Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
I needed to lap back around to this. Are you saying in biblical days slaves were treated well?

I’m saying that slavery was completely different. It had nothing to do with race. You weren’t enslaved because you were black or any other color.

Slavery was a system in their economy. If you lost a job and could not support your family, there was no welfare. You could however, volunteer to become a slave until you either worked off your debt or earned enough to pay it off. That does not mean that some slave owners weren’t harsh, I’m sure some were. But in the majority of cases this was a business decision people had to make to survive, not something they were forced into and nothing to do with race. It would be more applicable to employer/employee relationship than to American slavery that people so often think of.

So what are the NT writers doing when they call for slaves to obey their masters? Are they condoning slavery as a system? No, but the economy was based off of slavery. Paul was not going to call for a slave revolt to try and overturn the entire economic system of the day. . If he were it would not only have major economic impact on the society of the day, but it would have also led to the massacre and imprisonment of many Christian people. But the bottom line is that the gospel is not spread through revolution, but through preaching. Christianity does not involve picking up the sword and forcing it on people, tho some have wrongly done that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
However, if you've got a peep, take it to the men's room.
What about the ones who’ve spent lots of time/money getting a fancy new peach to replace that peep?

It’s a complex issue. I have trouble deciding where I stand on it myself. I wonder who’s more likely to face some sort assault or battery in one of these hypotheticals: a young girl at the hands of someone claiming to identify as female or some post op transgender person forced to use a men’s room.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I lost track of the story, but weren't they allowing this very thing in NC. They were at least considering it. If it is being considered then it is no longer a hypothetical in my book. I'm not going to wait around for them to allow pervs in women's restrooms with my wife and daughters. Once they allow it, it is that much more difficult to reverse.

I think it was for schools for kids with gender problems which to me is a mental disorder and has nothing to do with bathrooms. It was a stupid state government overreach. Have a gender neutral one hitter as a last resort anything else is like i said ridiculous and just gets both sides riled up.
 
What about the ones who’ve spent lots of time/money getting a fancy new peach to replace that peep?

It’s a complex issue. I have trouble deciding where I stand on it myself. I wonder who’s more likely to face some sort assault or battery in one of these hypotheticals: a young girl at the hands of someone claiming to identify as female or some post op transgender person forced to use a men’s room.

If I call my dog a cat it will still never be a cat. Insanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I'll put it to you this way. If a feller like you followed a woman I'm close to in the bathroom, and something happens, I'd bust you up.

Ok turd mcgee. Trust me i wouldn't follow anything you could pull through a shoneys buffet line much less to a bathroom. I know how your people roll.
 
I lost track of the story, but weren't they allowing this very thing in NC. They were at least considering it. If it is being considered then it is no longer a hypothetical in my book. I'm not going to wait around for them to allow pervs in women's restrooms with my wife and daughters. Once they allow it, it is that much more difficult to reverse.

At one point NC actually had a bill legislating that you had to use public restrooms based on birth sex.

It didn’t turn out well for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I’m saying that slavery was completely different. It had nothing to do with race. You weren’t enslaved because you were black or any other color.

Slavery was a system in their economy. If you lost a job and could not support your family, there was no welfare. You could however, volunteer to become a slave until you either worked off your debt or earned enough to pay it off. That does not mean that some slave owners weren’t harsh, I’m sure some were. But in the majority of cases this was a business decision people had to make to survive, not something they were forced into and nothing to do with race. It would be more applicable to employer/employee relationship than to American slavery that people so often think of.

So what are the NT writers doing when they call for slaves to obey their masters? Are they condoning slavery as a system? No, but the economy was based off of slavery. Paul was not going to call for a slave revolt to try and overturn the entire economic system of the day. . If he were it would not only have major economic impact on the society of the day, but it would have also led to the massacre and imprisonment of many Christian people. But the bottom line is that the gospel is not spread through revolution, but through preaching. Christianity does not involve picking up the sword and forcing it on people, tho some have wrongly done that.

Thats some serious sugarcoating of slavery. Non slaves had a horrible existence i cant imagine the horror of slavery back then.

As for your last sentence some...thats an understatement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
Not gonna lie: I’ve used a women’s bathroom before. It was at a 7-11, there was someone in the men’s room, and I was about to s*** my pants.


Somehow, nobody got hurt.

So has most on here if its enpty do what u gotta do. Unless ur chief and wanna leave the ladies a gift.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Literally got called a homophobe this week because I said I don’t want men in women’s bathrooms.

That’s not really a Christian stance. Just a normal “I don’t want penis in the bathroom with my daughter cause I have a brain” stance.

Cause he identifies as a woman.

Any op. If you are born with a penis you are a dude.

Just in general I’m against it. If I have to explain why then there’s no sense in having the convo.

For the record I don’t get hung up on it cause I don’t let my kids go to sketchy bathrooms by themselves and I plan to equip them with how to handle situations. In this case I was asked my opinion and said I’m not for penis in the girls bathroom.
you and I are on the same page

I think it was for schools for kids with gender problems which to me is a mental disorder and has nothing to do with bathrooms. It was a stupid state government overreach. Have a gender neutral one hitter as a last resort anything else is like i said ridiculous and just gets both sides riled up.
It is ridiculous. And as a North Carolinian, it pissed me off that it got to the point that someone "felt" so victimized because they were asked to go the bathroom that matched their physiology, that the state felt they needed to govern what bathrooms we go to.....or at least remind the general public that it was up to the proprietor of a given business how "men's room" and "women's room" would be defined....and you weren't going to be allowed to be sued for discrimination as a result of that definition...

Talk about managing by the exception.

Utterly stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Thats some serious sugarcoating of slavery. Non slaves had a horrible existence i cant imagine the horror of slavery back then.

As for your last sentence some...thats an understatement.

I’m not sugarcoating anything. But we shouldn’t expect the NT to call for a revolt against the Roman government and to try and overturn an entire economic system. Would be foolish and not the way the gospel is spread. Most people hear Dawkins say things like the Bible supports slavery and take it as gospel, when the fact is that Dawkins and others like him haven’t spent 2 minutes studying the subject. But I digress.

I don’t know what you want me to say about travesties committed in the name of Christianity. It has happened, and it’s happened because people are sinners. Christ didn’t kill anyone nor did the disciples. And He never taught us to. In fact, as demonstrated above, He taught the opposite. The gospel is not spread through force. The characteristics of the kingdom is that they are to be meek and that they will be persecuted according to Jesus in Matthew 5. They were not to be the persecutors. But people have ignored this and have done evil in the name of Christ. But just because they name Him doesn’t mean that they truly know Him or represent Him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I’m not sugarcoating anything. But we shouldn’t expect the NT to call for a revolt against the Roman government and to try and overturn an entire economic system. Would be foolish and not the way the gospel is spread. Most people hear Dawkins say things like the Bible supports slavery and take it as gospel, when the fact is that Dawkins and others like him haven’t spent 2 minutes studying the subject. But I digress.

I don’t know what you want me to say about travesties committed in the name of Christianity. It has happened, and it’s happened because people are sinners. Christ didn’t kill anyone nor did the disciples. And He never taught us to. In fact, as demonstrated above, He taught the opposite. The gospel is not spread through force. The characteristics of the kingdom is that they are to be meek and that they will be persecuted according to Jesus in Matthew 5. They were not to be the persecutors. But people have ignored this and have done evil in the name of Christ. But just because they name Him doesn’t mean that they truly know Him or represent Him.

You know more about the bible than i do i was just pointing out that slavery is was and always has been a horrible thing.

And yes people haved killed in the name of Christ just like many other dieties. Men are good and evil and religion has been the tool for both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
At one point NC actually had a bill legislating that you had to use public restrooms based on birth sex.

It didn’t turn out well for them.

It was in reaction to a business being sued for discrimination because someone that identified as the opposite sex wanted to use the other bathroom. And the business said, uh you're a guy...use the men's room.

So we got house bill 2.

And no it did not work out.

Classic 2 wrongs = more wrong.
 
If I call my dog a cat it will still never be a cat. Insanity.

I agree with you about that

But at the same time, if someone spends a bunch of time and money on surgeries and hormone treatments to get some hooters and lady parts to replace their natural parts, I hesitate to force that person to use a men’s room. And I’m skeptical that someone would jump through all those hoops just for a chance to bother people in the women’s room. You can do that without spending thousands to have your junk torn apart by doctors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top