in the bible precisely because they are not the same thing. Justice is most often a judicial/legal/procedural concept within the Bible, related most often to getting what one deserves. Where it references the poor, it is nearly always referring to equality under that law and delivered as prohibitions on oppression of same. Justice toward the poor as conceived of in the Bible is a negative obligation to not oppress, which includes equal treatment under the law and equal treatment with regard to things like delivering wages on time and so forth. That doesn't differ from the English concept of justice and it doesn't include government-imposed wealth redistribution.

Where charitable giving is prescribed, it's generally under the rubric of Righteousness (SEDEK) or Mercy (HESED) as in Micah 6:8. In any charitable sense, MISHPAT is really only used when referring to what God did for the Hebrews (Deut 10:18) not charity they are to give as individuals. SEDEK is an unusual word because it is more or less a general sense of doing what is right, being right or being in the right. It can refer to actions of kings, weights and measures, speech, being vindicated, being pure, being unblemished and so forth. If pairing is important, it's also very commonly paired with (juxtaposed against) wickedness or sin.

With regard to social justice, we often hear about the Jubilee year and the guidance. If those who used the Jubilee year to justify their views on Social Justice and claims that it is biblical actually read the entirety of the instructions for Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8-55), they would probably think better of using that particular justification.

Ultimately, the Bible doesn't really possess the common modern idea of Social Justice, unless by that you mean the Tribe of Israel condemned and fought against and subdued other tribes, because of their ethnicity and religion, and redistributed those tribes' wealth to themselves by use of force of arms (government). Social Justice is tribalism. It is group justice that expressly denies the individual as an image of God. It has nothing to do with MISHPAT or SEDEK or even HESED. A just society is a society filled with voluntary charitable institutions and a government that doesn't pervert justice by showing favoritism to one group or another, but rather holding to extraordinarily strict equality under the law.

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/83392/replies/2078923

---

---

Bubbadog was suddenly and unjustly permanently banned from here, apparently because the moderators are thin-skinned and can't take criticism.

So I'm passing on what he wanted to say in response to Golem, I, II, III Canon:

"Of course, justice and righteousness aren't the same thing. What I claim is that they are inextricably connected to each other. That's why they are so often paired. Like thunder and lightning, which also aren't identical. Where there is lightning, there will be thunder. Where there is no justice, there is no being right with God.

"Golem, this is basic. Why are you so intent on denying the truth of the Bible? Because you fear its implication for our own society?"

I agree with Bubba 100%.

I would add that the quote above takes a modern laissez faire approach and imposes it on the scriptures. First, you can't take laws addressed to monarchies and apply them to democracies. Second, the laws in relation to gleaning, etc., shows that interest in helping the poor goes far beyond not oppressing. Third, even applying the calls to not oppress the poor would be transformative for our country.

---

What on earth did he say? He's one of the most level-headed thoughtful posters you can find.

---

Not sure. They never tell you when they ban you. And when you ask them why, you get no reply.

The only thing I can figure is that it was his statement was that if people read the posts on this site, they would think Christianity was a mean and hateful religion. I've seen other people post much worse.

Maybe Brian, Ashley, or someone in charge can jump in here and tell us why this happened to a person who was never abusive to anyone.

Or at least they could do the simple courtesy of letting people know why they were banned.