Equality: Is it Biblical?

[CalledOut238]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Beyond biblically defined gender roles, in what ways are human beings not equal in God's eyes?

Equal: Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.

Our Creators manifesting diversity with his creative force shows lack of being equal. If all life were equal then men and women would look alike in accordance to their gender. Varying species of animals and plants would have the same characteristics within their specific classification.

Equality: the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.

If one man can cut down ten trees in a day due to his strength. And a smaller man can only cut down five trees in a day due to his size. Then should the first man feel guilty that he makes more money than the smaller man? Our Creator gave him a larger frame so he is the benefactor of that gift. The scriptures teach that those who have been bestowed gifts and talents should use these qualities given to them to be a blessing to others.

Luke 12:48 (KJV) But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

When the Declaration of Independence use the verbiage: that all men are created equal, you need to realize that this is pertaining to their natural rights given by our Creator. All men are created equal in accordance that each have inalienable rights, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Natural rights and legal rights; or government approved rights, are not the same. Your usage of equality is being used in the wrong context. Just as our media and educational institutions teach the masses that the US is a democracy which is a misnomer. Democracy is a enemy to natural rights when 51% can take away the rights of 49%. A republic has charter or constitution which limits power of the majority in regards to everyone's individual's rights. In a democracy the majority rules. Individuals rights of the minority are diminished by the will of the majority.

You're arguing semantics trying to obscure the true intent of equality and equity. Yes, we do have natural rights given by our Creator. But the diversity of nature itself teaches us that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Our creator understands the uniqueness of qualities given to each of us. Those who are born again; and are led by the Holyghost, will be judged according to the gifts given to them.

1 Peter 4:17 (KJV) For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Selah

[Aquila]

I don't believe you understood the question.

On what grounds are human beings not equal in the eyes of the Creator beyond gender?

While yes, we have differences, but even with those differences, there is an equality as it relates to the value of a human being in comparison to another in God's eyes. For example, two sinners are pleading before God in repentance and desire to obey the Gospel. Which is more valuable in God's eyes? Or... are they equal in God's eyes? If they aren't equal in God's eyes, please explain the inequality.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't believe you understood the question.

On what grounds are human beings not equal in the eyes of the Creator beyond gender?

While yes, we have differences, but even with those differences, there is an equality as it relates to the value of a human being in comparison to another in God's eyes. For example, two sinners are pleading before God in repentance and desire to obey the Gospel. Which is more valuable in God's eyes? Or... are they equal in God's eyes? If they aren't equal in God's eyes, please explain the inequality.

Universality of application of God's rules concerning justice, pardon, etc does not translate to "equality" or "equal value". I already pointed that out.

Value has already been defined, and you and others have been asked to define exactly what "equal value" means in regards to people. I already took the definitions of "equal" and of "value" and showed how it is simply not true that ALL are of "equal value". I also pointed out that differences in relative valuation do NOT equate (!) to a valuation of "zero" for any particular person.

The concept of equal value and equal rights are part and parcel of the humanistic theories of "natural rights" codified by Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, and others. And, that theory supposes that "men in a state of nature are political equals with equal rights, or prerogatives" until they invent governments by "mutual compact", and cede certain of those rights to government officers in order to "preserve" the remainder of their rights.

The problem is, the whole theory is founded on a falsehood. There never was such a "state of nature" in which all men had all authority, nor were societies and governments created by a compact of said persons in a "state of nature". Furthermore, the theory is unbiblical. Scripture does not teach this illusory supposed history of man or government.

The modern concept of social and political equality derives entirely from this humanistic philosophy. The modern concept of "rights" is based on and a natural product of the theory, and the theory being null and void, erroneous, and unbiblical, so are its conclusions.

Biblically, man is invested with certain obligations. These obligations create "rights" in that if you are commanded to do something, you obviously have "the right" to do it. Also, man is obligated NOT to do certain things, which likewise create "rights". For example, the prohibitions against theft and coveting what is another's creates the property interest or "rights" that your neighbour has in his stuff.

Some obligations are universal, and thus the corresponding rights are universal. But not all obligations are universal, and thus not ALL rights are universal. Furthermore, rights and privileges can be given or taken away by God, via either Providence or through the mediation of the state (criminals, for example, lose many rights). As stated previously, there are certain preconditions that affect what rights, privileges, and obligations various persons have.

As for value, two persons with differing valuations may have the same rights, while two persons with equal valuation may NOT have the same rights. The whole "equal value" claim is, in reality, a baseless emotionally appealing feel good statement that in all actuality has no correspondence with reality.

As defined by the actual meaning of the term "value", the Bible is clear beyond contention that some are valued differently than others. Not just individuals, but entire nations, tribes, families, etc. And this difference in the Divine valuation often leads to differential treatment. Clearly, God treated Israel differently than the Canaanites. And this differential treatment extends to "rights" granted (or revoked) by God. All the Canaanites lost all rights, period, including the right to exist. And this was applied to all of them without exception, including their infants!

Which, if the humanistic doctrine of equal value, equal rights, etc were true, then God is a despotic anti-freedom tryant who violates rights all day long. And therefore, God is unjust, because He treats men other than as they OUGHT to be treated.

So the conclusion must be that the humanistic doctrine of egalitarianism is incorrect. And therefore, Christians ought to rethink how they understand the concepts of rights, value, etc.

[Esaias]

The case of Onesimus was brought up earlier. Onesimus was a slave, who escaped from his master (Philemon). While running loose, Onesimus met Paul and became a Christian. He was then sent back to his master, back into his slave status, by the apostle.

The egalitarian theory would demand that slavery be abolished, because Onesimus was Philemon's political equal, and had as much right to be free as Philemon. But, Paul seemed unacquainted with the theory. Paul's urging Philemon to consider his slave as a brother was not an urging for Philemon to free his slave.

[Esaias]

Llew Rockwell on "equality":

What are we to understand by the word equality? The answer is, we don’t really know. Its proponents make precious little effort to disclose to us precisely what they have in mind. All we know is that we’d better believe it.

It is precisely this lack of clarity that makes the idea of equality so advantageous for the state. No one is entirely sure what the principle of equality commits him to. And keeping up with its ever-changing demands is more difficult still. What were two obviously different things yesterday can become precisely equal today, and you’d better believe they are equal if you don’t want your reputation destroyed and your career ruined.

This was the heart of the celebrated dispute between the neoconservative Harry Jaffa and the paleoconservative M.E. Bradford, carried out in the pages of Modern Age in the 1970s. Equality is a concept that cannot and will not be kept restrained or nailed down. Bradford tried in vain to make Jaffa understand that Equality with a capital E was a recipe for permanent revolution.

Now, do egalitarians mean we are committed to the proposition that anyone is potentially an astrophysicist, as long as he is raised in the proper environment? Maybe, maybe not. Some of them certainly do believe such a thing, though. In 1930, the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences claimed that “at birth human infants, regardless of their heredity, are as equal as Fords.” Ludwig von Mises, by contrast, held that “the fact that men are born unequal in regard to physical and mental capabilities cannot be argued away. Some surpass their fellow men in health and vigor, in brain and aptitudes, in energy and resolution and are therefore better fitted for the pursuit of earthly affairs than the rest of mankind.” Did Mises commit a hate crime there, by the standards of the egalitarians? Again, we don’t really know.

Then there’s “equality of opportunity,” but even this common conservative slogan is fraught with problems. The obvious retort is that in order to have true equality of opportunity, sweeping government intervention is necessary. For how can someone in a poor household with indifferent parents seriously be said to have “equality of opportunity” with the children of wealthy parents who are deeply engaged in their lives?

Then there is equality in a cultural sense, whereby everyone is expected to ratify everyone else’s personal choices. The cultural egalitarians don’t really mean that, of course: none of them demand that people who dislike Christians sit down and learn Scholastic theology in order to understand them better. And here we discover something important about the whole egalitarian program: it’s not really about equality. It’s about some people exercising power over others.

https://mises.org/library/menace-egalitarianism

[CalledOut238]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't believe you understood the question.
On what grounds are human beings not equal in the eyes of the Creator beyond gender?
While yes, we have differences, but even with those differences, there is an equality as it relates to the value of a human being in comparison to another in God's eyes. For example, two sinners are pleading before God in repentance and desire to obey the Gospel. Which is more valuable in God's eyes? Or... are they equal in God's eyes? If they aren't equal in God's eyes, please explain the inequality.

Isaiah 45:9 (KJV) Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

We have no right to require accountability or equality with our Maker. It is amusing how you paint a broad brush only to use narrow examples to appeal to your position. We are equal in that all have sinned and in need of a Saviour. But only he knows the true intent of each of our hearts. He is equitable in weighing out what is one’s heart and needs not answer to anyone for his decisions. For he alone knows the true nature of fallen mankind and does not have to answer to us. I wouldn’t doubt there will be those souls who will argue with Him; about right and wrong at judgment, but to no avail.

Romans 3:23 (KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

John 2:24 (KJV) But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

One of the biggest errors being taught in Christendom is the sinner’s prayer asking Jesus into one’s heart. Our Creator chose Noah, Abraham, Israel in ancient times and that was His prerogative. And He chooses the faithful today entering the Kingdom of God. If God led these two sinners to the alter then they both have the same opportunity for salvation. Ever wonder why some must seek for the Holyghost a long time while others receive the baptism quickly? Only our Heavenly Father knows people’s true faith or if they have a repentative heart. We as saints may plant and water seeds of faith, but it is God who gives the increase.

Acts 2:39 (KJV) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

John 15:16 (KJV) Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Acts 2:47 (KJV) Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Our Heavenly Father is sovereign, and he sets apart a people unto himself. There are numerous scriptures showing him putting a difference in nations.

Romans 11:34 (KJV) For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?

Psalms 4:3 (KJV) But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.

Exodus 11:7 (KJV) But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

When God offers a covenant to a people; He extends an agreement or promise, both parties perform an action that usually has a seal or a token. Our Heavenly Father then puts a difference in those who are abiding by the agreement and those who are not.

Exodus 19:5 (KJV) Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Psalms 135:4 (KJV) For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.

The same principle applies with Christ choosing his children in the New Covenant. Christ paid the price that we could not pay. He is looking for a people will be obedient and worship him with a thankful heart. People who want to emulate his example; and live a set apart life, being obedient to his spirit and word. Jesus sacrificed His life for all, but he knew those that would love Him. Though our Savior calls out to whosever will only the faithful will answer the call. The church is not about social equality rather it is all about Him. Because He alone is Worthy and deserves all of our Praise.

Titus 2:14 (KJV) Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

John 4:23 (KJV) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Selah

[Aquila]

Can someone show me a practical example of how individuals shouldn't be considered politically or socially equal?

For example:

Should women have the right to vote?
Should only land owners have the right to vote?
Should minorities have the right to vote?

Should minorities be given equal pay as non-minorities?

Please present some practical applications of this reasoning.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Can someone show me a practical example of how individuals shouldn't be considered politically or socially equal?

For example:

Should women have the right to vote?
Should only land owners have the right to vote?
Should minorities have the right to vote?

Should minorities be given equal pay as non-minorities?

Please present some practical applications of this reasoning.

illegal aliens should not have a right to vote.
those using deadly weapons to commit crime should not be allowed to posses firearms.
Also the mentally ill should not posses a firearm.
those are a few.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

illegal aliens should not have a right to vote.
those using deadly weapons to commit crime should not be allowed to posses firearms.
Also the mentally ill should not posses a firearm.
those are a few.

I believe the average person would agree to most of the above.

But even in each example, the restriction applies equally to all who fit that categorical description.

I'm looking for a true measure or application of the rejection of equality. How does it look?

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe the average person would agree to most of the above.

But even in each example, the restriction applies equally to all who fit that categorical description.

I'm looking for a true measure or application of the rejection of equality. How does it look?

Affirmative Action.