Equality: Is it Biblical?

[Esaias]

If you believe equality is Biblical, then please,

A. Define "equality", and

B. Demonstrate its basis in Scripture.

[Esaias]

Some definitions:

the right of different groups of people to receive the same treatment (US)


the right of different groups of people to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment (UK)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/equality

Equality is the same status, rights, and responsibilities for all the members of a society, group, or family.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/equality

The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equality

[Esaias]

Some statements on equality:

There are two ways that all “men”—all persons—might be “created equal.” One is that they are all by birth or naturally political equals. This means that no one is legitimately the ruler of others by birth and no one is by birth the subject of a ruler. The other is that human equality goes deeper than just political equality. In this sense, all people are considered of equal value and worth, or equal in the eyes of God. All are created moral equals.

...

Ideas of natural political equality were developed in seventeenth-century England and exported to its colonies across the North Atlantic. They were the expressions of English republican thought by writers such as the so-called “Levellers” (1640s), republican political theorist Algernon Sidney (1623–1683), and (especially) John Locke in his Second Treatise (1690). All of these sources speak of natural human political equality flowing from their natural equality by birth. “Equals,” Sidney wrote, “can have no right [to rule] over each other.” Locke emphasized that political equality is an aspect of man’s natural equality. Jefferson cited English republican Richard Rumbold’s (1622–1685) graphic analogy that “none comes into the world with a saddle on his back, neither any booted and spurred to ride him.” For these writers, since all are by nature political equals, legitimate government authority arises only by consent.


http://www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/911-and-the-constitution/terms-to-know

[Esaias]

Lenin:


By political equality Social-Democrats mean equal rights, and by economic equality, as we have already said, they mean the abolition of classes. As for establishing human equality in the sense of equality of strength and abilities (physical and mental), socialists do not even think of such things.
Political equality is a demand for equal political rights for all citizens of a country who have reached, a certain age and who do not suffer from either ordinary or liberal-professorial feeble-mindedness.

...

In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

[Esaias]

Ho Chi Minh:

My country men,

"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the nations on the earth are equal from birth, all the nations have the right to live, to be happy and free.

The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: "All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and having equal rights." Those are undeniable truths.


https://web.archive.org/web/20130922173616/http://www.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/English/TheSocialistRepublicOfVietnam/AboutVietnam/AboutVietnamDetail?categoryId=10000103&articleId=10002648

[jediwill83]

It's interesting that Lenin seems to have disdain for "Liberal Professorial types" and his beliefs are primarily being pushed in colleges from the same ilk...

[Aquila]

If you believe equality is Biblical, then please,

A. Define "equality", and

B. Demonstrate its basis in Scripture.

The aspect of equality that I see in Scripture is reflected in the church and is expressed in that human beings are all of equal value in Christ's eyes regardless of race, social status, or gender:

John 3:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I believe it is demonstrated in how God deals with man as it relates to the Gospel. All persons, regardless of race, social status, or gender are called to embrace the Gospel that they might enter the Kingdom and be saved.

[Wilsonwas]

It is one thing to say that all persons have equal rights to live life as they choose, to believe or not to in a God, to attempt to gain and hold property, and seek happiness.

To say that God is the granter of all rights, and Jesus is God, is an Apostolic take on the above.

Leftist progressives seem to be more concerned with the outcome as they are over the origin. They then assume the State is the best to level the results. "From each according to his abilty. To each according to his need". All joyously distrobuted by an unfailing state. It is here where equalty of outcomes becomes unfair, theft, and the love of despots.

Jesus addressed this with the parable of the man who hired people to work in his vinyard. He went and hired some in the morning for a price for their labor. Later he hired more agreeing to pay the same. Some of those first hired, then complained because they received the same as those that came later. Because they felt they received the same for less work.

The socialist would say we should tax the later hired ones and give to the first to maintain equality. This is wrong IMHO, and Jesus pointed this out in the parable.

[Wilsonwas]

Short answer because of the above,

Everyone being equal in the eyes of God at birth, is biblical in the NT. In the OT only the seed of Isreal were above others. The equality of outcomes as administrated by the state, is not.

Else, The poor are with you alway, is incorrect and Jesus cannot be incorrect.

[Esaias]

The aspect of equality that I see in Scripture is reflected in the church and is expressed in that human beings are all of equal value in Christ's eyes regardless of race, social status, or gender:



Define "equal value".

[Esaias]

It is one thing to say that all persons have equal rights to live life as they choose, to believe or not to in a God, to attempt to gain and hold property, and seek happiness.

To say that God is the granter of all rights, and Jesus is God, is an Apostolic take on the above.



If God grants all rights, and if all have the right to live as they choose, then upon what basis can any act be considered forbidden?

If God grants all rights, and if all have the right to believe or disbelieve in God, then how is idolatry and atheism sin?

If all have a God granted right to seek happiness, then how can living for self and pleasure be wrong?

[Esaias]

Short answer because of the above,

Everyone being equal in the eyes of God at birth, is biblical in the NT.

Explain how slaves and masters are equal in the eyes of God.

In the OT only the seed of Isreal were above others.

Has God demoted Israel? Or has God elevated all others to an equality with Israel? And, does this mean God no longer has a special people in this earth, of any kind?

And finally, was God a promoter of inequality in the OT, but changed His mind in the New? Please explain.

[Esaias]

I am coming to the conclusion that "equality" is nothing but a slogan that in reality means a Have-Not demanding something that a Have has. For example, women's equality meant women voting and exercising political power, and demanding masculine social status. In the Republican movements of the Enlightenment, it meant yeomen, tenants, and serfs demanding the same political power as nobility, and/or the abolition of nobility altogether. During the Civil Rights Movement it meant blacks exercising the same political power as whites, and having the same social status as whites.

But in reality, I don't think most people really know how to define "equality". It's a feel-good mantra demanded by our modern religion of political correctness and Enlightenment humanism, thus very few are willing to just bluntly say "equality and egalitarianism is a myth and mere propaganda."

Now, one may certainly see that all persons are subject to God's authority, without exception. And, God is no "respecter of persons" so His administration of justice is applied to all. But even in ancient Greece and Rome, which were anything BUT egalitarian societies, founded on anything BUT egalitarian principles, even so in those societies universal accountabity to law and impartial exercise of justice were considered foundational principles of society.

Meaning, universal obligations and impartiality in justice are NOT hallmarks of "equality".

In a previous post, several definitions were supplied stating that the political theory of "equality" means all persons have the same rights (or, authorizations). Which, while it sounds good, for those seeking power, is clearly unbiblical and contrary to sound reason, not to mention never applied in practice. Every society distinguishes between the rulers and the ruled, enforcers and those forced to obey, leaders and followers, etc. Nobody would admit that the neighbor has "equal rights" to your home along with your own family members. Nobody treats all others equally, nobody thinks and lives as if the neighbor's kids ought to be supplied equally with one's own children. Nobody lays up an inheritance for all the neighbors' kids, but rather for their own.

ETC.

[Aquila]

Define "equal value".

No one is of greater value in God's eyes than the other. All are priceless to the Father.

[Aquila]

From the very beginning, God gave man the right to choose between good and evil. God even presented the choice Himself. However, God did not absolve man of the consequences.

[Esaias]

From the very beginning, God gave man the right to choose between good and evil. God even presented the choice Himself. However, God did not absolve man of the consequences.

You confuse ability with right. Having the ability does not equal having the right. God gave man the ability to practice idolatry, murder, theft, etc, but that does not mean He gave man the right to do those things.

A "right" is an authorization to do something, it is license or permission to do something. One cannot be justly punished for exercising a right. It's called a "right" because it is "right" to do it, it cannot be "wrong". One cannot be GUILTY for doing what one has a RIGHT to do.

Your statement is proof positive you do not understand what "rights" are.

[Esaias]

No one is of greater value in God's eyes than the other. All are priceless to the Father.

Priceless means either, literally, no value, or, metaphorically, a value beyond any computation or payment. Hyperbolically, it means simply "extremely valuable."

Therefore, saying all people are "extremely valuable" to God can only mean something as an example of hyperbole. It can't be "beyond payment ability" because Christ purchased the elect with His own life, and if the elect were actually "beyond capability of payment" then His payment wouldn't have been sufficient.

Claiming nobody is of greater value than another in God's estimation is erroneous.

What does "value" or "worth" mean?

Are the righteous more valuable to God than the wicked? If you have two cars at the exact same price but one works and the other doesn't, which is more valuable?

Two sons, one lazy and disobedient, the other frugal and obedient: which is more valuable? Which offers greater value to the family?

One husband beats his wife and won't pay the bills. Another is the opposite and is the epitome of the ideal man and husband. Which is deserving of more praise, honour, and reward? Therefore, which is more valuable?

What exactly is value?

NOUN

1 The regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

1.1 The material or monetary worth of something.

VERB

[WITH OBJECT]
1Estimate the monetary worth of.

2Consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial; have a high opinion of.

Origin
Middle English: from Old French, feminine past participle of valoir ‘be worth’, from Latin valere.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/value

Notice, value means "worth". Valuable thus means "worthy", and Luke 20:35 speaks of those considered "worthy to obtain... the resurrection."

Since not all will be considered worthy to obtain that status, it is obvious God does not count every human of equal worthiness, worth, or "value". Rather, value and worth are relative and dependent on certain preconditions.

[Esaias]

Definition of "right":


1mass noun That which is morally correct, just, or honourable.

2A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/right

[Aquila]

You confuse ability with right. Having the ability does not equal having the right. God gave man the ability to practice idolatry, murder, theft, etc, but that does not mean He gave man the right to do those things.

A "right" is an authorization to do something, it is license or permission to do something. One cannot be justly punished for exercising a right. It's called a "right" because it is "right" to do it, it cannot be "wrong". One cannot be GUILTY for doing what one has a RIGHT to do.

Your statement is proof positive you do not understand what "rights" are.

God gave man the right and freedom to choose between good and evil, and God informed man prior to such a choice what the consequences would be should he choose the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Man was given the right and freedom to choose. But man was not promised immunity from the consequences.

[Aquila]

Priceless means either, literally, no value, or, metaphorically, a value beyond any computation or payment. Hyperbolically, it means simply "extremely valuable."

Therefore, saying all people are "extremely valuable" to God can only mean something as an example of hyperbole. It can't be "beyond payment ability" because Christ purchased the elect with His own life, and if the elect were actually "beyond capability of payment" then His payment wouldn't have been sufficient.

Claiming nobody is of greater value than another in God's estimation is erroneous.

What does "value" or "worth" mean?

Are the righteous more valuable to God than the wicked? If you have two cars at the exact same price but one works and the other doesn't, which is more valuable?

Two sons, one lazy and disobedient, the other frugal and obedient: which is more valuable? Which offers greater value to the family?

One husband beats his wife and won't pay the bills. Another is the opposite and is the epitome of the ideal man and husband. Which is deserving of more praise, honour, and reward? Therefore, which is more valuable?

What exactly is value?

NOUN

1 The regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

1.1 The material or monetary worth of something.

VERB

[WITH OBJECT]
1Estimate the monetary worth of.

2Consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial; have a high opinion of.

Origin
Middle English: from Old French, feminine past participle of valoir ‘be worth’, from Latin valere.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/value

Notice, value means "worth". Valuable thus means "worthy", and Luke 20:35 speaks of those considered "worthy to obtain... the resurrection."

Since not all will be considered worthy to obtain that status, it is obvious God does not count every human of equal worthiness, worth, or "value". Rather, value and worth are relative and dependent on certain preconditions.

Okay, what kind of twisted ultra-con conservajunk are you trying to justify or peddle now? Just be up front. You want to hate people you deem are unworthy, and perhaps boost your own sense of self-value over theirs? Just be honest.

Biblically speaking, a very strong case can be made that women are definitely not equal to, nor as valuable as, a man. Should we really roll with that interpretation? lol

[Esaias]

God gave man the right and freedom to choose between good and evil, and God informed man prior to such a choice what the consequences would be should he choose the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Man was given the right and freedom to choose. But man was not promised immunity from the consequences.

No need to repeat your erroneous claim, I understood what you were saying.

[Aquila]

No need to repeat your erroneous claim, I understood what you were saying.

So, no one has any rights. And human equality is bunk. Hmmm... who does that benefit?

[Esaias]

Okay, what kind of twisted ultra-con conservajunk are you trying to justify or peddle now? Just be up front. You want to hate people you deem are unworthy, and perhaps boost your own sense of self-value over theirs? Just be honest.

Biblically speaking, a very strong case can be made that women are definitely not equal to, nor as valuable as, a man. Should we really roll with that interpretation? lol

Get off my thread, troll.

[TakingDominion]

No need to repeat your erroneous claim, I understood what you were saying.

You are equally rude, arrogant and self righteous.

[TakingDominion]

Get off my thread, troll.

If he gets off, you'll have no one else responding to your meaningless question.

[Esaias]

You are equally rude, arrogant and self righteous.

:dogpat

[Esaias]

If he gets off, you'll have no one else responding to your meaningless question.

:dogpat :dogpat

[Esaias]

Some statements on equality:

There are two ways that all “men”—all persons—might be “created equal.” One is that they are all by birth or naturally political equals. This means that no one is legitimately the ruler of others by birth and no one is by birth the subject of a ruler.

This is clearly unbiblical. The sons of Aaron were given the priesthood, and inherited their office by birth. The sons of David were given the kingship, and inherited their position by birth. And that includes Jesus, who as Son of David according to the flesh, inherited His position as Messiah, King of Israel, by virtue of His birth.

Furthermore, the Bible everywhere recognizes the legitimacy of inherited kingship, even among non-Israelite "gentiles".

Also, as the man is the head of the woman, a male child is born with the " right to rule" over whoever shall become his wife. And finally, Deut 21:20 strongly if not necessarily implies parental authority over adult children, which they have virtue of being parents, which in turn means that authority relationship stems from the child's birth circumstance.

Therefore, the premise quoted above is unbiblical and therefore invalid.

[Esaias]

The other is that human equality goes deeper than just political equality. In this sense, all people are considered of equal value and worth, or equal in the eyes of God. All are created moral equals.



This is where serious difficulty with the concept of equality comes in. "All are considered of equal value or worth." What exactly does this mean? As pointed out already, value or worth has to do with importance, usefulness, and/or the esteem that something deserves. It also can mean to have a high opinion of someone or something, to consider it important or beneficial.

To claim everyone has equal value, then, means that each person is just as important as each other person. But is this true? Is the king of a nation more important, more beneficial, more useful, than a mere soldier in his army? If a person is the only one who can cure a deadly plague, are they not more valuable than a single person who is sick? Are they not more beneficial, of more use, to the whole of society, than anyone else, at that time?

Should all persons be esteemed or honored alike, with no distinction? Should not the selfless martyr, who dies for a noble cause, to save the lives of others, should such a person not be honored and greatly esteemed in comparison to the traitor, who betrays his nation and friends for monetary gain?

Does the hero DESERVE higher honour than the thief or coward?

As for being equals in value at birth, prior to doing any good or bad, consider this. God chose Jacob and rejected Esau before either of them had any moral character of their own. He says He loved Jacob and hated Esau. Did He not value Jacob more than Esau? Did He not esteem Jacob more than Esau, did He not consider Jacob more useful to mankind's good than Esau was? Was not Jacob more important in the Plan of God and to the future of mankind than Esau, or you or me?

So it seems that "equality" is in reality, a phantasm, created to make people feel better about themselves. It's the "everybody deserves a trophy" mentality. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that, for example, Abraham had more importance or "value" than oneself has. It doesn't mean you or I have no value at all. But it goes a long way towards helping us to be humble, to give honour where it is due, to remember we as individuals are part of something bigger than ourselves. When you know your place, you know you HAVE a place in a bigger program. Otherwise, you have no place - which means you do not belong.

"Equality", like most everything cooked up by the wisdom of man, is really just a deceitful and destructive lie.

[CalledOut238]

Scriptures emphasize equity more than equality. Our Heavenly Father is fair, just and righteous. He understands the strengths and weaknesses of His children. For we are all vessels of clay and His Love towards us is unmerited.

Psalms 8:4 (KJV) What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?”

Equality gives all the same level to be fair. Equity divides all to the level of needs to be fair. To much is given much is expected. It is the responsibility of the strong to care and nurture the weak.

Romans 15:1 (KJV) We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

We should strive to be the best that we can be in accordance to how we are made by our Creator. We should not measure ourselves with others potentials, but measure ourselves in meeting our own potential. In the Kingdom of God there is harmony; with both the strong and weak, because they each have their place in the house.

2 Timothy 2:20 (KJV) But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

To be with our Savior for eternity is the ultimate reward for the faithful. Rewards will be equitable in glory and we should not be concerned with if they are equal.

Psalm 84:10 (KJV) For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

Selah

[Esaias]

Scriptures emphasize equity more than equality. Our Heavenly Father is fair, just and righteous. He understands the strengths and weaknesses of His children. For we are all vessels of clay and His Love towards us is unmerited.

Psalms 8:4 (KJV) What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?”

Equality gives all the same level to be fair. Equity divides all to the level of needs to be fair. To much is given much is expected. It is the responsibility of the strong to care and nurture the weak.

Romans 15:1 (KJV) We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

We should strive to be the best that we can be in accordance to how we are made by our Creator. We should not measure ourselves with others potentials, but measure ourselves in meeting our own potential. In the Kingdom of God there is harmony; with both the strong and weak, because they each have their place in the house.

2 Timothy 2:20 (KJV) But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

To be with our Savior for eternity is the ultimate reward for the faithful. Rewards will be equitable in glory and we should not be concerned with if they are equal.

Psalm 84:10 (KJV) For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

Selah

:thumbsup

I was going to introduce equity as the Scriptural answer to "equality", but you did a fair job of doing that for me. :)

[Esaias]

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

This passage is usually quoted as a Biblical affirmation of equality. Yet, the Greek word for equality does not appear in the verse. Affirming unity is not affirming equality. We are one with Jesus, but who asserts they are equal to Him, in ANY way?

The egalitarian claim demands a practical application, otherwise it's just meaningless gibbering. So how does equality operate?

If equality means equal rights, and if this verse teaches equality, then the woman has as much right to head the household as the man does. Moreover, Paul is a hypocrite for forbidding certain actions to women in deference to men.

It is often claimed this verse obliterates distinctions between cultures, social classes, and genders. If it does, then sodomy is holy and approved by Christ.

Obviously, this is not at all what the verse means. It means that all distinctions in life are not enough to prevent unity in Christ. It does NOT mean distinctions are abolished, rather it means distinct segments of society are united in Christ as members of the redeemed.


Abolition of distinctive classes is the goal of those who seek to destroy a society. And Christ did not come to destroy human society, but to redeem and sanctify it, by subjecting it to His authority.

[Esaias]

All the nations on the earth are equal from birth, all the nations have the right to live, to be happy and free.



God disagrees. Ask the Amalekites and the Amorites.

[Esaias]

It's interesting that Lenin seems to have disdain for "Liberal Professorial types" and his beliefs are primarily being pushed in colleges from the same ilk...

Modern "liberal professors" are basically Leninists nowadays. If not Stalinists, Maoists, Marxists, or Anarchists.

[Esaias]

For these writers, since all are by nature political equals, legitimate government authority arises only by consent.


http://www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/911-and-the-constitution/terms-to-know

And this is the core doctrine of humanist autonomy. Autonomy = self law. Man is his own lawgiver and measurement of right and wrong. In short, man is his own god.

The truth, though, is that government authority comes from God, not the consent of the governed. Do the people have a say so? Certainly, and that is Scriptural. But to claim all government authority comes from the consent of the population, or that power originates with those who are governed, is unbiblical and in fact absurd. All authority comes from God.

[houston]

Can’t find where Ho posted. Wating for Chairman Mao to post.

[Esaias]

Can’t find where Ho posted. Wating for Chairman Mao to post.

It's on page 1. Mao could not be reached for comment.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Equality is biblical in that every human being has equal rights to the Tree of Life should they ever decide to repent.

Biblical equality is demonstrated with Philemon. His station in life was not immediately changed by the Apostle Paul seeking to abolish the law of the land that placed Philemon in "slavery", but by advocating that the "slave" Philemon be treated as a brother-- not to be abused-- because of who he is in the sight of God, regardless of his identity in the sight of man.

When we speak of "equality", the word is much more nuanced, due to our history and who we are as a nation today. Just as when we speak of "slavery", it is clearly not the same institution with which Philemon was bound.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

All human life has EQUAL value. There is not one human's life more valuable than another human's life. To suggest otherwise would make our view on abortion hypocritical. If there are people whose lives really are not as valuable as others, then their unborn children are even more worthless. We might as well become advocates for Eugenics.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Abolition of distinctive classes is the goal of those who seek to destroy a society. And Christ did not come to destroy human society, but to redeem and sanctify it, by subjecting it to His authority.

I disagree with this statement because Jesus Christ did not make intervening in the affairs of human government his ministerial goal in the first place. The Christian today should not be pushing for a Christian theocratic society. We are to come out of our society and be separate and holy unto the Lord. This world is not our home.

[Aquila]

Get off my thread, troll.

LOL

I'm just wondering if this is purely theoretical or if you have an agenda.

[Aquila]

This is where serious difficulty with the concept of equality comes in. "All are considered of equal value or worth." What exactly does this mean? As pointed out already, value or worth has to do with importance, usefulness, and/or the esteem that something deserves. It also can mean to have a high opinion of someone or something, to consider it important or beneficial.

To claim everyone has equal value, then, means that each person is just as important as each other person. But is this true? Is the king of a nation more important, more beneficial, more useful, than a mere soldier in his army? If a person is the only one who can cure a deadly plague, are they not more valuable than a single person who is sick? Are they not more beneficial, of more use, to the whole of society, than anyone else, at that time?

Should all persons be esteemed or honored alike, with no distinction? Should not the selfless martyr, who dies for a noble cause, to save the lives of others, should such a person not be honored and greatly esteemed in comparison to the traitor, who betrays his nation and friends for monetary gain?

Does the hero DESERVE higher honour than the thief or coward?

As for being equals in value at birth, prior to doing any good or bad, consider this. God chose Jacob and rejected Esau before either of them had any moral character of their own. He says He loved Jacob and hated Esau. Did He not value Jacob more than Esau? Did He not esteem Jacob more than Esau, did He not consider Jacob more useful to mankind's good than Esau was? Was not Jacob more important in the Plan of God and to the future of mankind than Esau, or you or me?

So it seems that "equality" is in reality, a phantasm, created to make people feel better about themselves. It's the "everybody deserves a trophy" mentality. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that, for example, Abraham had more importance or "value" than oneself has. It doesn't mean you or I have no value at all. But it goes a long way towards helping us to be humble, to give honour where it is due, to remember we as individuals are part of something bigger than ourselves. When you know your place, you know you HAVE a place in a bigger program. Otherwise, you have no place - which means you do not belong.

"Equality", like most everything cooked up by the wisdom of man, is really just a deceitful and destructive lie.

I'm glad you think this, so when are you going to assume your place below me and other enlightened thinkers? lol

[Aquila]

Scriptures emphasize equity more than equality. Our Heavenly Father is fair, just and righteous. He understands the strengths and weaknesses of His children. For we are all vessels of clay and His Love towards us is unmerited.

I liked your post. However, I do take issue with only one thing. I don't see God as "fair". I see God as "just". God allows many of us to suffer hardships that are of no fault of our own, persecution, sickness, disease, tragedy, loss, etc. These things rain upon the just and the unjust. Many play by the rules, live right, act right, speak right, do right, and still their lives are punctuated with tragedy and pain.

God isn't "fair".

But God is "just". All things work for the good of those who love God and are called according to His purposes. God's plans and ways are not our plans and ways. Quite often, the two are opposed to one another. But God's ways always win. If we surrender to Him, realizing that He is "just", and that all things are working together for His will in our lives, He writing our story, we can find peace. Or we can be drug through life kicking and screaming until we're battered and broken by our own self-will, and finally surrender to Him. We determine the "quality" of the path we're on. Obedience, surrender, trust, faith, these things bring peace and rejoicing, even in the face of adversity, trial, and even death.

I remember when I had to explain to my step-daughter the difference between being fair and being just. Her step-brother's birthday is before hers. When he turned twelve, we bought him a nice bicycle and set parameters on where and when he could ride it freely. When she turned twelve, she was expecting a shiny pink bike. But we bought her an art table, art set, and accessories (she loves art). Her reaction was as predicted. The first thing she said about her gift in comparison to his was, "It's not fair!" I had to sit her down and explain to her that she breaks the rules all the time. Whenever we've trusted her, she's violated the boundaries set for her. And so, in concern for her safety, we decided that she wasn't mature enough for a bicycle and the freedom to ride it. I promised her that if she can show me that she's willing to obey the rules, not transgress boundaries, challenge our judgment, etc. I'd buy her a bike on her next birthday. I admitted to her that our decision wasn't "fair". But "fair" would be to possibly put her in danger. Instead, our decision was better than fair. It was tailored just for her and her wellbeing. Our decision was... "just".

I see God the same way. God is just. I thank God that God isn't fair. For if God were fair, where would grace come in? If God were "fair", we'd all get what we deserve, which is Hell and condemnation over our sin. Instead, God offers mercy, forgiveness, and grace. Is it fair that Jesus suffer and die for my sins, or your sins? No. Absolutely not. However, it was a part of God's plan, a plan born of love, it was... just.

[Aquila]

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

This passage is usually quoted as a Biblical affirmation of equality. Yet, the Greek word for equality does not appear in the verse. Affirming unity is not affirming equality. We are one with Jesus, but who asserts they are equal to Him, in ANY way?

The egalitarian claim demands a practical application, otherwise it's just meaningless gibbering. So how does equality operate?

If equality means equal rights, and if this verse teaches equality, then the woman has as much right to head the household as the man does. Moreover, Paul is a hypocrite for forbidding certain actions to women in deference to men.

It is often claimed this verse obliterates distinctions between cultures, social classes, and genders. If it does, then sodomy is holy and approved by Christ.

Obviously, this is not at all what the verse means. It means that all distinctions in life are not enough to prevent unity in Christ. It does NOT mean distinctions are abolished, rather it means distinct segments of society are united in Christ as members of the redeemed.


Abolition of distinctive classes is the goal of those who seek to destroy a society. And Christ did not come to destroy human society, but to redeem and sanctify it, by subjecting it to His authority.

Good point.

I think that due to our social conditioning we see "equality" in terms that aren't necessarily defined biblically. While the text you quoted from Galatians speaks of a type of equality, I think we have to keep the proper context. This is in reference to the application of the Gospel. Christ's Gospel receives all people equally, seeing that all are equally sinners in need of salvation. However, this doesn't speak of an equality of role in the Kingdom of God. The head of the wife is the husband, and the head of every man is Christ. There is definitely not an "equality" in this, but here is God's complimentary design. True joy, peace, and happiness can only be attained by obeying God and accepting His designs for mankind.

When speaking of equality you mentioned that equality implies that, "All are considered of equal value or worth." When I look at the cross and take in that God sent His Son to die for all mankind, in a sense, we are all equal in value to God. God was willing to give up His only begotten Son that whosoever might be saved. But, again, that is only one category or context of "equality". That doesn't mean that God will not judge men individually for their sin. And all are not equally saved either. Even among the "saved" there will be those who enter eternity and receive great reward... and there will also be those who enter eternity and are saved yet so as by fire, having little reward in Christ's eternal Kingdom. And all sinners are not equally lost. Some will receive the greater damnation.

Eternity isn't "communistic" at all. There are innumerable degrees of reward and punishment.

[Esaias]

Equality is biblical in that every human being has equal rights to the Tree of Life should they ever decide to repent

Biblical equality is demonstrated with Philemon. His station in life was not immediately changed by the Apostle Paul seeking to abolish the law of the land that placed Philemon in "slavery", but by advocating that the "slave" Philemon be treated as a brother-- not to be abused-- because of who he is in the sight of God, regardless of his identity in the sight of man.

When we speak of "equality", the word is much more nuanced, due to our history and who we are as a nation today. Just as when we speak of "slavery", it is clearly not the same institution with which Philemon was bound.

So then, as used in political philosophy, "equality" is understood differently than the Biblical concept of universal applications of law and grace. And, further, the Biblical concept of "a right" often depends on certain preconditions (eg, repentance, as you mentioned previously).

The modern, philosophical definition and use of "equality" and "equal rights" would demand that Onesimus be freed from slavery, since it would be claimed Onesimus had just as much right to do as he wished as Philemon had, yet Paul did not demand any such thing. Therefore, it seems Paul was working from a concept of equity more than "equality".

[Esaias]

I disagree with this statement because Jesus Christ did not make intervening in the affairs of human government his ministerial goal in the first place. The Christian today should not be pushing for a Christian theocratic society. We are to come out of our society and be separate and holy unto the Lord. This world is not our home.

My statement has nothing to do with "intervening in the affairs of human government."

[Esaias]

All human life has EQUAL value. There is not one human's life more valuable than another human's life. To suggest otherwise would make our view on abortion hypocritical. If there are people whose lives really are not as valuable as others, then their unborn children are even more worthless. We might as well become advocates for Eugenics.

I already addressed this so I'll not repeat it. The first couple pages have posts that deal with identifying what "value" means, and examining if indeed everyone's life is of EQUAL value. And, as noted in the discussion, relative value does not mean anyone's life has NO value.

The argument against abortion should be founded not on any supposed inherent "rights" but on the prohibition against murder, given by God. Biblical arguments are always more sound and secure than humanistic arguments, in my opinion.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Abolition of distinctive classes is the goal of those who seek to destroy a society. And Christ did not come to destroy human society, but to redeem and sanctify it, by subjecting it to His authority.

I disagree with this statement because Jesus Christ did not make intervening in the affairs of human government his ministerial goal in the first place. The Christian today should not be pushing for a Christian theocratic society. We are to come out of our society and be separate and holy unto the Lord. This world is not our home.

My statement has nothing to do with "intervening in the affairs of human government."

Human government is a key part to human society.

Jesus Christ did not come to save society.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

So then, as used in political philosophy, "equality" is understood differently than the Biblical concept of universal applications of law and grace. And, further, the Biblical concept of "a right" often depends on certain preconditions (eg, repentance, as you mentioned previously).

The modern, philosophical definition and use of "equality" and "equal rights" would demand that Onesimus be freed from slavery, since it would be claimed Onesimus had just as much right to do as he wished as Philemon had, yet Paul did not demand any such thing. Therefore, it seems Paul was working from a concept of equity more than "equality".


Before going further with this branch of the discussion, will you please clearly define:

Equality
Equal Rights
Equity

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Priceless means either, literally, no value, or, metaphorically, a value beyond any computation or payment. Hyperbolically, it means simply "extremely valuable."

Therefore, saying all people are "extremely valuable" to God can only mean something as an example of hyperbole. It can't be "beyond payment ability" because Christ purchased the elect with His own life, and if the elect were actually "beyond capability of payment" then His payment wouldn't have been sufficient.

You have to make a huge LEAP in logic to go from this ^^^^,

to this vvvv:


Claiming nobody is of greater value than another in God's estimation is erroneous.

I think you try to explain your illogical jump, but it remains illogical.


What does "value" or "worth" mean?

Are the righteous more valuable to God than the wicked? If you have two cars at the exact same price but one works and the other doesn't, which is more valuable?

Two sons, one lazy and disobedient, the other frugal and obedient: which is more valuable? Which offers greater value to the family?

One husband beats his wife and won't pay the bills. Another is the opposite and is the epitome of the ideal man and husband. Which is deserving of more praise, honour, and reward? Therefore, which is more valuable?

What exactly is value?

NOUN

1 The regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

1.1 The material or monetary worth of something.

VERB

[WITH OBJECT]
1Estimate the monetary worth of.

2Consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial; have a high opinion of.

Origin
Middle English: from Old French, feminine past participle of valoir ‘be worth’, from Latin valere.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/value

Notice, value means "worth". Valuable thus means "worthy", and Luke 20:35 speaks of those considered "worthy to obtain... the resurrection."

Since not all will be considered worthy to obtain that status, it is obvious God does not count every human of equal worthiness, worth, or "value". Rather, value and worth are relative and dependent on certain preconditions.[/QUOTE]



If the righteous are of more value to God than the unrighteous, then explain how it rains on the just as well as the unjust.

And just when does the righteous become more valuable to God-- when the righteous is born or when God decides to make them righteous?

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

The argument against abortion should be founded not on any supposed inherent "rights" but on the prohibition against murder, given by God. Biblical arguments are always more sound and secure than humanistic arguments, in my opinion.

Abortion and murder are not handled the same way in the Bible.

Before going any further, I am not advocating for abortion. I am saying that once you do away with the idea that every human life is of equal value, then you fall onto unsteady ground, even biblically, in trying to convince others that abortion is biblically unsound in every situation.

[Esaias]

Human government is a key part to human society.

Jesus Christ did not come to save society.

Society
SOCI'ETY, noun [Latin societas, from socius, a companion. See Sociable.]

1. The union of a number of rational beings; or a number of persons united, either for a temporary or permanent purpose. Thus the inhabitants of a state or of a city constitute a society having common interests; and hence it is called a community. In a more enlarged sense, the whole race or family of man is a society and called human society. The true and natural foundation of society are the wants and fears of individuals. - Webster's Dictionary

Did Jesus come to save "the whole race or family of man"? Then He did indeed come to "save society", meaning His mission is to redeem mankind. Human government is, as you say, a part of society. And Christ as "King of kings and Lord of lords", who has been given "all authority... in heaven and in earth", exercises redemptive authority over all human government.

Societies, in the more limited sense, are the cultures and conglomerations of related peoples. In other words, "the nations". As it is written:

Isaiah 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

The word "gentiles" means "nations". All nations are called by God to repent and obey Christ. That means all societies are to repent and obey Christ. Pagan societies are destined to be transformed by the Gospel into Christian societies, again, as it is written:

Romans 16:25-26 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, (26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:


In any event, this is a side subject to the issue of "equality" and the egalitarian philosophy.

[Esaias]

Before going further with this branch of the discussion, will you please clearly define:

Equality
Equal Rights
Equity

Equality
EQUAL'ITY, noun [Latin oequalitas.] An agreement of things in dimensions, quantity or quality; likeness; similarity in regard to two things compared. We speak of the equality of two or more tracts of land, of two bodies in length, breadth or thickness, of virtues or vices.

1. The same degree of dignity or claims; as the equality of men in the scale of being; the equality of nobles of the same rank; an equality of rights.

2. Evenness; uniformity; sameness in state or continued course; as an equality of temper or constitution.

3. Evenness; plainness; uniformity; as an equality of surface.

Equal
E'QUAL, adjective [Latin oegualis, from oequus, equal even, oeguo, to equal perhaps Gr. similar.]

1. Having the same magnitude or dimensions; being of the same bulk or extent; as an equal quantity of land; a house of equal size; two persons of equal bulk; an equal line or angle.

2. Having the same value; as two commodities of equal price or worth.

3. Having the same qualities or condition; as two men of equal rank or excellence; two bodies of equal hardness or softness.

4. Having the same degree; as two motions of equal velocity.

5. Even; uniform; not variable; as an equal temper or mind.

Ye say, the way of the Lord is not equal Ezekiel 16:1.

6. Being in just proportion; as, my commendation is not equal to his merit.

7. Impartial; neutral; not biased.

Equal and unconcerned, I look on all.

8. Indifferent; of the same interest or concern. He may receive them or not, it is equal to me.

9. Just; equitable; giving the same or similar rights or advantages. The terms and conditions of the contract are equal

10. Being on the same terms; enjoying the same or similar benefits.

They made the married, orphans, widows, yea and the aged also, equal in spoils with themselves.

11. Adequate; having competent power, ability or means. The ship is not equal to her antagonist. The army was not equal to the contest. We are not equal to the undertaking.

E'QUAL, noun One not inferior or superior to another; having the same or a similar age, rank, station, office, talents, strength, etc.

Those who were once his equals, envy and defame him.

It was thou, a man my equal my guide. Psalms 55:13. Galatians 1:14

E'QUAL, verb transitive To make equal; to make one thing of the same quantity, dimensions or quality as another.

1. To rise to the same state, rank or estimation with another; to become equal to. Few officers can expect to equal Washington in fame.

2. To be equal to.

One whose all not equals Edward's moiety.

3. To make equivalent to; to recompense fully; to answer in full proportion.

He answer'd all her cares, and equal'd all her love.

4. To be of like excellence or beauty.

The gold and the crystal cannot equal it. Job 28:17.

RIGHT, noun
5. Just claim; legal title; ownership; the legal power of exclusive possession and enjoyment. In hereditary monarchies, a right to the throne vests in the heir on the decease of the king. A deed vests the right of possession in the purchaser of land. right and possession are very different things. We often have occasion to demand and sue for rights not in possession.

6. Just claim by courtesy, customs, or the principles of civility and decorum. Every man has a right to civil treatment. The magistrate has a right to respect.

7. Just claim by sovereignty; prerogative. God, as the author of all things, has a right to govern and dispose of them at his pleasure.

8. That which justly belongs to one.

Born free, he sought his right

9. Property; interest.

A subject in his prince may claim a right

10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.

11. Authority; legal power. We have no right to disturb others in the enjoyment of their religious opinions.

Equity
EQ'UITY, noun [Latin oequitas, from oequus, equal, even, level.]

1. Justice; right. In practice, equity is the impartial distribution of justice, or the doing that to another which the laws of God and man, and of reason, give him a right to claim. It is the treating of a person according to justice and reason.

The Lord shall judge the people with equity Psalms 98:9.

With righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity Isaiah 11:4.

2. Justice; impartiality; a just regard to right or claim; as, we must, in equity allow this claim.

3. In law, an equitable claim. 'I consider the wife's equity to be too well settled to be shaken.'

4. In jurisprudence, the correction or qualification of law, when too severe or defective; or the extension of the words of the law to cases not expressed, yet coming within the reason of the law. Hence a court of equity or chancery, is a court which corrects the operation of the literal text of the law, and supplies its defects, by reasonable construction, and by rules of proceeding and deciding, which are not admissible in a court of law. equity then is the law of reason, exercised by the chancellor or judge, giving remedy in cases to which the courts of law are not competent.

My point in this thread, as evidenced by the opening post, is to ascertain what people mean when they say they believe in "equality", or in "equal rights". I have posted several definitions and usages of the terms and concepts on page 1, and have commented how they seem to be somewhat at variance with Biblical principles.

So, those who believe in "equal rights", or who have declared that "all humans have equal value", are invited to define what they mean by those terms, and then to demonstrate that the ideas they believe in are in fact Biblical (taught by Scripture as true).

What has happened so far has been several attempts to define the terms by other posters, but (as I think I have shown already) those terms seem to be rather amorphous and loosely defined, if defined at all. In other words, I am convinced that most Americans claim to believe in "equality" and "equal rights" and the "equal valuation of humans" but are rather unable to accurately define or explain what any of those things mean. And thus, it seems that these slogans of egalitarianism are just that - slogans, that we have been trained and taught to affirm "just because", without any critical examination of what exactly we are being taught.

[CalledOut238]

I liked your post. However, I do take issue with only one thing. I don't see God as "fair". I see God as "just". God allows many of us to suffer hardships that are of no fault of our own, persecution, sickness, disease, tragedy, loss, etc. These things rain upon the just and the unjust. Many play by the rules, live right, act right, speak right, do right, and still their lives are punctuated with tragedy and pain.

God isn't "fair".

But God is "just". All things work for the good of those who love God and are called according to His purposes. God's plans and ways are not our plans and ways. Quite often, the two are opposed to one another. But God's ways always win. If we surrender to Him, realizing that He is "just", and that all things are working together for His will in our lives, He writing our story, we can find peace. Or we can be drug through life kicking and screaming until we're battered and broken by our own self-will, and finally surrender to Him. We determine the "quality" of the path we're on. Obedience, surrender, trust, faith, these things bring peace and rejoicing, even in the face of adversity, trial, and even death.

I remember when I had to explain to my step-daughter the difference between being fair and being just. Her step-brother's birthday is before hers. When he turned twelve, we bought him a nice bicycle and set parameters on where and when he could ride it freely. When she turned twelve, she was expecting a shiny pink bike. But we bought her an art table, art set, and accessories (she loves art). Her reaction was as predicted. The first thing she said about her gift in comparison to his was, "It's not fair!" I had to sit her down and explain to her that she breaks the rules all the time. Whenever we've trusted her, she's violated the boundaries set for her. And so, in concern for her safety, we decided that she wasn't mature enough for a bicycle and the freedom to ride it. I promised her that if she can show me that she's willing to obey the rules, not transgress boundaries, challenge our judgment, etc. I'd buy her a bike on her next birthday. I admitted to her that our decision wasn't "fair". But "fair" would be to possibly put her in danger. Instead, our decision was better than fair. It was tailored just for her and her wellbeing. Our decision was... "just".

I see God the same way. God is just. I thank God that God isn't fair. For if God were fair, where would grace come in? If God were "fair", we'd all get what we deserve, which is Hell and condemnation over our sin. Instead, God offers mercy, forgiveness, and grace. Is it fair that Jesus suffer and die for my sins, or your sins? No. Absolutely not. However, it was a part of God's plan, a plan born of love, it was... just.

Scriptures emphasize equity more than equality. Our Heavenly Father is fair, just and righteous. He understands the strengths and weaknesses of His children. For we are all vessels of clay and His Love towards us is unmerited

The word that proceeded fair was Just and we know God is Just. If you search a synonyms for fair you will find the word equitable. You may not like the term fair but Merriam-Webster's definition for fair is as follows.

Fair: adjective, marked by impartiality and honesty: free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism. Conforming with the established rules.

Using fair as a euphemism is your prerogative but your understanding of the term fair is erroneous. Your querulous post about verbiage preference is contextual hyperbole.

James 2:13 (KJV) For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

Selah

[Esaias]

The point of this thread has been to point out that Christians, unfortunately, often do not have a Biblical worldview. Rather, their worldview is usually informed by the various philosophies of the day, secular opinions and beliefs that are simply not Biblical. We desperately need to return to a Biblical worldview, we need to jettison the wisdom of this world (philosophies) that are not of God.

Part of the problem we face is social impotence. The church in Acts "turned the world upside down". The church in America, at least, nowadays can't hardly turn itself around let alone turn the world upside down. We've become largely irrelevant and are losing the next generations as a result. This is not to say all is doom and gloom, or that there are no churches making a solid difference in their communities and in people's lives. But for the most part, American Christianity as a whole has become more like dead weight sinking down rather than the salt and light it should be. And American oneness pentecostals are in a large measure just one cog in the wheel of American Churchianity.

It doesn't have to be this way.

If we can recapture a genuinely Biblical worldview, and bring EVERY THOUGHT CAPTIVE TO THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST, then I believe we will see genuine revival which will lead to genuine reformation.

Think about this: What does it really achieve, if we impress people with our witness and music and preaching and worship and so forth, and they convert, get baptised, join our churches ... only to be indoctrinated with more humanistic, worldly philosophy? We shoot ourselves in the foot, we cripple new believers and render them impotent to challenge and change the world around them.

I believe we have the opportunity to really do far more than just get a few more folks to sit on the pews. I also believe that if we aren't careful, God will find himself a willing people, some other group of people hungry for God and willing to stand for the Word come what may and against all odds. We may find ourselves in a few generations where the Methodists find themselves now - only a shadow of our former potential and only a bad reflection of what we once were.

[Esaias]

The point of this thread has been to point out that Christians, unfortunately, often do not have a Biblical worldview. Rather, their worldview is usually informed by the various philosophies of the day, secular opinions and beliefs that are simply not Biblical. We desperately need to return to a Biblical worldview, we need to jettison the wisdom of this world (philosophies) that are not of God.

Part of the problem we face is social impotence. The church in Acts "turned the world upside down". The church in America, at least, nowadays can't hardly turn itself around let alone turn the world upside down. We've become largely irrelevant and are losing the next generations as a result. This is not to say all is doom and gloom, or that there are no churches making a solid difference in their communities and in people's lives. But for the most part, American Christianity as a whole has become more like dead weight sinking down rather than the salt and light it should be. And American oneness pentecostals are in a large measure just one cog in the wheel of American Churchianity.

It doesn't have to be this way.

If we can recapture a genuinely Biblical worldview, and bring EVERY THOUGHT CAPTIVE TO THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST, then I believe we will see genuine revival which will lead to genuine reformation.

Think about this: What does it really achieve, if we impress people with our witness and music and preaching and worship and so forth, and they convert, get baptised, join our churches ... only to be indoctrinated with more humanistic, worldly philosophy? We shoot ourselves in the foot, we cripple new believers and render them impotent to challenge and change the world around them.

I believe we have the opportunity to really do far more than just get a few more folks to sit on the pews. I also believe that if we aren't careful, God will find himself a willing people, some other group of people hungry for God and willing to stand for the Word come what may and against all odds. We may find ourselves in a few generations where the Methodists find themselves now - only a shadow of our former potential and only a bad reflection of what we once were.

I will go further and suggest that because most American Christians, including most oneness pentecostals, have been the victims of the public education system, they have been indoctrinated with a humanistic worldview and "progressive" communist thought processes. They THINK like humanists and communists, or at least think in the way that humanists and communists want them to think. They cannot shake off the programming, because it occurred from age 5 to age 18 MINIMUM, 180 days a year MINIMUM, for 13 years MINIMUM, during the most important, formative stages of their life. Sadly, many continue to send their children to the same public schools to be given the same (and worse!) humanistic antichristian brainwashing "education"... and no wonder folks leave the churches by the droves once they become adults and move out of Mom and Dad's house!

30-45 minute flannelgraphs on Sunday with pizza and sody pop is simply no match for 8 hour per day, 180+ days per year, 13 years from age 5 to 18 of nonstop progressive communist mass indoctrination in a society controlled from the top by people who literally drink the blood of teenagers, worship Lucifer, and who want to do nothing but either export mind-blowing levels of filth to corrupt and destroy your children, or else genocide you off the land one way or the other as long as you stay dumb and don't realise what's going on.

[Amanah]

I will go further and suggest that because most American Christians, including most oneness pentecostals, have been the victims of the public education system, they have been indoctrinated with a humanistic worldview and "progressive" communist thought processes. They THINK like humanists and communists, or at least think in the way that humanists and communists want them to think. They cannot shake off the programming, because it occurred from age 5 to age 18 MINIMUM, 180 days a year MINIMUM, for 13 years MINIMUM, during the most important, formative stages of their life. Sadly, many continue to send their children to the same public schools to be given the same (and worse!) humanistic antichristian brainwashing "education"... and no wonder folks leave the churches by the droves once they become adults and move out of Mom and Dad's house!

30-45 minute flannelgraphs on Sunday with pizza and sody pop is simply no match for 8 hour per day, 180+ days per year, 13 years from age 5 to 18 of nonstop progressive communist mass indoctrination in a society controlled from the top by people who literally drink the blood of teenagers, worship Lucifer, and who want to do nothing but either export mind-blowing levels of filth to corrupt and destroy your children, or else genocide you off the land one way or the other as long as you stay dumb and don't realise what's going on.

Christian Education is an important mandate from God that we need to obey.
To allow Socialist Government indoctrination centers to brainwash our children is at best ignorant.

Deuteronomy 6:4–7
4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.2
5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.
7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

[CalledOut238]

I will go further and suggest that because most American Christians, including most oneness pentecostals, have been the victims of the public education system, they have been indoctrinated with a humanistic worldview and "progressive" communist thought processes. They THINK like humanists and communists, or at least think in the way that humanists and communists want them to think. They cannot shake off the programming, because it occurred from age 5 to age 18 MINIMUM, 180 days a year MINIMUM, for 13 years MINIMUM, during the most important, formative stages of their life. Sadly, many continue to send their children to the same public schools to be given the same (and worse!) humanistic antichristian brainwashing "education"... and no wonder folks leave the churches by the droves once they become adults and move out of Mom and Dad's house!

30-45 minute flannelgraphs on Sunday with pizza and sody pop is simply no match for 8 hour per day, 180+ days per year, 13 years from age 5 to 18 of nonstop progressive communist mass indoctrination in a society controlled from the top by people who literally drink the blood of teenagers, worship Lucifer, and who want to do nothing but either export mind-blowing levels of filth to corrupt and destroy your children, or else genocide you off the land one way or the other as long as you stay dumb and don't realise what's going on.

Preach!:thumbsup

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ss0hor1_4iQ/hqdefault.jpg

Revelation 5:5 (KJV) And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Selah

[aegsm76]

I will go further and suggest that because most American Christians, including most oneness pentecostals, have been the victims of the public education system, they have been indoctrinated with a humanistic worldview and "progressive" communist thought processes. They THINK like humanists and communists, or at least think in the way that humanists and communists want them to think. They cannot shake off the programming, because it occurred from age 5 to age 18 MINIMUM, 180 days a year MINIMUM, for 13 years MINIMUM, during the most important, formative stages of their life. Sadly, many continue to send their children to the same public schools to be given the same (and worse!) humanistic antichristian brainwashing "education"... and no wonder folks leave the churches by the droves once they become adults and move out of Mom and Dad's house!

30-45 minute flannelgraphs on Sunday with pizza and sody pop is simply no match for 8 hour per day, 180+ days per year, 13 years from age 5 to 18 of nonstop progressive communist mass indoctrination in a society controlled from the top by people who literally drink the blood of teenagers, worship Lucifer, and who want to do nothing but either export mind-blowing levels of filth to corrupt and destroy your children, or else genocide you off the land one way or the other as long as you stay dumb and don't realise what's going on.

Amen.

[Aquila]

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

[CalledOut238]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Aquila]

Affirmative Action.

If we're not equal, can't one argue that Affirmative Action is necessary based on historic oppression and perhaps even genocide?

[CalledOut238]

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.

You have taken a discussion that was framed on whether equality is biblical to social and political definitions of equality. So you are moving away from the intent of the question to drive a different narrative.

First of all most Americans do not participate in the Oligarchic Selection of the United States. When the oversight of the electoral processes is administered by the dominate party of that region the results can be skewed to their party's advantage. The chief election officials; who are partisan to whomevers" party they are affiliated, can disqualify, eliminate, hack or add ballots by an array of methods. If elections were real there would be one standard throughout the country that could not be manipulated. But when you look at how these elections are run nationally it to easy to see cronyism ugly head.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/election-administration-at-state-and-local-levels.aspx

To answer your question. Each society develops citizen rights per their cultural, religious and political influences. It has been established in the United States that any legal citizens; no matter what gender, culture or financial status, can vote. Assuming they have not committed a crime that disqualifies their eligibility. These rights are not about equality rather they are about eligibility of a citizen.

The illusion of social or political equality is a cruel lie that the oligharical rulers promote to the simple minded. The elite using Mammonite politicians to rob the common man is nondiscriminatory but even that is not equal. Taxes are legalized theft; and the IRS is an illegal entity established for the Fake Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is nothing but a front for international bankers enslaving our citizens through criminal politicians. Were is the equality in that?

Jeremiah 22:13 (KJV) Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work;

Selah

[Scott Pitta]

In theory, all citizens are created equal. In reality, equality is not fully achieved.

[houston]

You have taken a discussion that was framed on whether equality is biblical to social and political definitions of equality. So you are moving away from the intent of the question to drive a different narrative.
Every thread he posts in he peddles socialism.

[Esaias]

Equality is a slogan Have-Nots use to justify their revolutionary overthrow of Haves. Once Have-Nots become the new Haves, equality is then used to bludgeon the former Haves into submission, and often eventual extinction.

Animal Farm explains it all.

[Tithesmeister]

Equality is a slogan Have-Nots use to justify their revolutionary overthrow of Haves. Once Have-Nots become the new Haves, equality is then used to bludgeon the former Haves into submission, and often eventual extinction.

Animal Farm explains it all.

At the risk of wrecking my carefully groomed reputation for only speaking of all things tithe, I’d like to voice an opinion.

I like animal farm. It says so much, so well. “All animals are equal”. But later the pigs added , “but some animals are more equal than others “.

To the OP I believe you’re right.

In regards to gender equality . . .

Leviticus 27

[3] And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
[4] And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

Judging from the value attached by God in money, the female would be sixty percent of the male.

What about men?

They weren’t equal in God’s eyes either.

Lev.21

[16] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[17] Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
[18] For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
[19] Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
[20] Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
[21] No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
[22] He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
[23] Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.
[24] And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.

So even men with physical abnormalities were not allowed to serve behind the vail.

There may be something to be said for the souls of men being equal to God.

[13] This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD.
[14] Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.
[15] The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

I believe that in this case the soul is meant to be the life as opposed to the spirit that will live forever. At any rate this seems to be an instance where the souls of men are given equal value.

[Esaias]

At the risk of wrecking my carefully groomed reputation for only speaking of all things tithe, I’d like to voice an opinion.

I like animal farm. It says so much, so well. “All animals are equal”. But later the pigs added , “but some animals are more equal than others “.

To the OP I believe you’re right.

In regards to gender equality . . .

Leviticus 27

[3] And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
[4] And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

Judging from the value attached by God in money, the female would be sixty percent of the male.

What about men?

They weren’t equal in God’s eyes either.

Lev.21

[16] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[17] Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
[18] For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
[19] Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
[20] Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
[21] No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
[22] He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
[23] Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.
[24] And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.

So even men with physical abnormalities were not allowed to serve behind the vail.

There may be something to be said for the souls of men being equal to God.

[13] This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD.
[14] Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.
[15] The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

I believe that in this case the soul is meant to be the life as opposed to the spirit that will live forever. At any rate this seems to be an instance where the souls of men are given equal value.

Very good. :thumbsup

As for the last part, about souls being equal before God, the half shekel was exacted of all males, 20 years and older, not Levites, and not old men (rather all males capable of going to war). So all the 20+ year old non-Levitical males capable of militia service were taxed uniformly, regardless of economic status. The fact the women, children, old men, and Levites were excluded from the census referred to as the basis for the ransom money tax shows "inequality". Of course, not in the sense that modern SJW types imagine the word to mean, but nevertheless there is a distinction that was made.

But, like I said earlier, the slogan "Liberté, égalité, fraternité!" was a slogan used for revolutionary purposes that had nothing to do with actually trying to implement egalitarianism. :nod

[Esaias]

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.

Women should not have the right to vote.
Non landowners should not have the right to vote, although it might be worth debating whether a non landowner who neverthless owned a company that employed lots of people should be given the franchise. But generally, the franchise should belong to citizen land owners, only.

As for minorities, that's a bit trickier. It gets into the question of the ethnicity and ethnic makeup of the particular country. I think that if a country allows minority ethnics to own land, run businesses, and in short function as citizens, then (assuming they own land) they probably should be given the franchise. But on the other hand, I can also see a nation refusing the franchise to anyone except the indigenous ethnic group of the nation in order to preserve its national and cultural identity.

After all, I don't see Israel in the Bible being told to allow the sojourning stranger (foreignor) to have a say-so in the administration of the law, being elected to judgeships, or tribal leaders, and in fact they are explicitly forbidden to be placed in the position of kingship. All this in spite of the fact that the stranger could settle and live among native Israelites.

I would not expect Japan to extend the franchise to anyone and everyone who decided to move there. It would make perfect sense for Japan to restrict the franchise to native (ethnic) Japanese citizens.

The US is another story. The Federal Experiment having run its course into a modern iteration of Empire, and the wholesale importation of every ethnic group under the sun, many of them having been settled in the US for a very long time (even centuries now, in some cases), and the thorough indoctrination of the populace into the concept of "propositional nationhood" (as opposed to ethnic nationhood), has resulted in a very peculiar situation. Though it is not without historical precedent - see Rome. As a result, having granted citizenship to just about anyone who can get here, and on the verge of granting amnesty to all the others here illegally, attempting to redraw the Union as an ethno-state would be almost impossible. Balkanization and multiple civil wars would likely be the results, and almost all of it for the wrong reasons to begin with (as is usually the case anyway).

Any nation that grants or recognises citizenship has no legitimate reason for denying the franchise to those recognised as citizens, at least not any that I can see. If full citizenship is granted to "all", then technically "all" should have the franchise. (Assuming I have understood the meaning of "citizen" correctly:
CITIZEN, noun

1. The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides; the freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises. ...

5. In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate. - Webster's Dictionary)

All of this of course assumes a representative republican form of government. Other systems would vary in their mileage.

Now, as regards to pay, according to Jesus Christ an employer can pay whatever he and his employee(s) agree to. The issue of "equality" is a political issue concerning rights, and I do not see that anyone has a "right" to be hired, rather it seems that being hired (and negotiating pay) is strictly a contract issue between hirer and hired.

The problem with so called egalitarianism, is that it necessarily leads to statism and state intrusion into every single facet of everyone's life. Wherever there is any inequality, the state must be marshalled to "correct" it. And where there isn't inequality, the egalitarians will manufacture an inequality that must be "solved" by state intervention.

[Apostolic1ness]

If we're not equal, can't one argue that Affirmative Action is necessary based on historic oppression and perhaps even genocide?

who commits genocide? historic oppression? What does that have to do with minorities not being smart enough to go to college but are let in anyway.

[Aquila]

The way I see it is that if anyone pays taxes, they are entitled to all rights and privileges of the society, which includes voting. Else, one could be found to be taxed without any means of representation.

And you mentioned a distinction between the land owner or the owner of a company having the right to vote, and not the worker. We'll just call him the "owner".

Consider the owner and the worker. In your premise the owner would have a right to vote, yet the worker would not. However, both pay taxes. In addition, would the owner have any wealth if the workers pooled their resources and chose to walk out and start a cooperative? No. He'd suffer great loss, and if the work required skilled labor that couldn't just be hired off the street, he could even go broke. If the owner left and the workers formed a cooperative, sharing the profits of their own labor, could they flourish? Yes. The only individual who is unnecessary is... the owner.

And I completely agree with you that pay is contractual. And this is why highly skilled employees in fields requiring a high degree of technical proficiency can request more pay for their labor. In addition, workers should have the right to freely form any association they wish as free individuals. If they wish to form a Bible study group, so be it. If they wish to form a union and seek to contract as a bargaining unit, so be it. Laws that prevent workers from forming unions, or even Bible study groups, encroach on the right to freely associate as desired.

You're right, people aren't equal. And so this is why it is important to realize that there is strength in numbers. People of any interest are stronger together, especially against the powerful who tend to oppress or exploit.

Now, you said something interesting....

Women should not have the right to vote.

As long as women pay taxes, they should have the right to vote and be represented. As long as women raise children, that other men are prone to march off to war, women should have the right to vote and be represented. As long as... I could go on and on. In my opinion, the idea that a woman shouldn't have the right to vote is absolutely repugnant and dehumanizing to women.

[Aquila]

who commits genocide? historic oppression? What does that have to do with minorities not being smart enough to go to college but are let in anyway.

What I'm saying is that there is a stronger case for not needing Affirmative Action if we hold to the line that all men are equal. But, if we argue that they are not, then we open the door to why they are not. If a people were subject to oppression, captivity, and injustice, they will suffer from such. Generations will be uneducated, reduced to poverty, and with poverty comes many choosing to resort to crime to attain their desires. And so, the fact that there is a vast gulf between men, a glaring inequality, this becomes the justification for things such as Affirmative Action.

[Apostolic1ness]

What I'm saying is that there is a stronger case for not needing Affirmative Action if we hold to the line that all men are equal. But, if we argue that they are not, then we open the door to why they are not. If a people were subject to oppression, captivity, and injustice, they will suffer from such. Generations will be uneducated, reduced to poverty, and with poverty comes many choosing to resort to crime to attain their desires. And so, the fact that there is a vast gulf between men, a glaring inequality, this becomes the justification for things such as Affirmative Action.

Just to make a point here. If you look at the continent of Africa you will see what a free society does for any of the many countries on the continent. The reasons some minority groups in the USA are not achieving what some feel they should is not because of oppression or being held down. Take a look at the cultures in almost all African nations, poverty, sickness, no structure in the home. Where are the technological breakthroughs from African nations? Where are the advances in building materials, agriculture, and science in those nations? Why is it a surprise when the same mindsets and cultures are realized hear in the states? Its the same poverty, its the same family structure, its the same mentality. One difference is here in the US there is a reward and the cause has been shifted from a lack of hard work and dedication to achieve, to the majority held down the minority. How is that working in Africa? Who is the majority there? Just a thought take it for what its worth.

[Aquila]

Just to make a point here. If you look at the continent of Africa you will see what a free society does for any of the many countries on the continent. The reasons some minority groups in the USA are not achieving what some feel they should is not because of oppression or being held down. Take a look at the cultures in almost all African nations, poverty, sickness, no structure in the home. Where are the technological breakthroughs from African nations? Where are the advances in building materials, agriculture, and science in those nations? Why is it a surprise when the same mindsets and cultures are realized hear in the states? Its the same poverty, its the same family structure, its the same mentality. One difference is here in the US there is a reward and the cause has been shifted from a lack of hard work and dedication to achieve, to the majority held down the minority. How is that working in Africa? Who is the majority there? Just a thought take it for what its worth.

I actually Googled some innovative breakthroughs and advancements that have come out of Africa in recent years. I'll be honest, I was surprised because one doesn't really hear much about them. It is important to realize that while Africa has poor and unstable regions, it also has rather stable and modern cities that rival New York. I think it's easy for us to see Africa in a way that isn't truly representative of the reality. We tend to imagine war torn countries, drought ravished communities, poor shanty villages, bushmen, etc., but the continent is vast, and the contrast between those thriving regions and cities with those poorer, war torn, areas is quite great. So, I'm not sure if we can stereotype this.

[aegsm76]

I actually Googled some innovative breakthroughs and advancements that have come out of Africa in recent years. I'll be honest, I was surprised because one doesn't really hear much about them. It is important to realize that while Africa has poor and unstable regions, it also has rather stable and modern cities that rival New York. I think it's easy for us to see Africa in a way that isn't truly representative of the reality. We tend to imagine war torn countries, drought ravished communities, poor shanty villages, bushmen, etc., but the continent is vast, and the contrast between those thriving regions and cities with those poorer, war torn, areas is quite great. So, I'm not sure if we can stereotype this.

A - and just what cities are those?

[Apostolic1ness]

I actually Googled some innovative breakthroughs and advancements that have come out of Africa in recent years. I'll be honest, I was surprised because one doesn't really hear much about them. It is important to realize that while Africa has poor and unstable regions, it also has rather stable and modern cities that rival New York. I think it's easy for us to see Africa in a way that isn't truly representative of the reality. We tend to imagine war torn countries, drought ravished communities, poor shanty villages, bushmen, etc., but the continent is vast, and the contrast between those thriving regions and cities with those poorer, war torn, areas is quite great. So, I'm not sure if we can stereotype this.

its not a stereotype. The point is there are far more freedoms, advantages, liberties, opportunities and benefits for all Americans of any ethnicity here in the USA than other nations. But folks are still playing the "Im sorry Im white" game. Affirmative Action is not a justifiable prejudice against the majority its an apology to the minority.

[Esaias]

...



As long as women pay taxes, they should have the right to vote and be represented. As long as women raise children, that other men are prone to march off to war, women should have the right to vote and be represented. As long as... I could go on and on. In my opinion, the idea that a woman shouldn't have the right to vote is absolutely repugnant and dehumanizing to women.

Of course you think that. You're a leftist whose ideas on politics are derived from humanistic egalitarian philosophies, so naturally a Biblically based opinion is, to you, "absolutely repugnant."

[Esaias]

I actually Googled some innovative breakthroughs and advancements that have come out of Africa in recent years. I'll be honest, I was surprised because one doesn't really hear much about them. It is important to realize that while Africa has poor and unstable regions, it also has rather stable and modern cities that rival New York. I think it's easy for us to see Africa in a way that isn't truly representative of the reality. We tend to imagine war torn countries, drought ravished communities, poor shanty villages, bushmen, etc., but the continent is vast, and the contrast between those thriving regions and cities with those poorer, war torn, areas is quite great. So, I'm not sure if we can stereotype this.

List the achievements, by all means. Make sure you don't include anything resulting from European, American, Chinese, or Arabic investment or direction. Please tell us where the "thriving regions of Africa" are located. And, answer this: would you move your family to one of your listed thriving African regions, and if not, WHY NOT?

[Esaias]

This is the egalitarian end-game:

White GOP Senators Deserve ‘Miserable Deaths’ – Calls For Their Corpses to be Castrated and Fed to Pigs
Cristina Laila by Cristina Laila October 1

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/georgetown-professor-says-white-gop-senators-deserve-miserable-deaths-calls-for-their-corpses-to-be-castrated-and-fed-to-pigs/

[Aquila]

A - and just what cities are those?

Just Google it. There are very large, beautiful, modern cities in Africa. Johannesburg is one example. I'm sure you can do your own homework.

http://otareviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Johannesburg-Airport-Johannesburg.jpg

[aegsm76]

Just Google it. There are very large, beautiful, modern cities in Africa. Johannesburg is one example. I'm sure you can do your own homework.

http://otareviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Johannesburg-Airport-Johannesburg.jpg

No, you just cannot come up with any.
If it was that easy, you could name them.
And this:
Violent crime is enough of a serious problem in Johannesburg, particularly in the downtown area, that many businesses have relocated to northern suburbs such as Rosebank and Sandton. Muggings and car-jackings are common occurrences in the central city, and travelers are routinely warned to exercise caution, whether walking, using public transportation, or driving. The government tourism office advises motorists to know their routes in advance, keep their doors and windows locked, lock valuables in the trunk, and park in well-lit areas.

and here
https://www.numbeo.com/crime/in/Johannesburg

not to mention government officials calling for whites to be killed
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1550739

[Aquila]

its not a stereotype. The point is there are far more freedoms, advantages, liberties, opportunities and benefits for all Americans of any ethnicity here in the USA than other nations. But folks are still playing the "Im sorry Im white" game. Affirmative Action is not a justifiable prejudice against the majority its an apology to the minority.

Apostolic1ness, I care to disagree. American has more citizens incarcerated per capita than any other nation on earth. And most are incarcerated for drug possession. The War on Drugs has produced a police state wherein Americans are incarcerated in droves for smoking or possessing a plant that makes one giggle and eat entire bags of Doritos. The Human Freedom Index is a great place to start researching this. It factors in access to healthcare, drug legalization, free speech, freedom of association, freedom to form associations or unionize, lack of Gerrymandering, secure democratic process, factual media, impact of for profit privatized prison systems, equal pay for women, paid maternity or paternity leave, and the list goes on and on... and America doesn't even fall in the top ten nations indexed with the most human freedom.

When we say that Americans have more freedom than other nations, we are normally referring to a specific category of prohibition. Not to freedom overall. My ex-wife was fired from Reynolds & Reynolds. Why? She was a smoker. They forced her to take a nicotine test, and when she failed it, they fired her. Losing her income after the divorce almost reduced her to homelessness. Here's the deal, she never smoked on company time or on company property. Yet, they canned her for smoking cigarettes (which are perfectly legal) on her free time. Sure, a government agency didn't can her or limit her liberty, but a corporation did. My thoughts are, if they aren't paying you, you're not on the clock, if you do anything that is perfectly legal, that's YOUR business. Now, if they want to pay you 24/7, sure, I can see them dictating what you do. What next? Are they going to fire folks who eat foods high in cholesterol? The whips of a corporate master sting no less than those of the monarch or the gulag.

When discussing this subject, I like to share this video. Warning, there is some strong language (cursing), but the point is very good, and we as Americans need to reflect upon it and be honest with ourselves.

Most Honest Three Minutes In Television History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML3qYHWRIZk

[Aquila]

Of course you think that. You're a leftist whose ideas on politics are derived from humanistic egalitarian philosophies, so naturally a Biblically based opinion is, to you, "absolutely repugnant."

You're attacking the person again. I guess, I'll share my thoughts on you as it relates to your position...

You just said women shouldn't have the right to vote. Yet women pay taxes, raise the men and pillars in our community, and raise the children that tyrants march off to war. And you want to gag them from voting, having a voice, and being represented in our society's government. What if I rendered you without the ability to vote and marched your kids into some country to die for oil? Based on what you've said about women, I think you deserve this. Because it is a nightmare many women have experienced, only me and others like me wish to protect their right to vote and be represented. How would you feel? Do you think women are like pets who have no real emotion? No real feelings? No real thoughts of their own? I have a daughter, and if I heard a young man say such a thing, I'd throw him out of my home in 0.2 seconds.

You will not subjugate my daughter to being a voiceless breeder in your fascist theocratic nightmare. You are peddling a system, a theocracy, that brought on the dark ages and has burned millions at the stake over the centuries. Sure, I advocate some democratic socialist reforms as seen in nations like, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, and Belgium. But this shattered dream you're trying to sell us, you cannot justify. It's straight out of the bronze age.

And worse yet, you blame God for this psychopathic vision... and you believe God would cheer you on in silencing women and burning heretics, as you piously cry tears of devotion while clutching your Bible, as the sinners scream and beg for their lives in the flames. That my friend is a greater sin.

You're becoming what you're hating. In the end, you'll just be a Hitler with a Bible under one arm instead of Mein Kampf.

[Esaias]

In the end, you'll just be a Hitler with a Bible under one arm instead of Mein Kampf.

Never fails. You guys are so predictable. Surprised it took you this long. This is why I pay no real mind to you or people like you. And it's also why more and more people are figuring out there simply is no "dialogue" possible with you liberals.

[Aquila]

Never fails. You guys are so predictable. Surprised it took you this long. This is why I pay no real mind to you or people like you. And it's also why more and more people are figuring out there simply is no "dialogue" possible with you liberals.

YOU just argued that women and people that do not own land or business should not be able to vote. YOU are peddling a political position that advocates that the OT law be imposed, with capital punishment for those sins that would have brought capital punishment in ancient Israel. And we all know that such would leave untold numbers stoned to death, burned to death, and brutalized over sins such as:

•Murder (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17,21)
•Attacking or cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15,17)
•Disobedience to parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
•Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
•Failure to confine a dangerous animal, resulting in death (Exodus 21:28-29)
•Witchcraft and sorcery (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 13:5, 1 Samuel 28:9)
•Human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2-5)
•Sex with an animal (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:16)
•Doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)
•Incest (Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11-12,14,17,19-21)
•Adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22)
•Homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13)
•Prostitution by a priest's daughter (Leviticus 21:9)
•Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14,16, 23)
•False prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:20)
•Perjury in capital cases (Deuteronomy 19:16-19)
•Refusing to obey a decision of a judge or priest (Deuteronomy 17:12)
•False claim of a woman's virginity at time of marriage (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
•Sex between a woman pledged to be married and a man other than her betrothed(Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

Not me. I'm saying that this Gospel isn't a murderous political agenda. It is a spiritual Kingdom that calls on those who have committed the sins above to repent and be saved.

Frankly, if you think about it... since many of these classes of sinners seek representation from liberals and libertarians to defend them from oppression, discrimination, and institutionalized hatred... your position is one that would also imply the widespread execution of liberals.

Can you say, "wacko"??? :crazy

These sinners should be called to repentance, not executed.

And sadly, the system to support is a modernized construct based on the civil code of ancient Israel as interpreted by Reformed theologians... not "Christian government". A "Christian government" would be predicated upon the principles of freedom of religion (loving God), and equal rights, privileges, and representation, under the law... for everyone (loving one's neighbor as one's self).

Matthew 22:36-40 King James Version (KJV)
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Romans 13:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

So, love Thy Neighbor As Thyself...

Thy Homeless Neighbor, Thy Muslim Neighbor, Thy Black Neighbor, Thy Gay Neighbor, Thy White Neighbor, Thy Jewish Neighbor, Thy Christian Neighbor, Thy Atheist Neighbor, Thy Racist Neighbor, Thy Addicted Neighbor, Thy Emotionally-Unstable Neighbor, Thy Heterosexual Neighbor, Thy Republican, Thy Tree-Hugging Neighbor, Thy Vegan Neighbor, Thy Meat-Eating Neighbor, Thy Sexist Neighbor, Thy Old Neighbor, Thy Young Neighbor, Thy Buddhist Neighbor, Thy Hindu Neighbor, Thy Hispanic Neighbor, Thy Democratic Neighbor, Thy Handicapped Neighbor, Thy Mentally-Unstable Neighbor, Thy Angry Neighbor, Thy Military Neighbor, Thy Pacifist Neighbor, Thy Anarchist Neighbor, Thy Filipino Neighbor, Thy Asian Neighbor, Thy Professor Neighbor, Thy Janitor Neighbor, Thy Attorney Neighbor, Thy Firefighter Neighbor, Thy Bus-Driver Neighbor, Thy Politician Neighbor, Thy Retired Neighbor...

Feel free to add to the list.

All people deserve the same rights and representation under the law as yourself.

Such a government would be predicated DISTINCTLY upon this purely "Christian".

[Esaias]

Just Google it. There are very large, beautiful, modern cities in Africa. Johannesburg is one example. I'm sure you can do your own homework.

http://otareviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Johannesburg-Airport-Johannesburg.jpg

:spit
OK, even if I was a flaming liberal We Wuz Kangs Afro-Centric Black Hebrew Israelite I couldn't possibly take you seriously any more. This was golden.

[Esaias]

YOU just argued that women and people that do not own land or business should not be able to vote.

Kind of like America pre-1900s? Back when everyone knew which bathroom to use? Back when politicians at least knew islands don't capsize because of too many people? Back when families were stronger, and there wasn't radical bull dyke feminazis running the show? Back when illegals couldn't vote?

Back before the 1850s? Before landless socialists like you couldn't vote taxes out of my pockets to support your harebrained ideas? lol


YOU are peddling a political position that advocates that the OT law be imposed, with capital punishment for those sins that would have brought capital punishment in ancient Israel.

Naturally you don't like God's views on society, you're feeling' the Bern. Isn't the Bible just so mean? You think it's horrible that people should look to God and His Word for instructions in how to live. No wonder you're such a mess.

:laffatu

[Aquila]

Kind of like America pre-1900s? Back when everyone knew which bathroom to use? Back when politicians at least knew islands don't capsize because of too many people? Back when families were stronger, and there wasn't radical bull dyke feminazis running the show? Back when illegals couldn't vote?

I'm not sure if you've been told, but it is 2018. And while there are challenges in our society, it's still far better than it used to be for millions. Do you own your own business or property? Or have they got you supporting a view that is not even in your own best interest? lol

Back before the 1850s? Before landless socialists like you couldn't vote taxes out of my pockets to support your harebrained ideas? lol

Hey, some of these hairbrained ideas work. Ask any parent who didn't have insurance and whose child received life saving treatments or procedures under SCHIP or another federally funded insurance program.

Naturally you don't like God's views on society, you're feeling' the Bern. Isn't the Bible just so mean? You think it's horrible that people should look to God and His Word for instructions in how to live. No wonder you're such a mess.

:laffatu

The Bible isn't "mean". However, the non-Apostolic, Reformed Calvinist, interpretation you have "chosen" to embrace and peddle on here (Reconstructionism) blasphemously mischaracterizes God's intentions for mankind and the church by advocating the reconstructing society into the bronze age image of ancient Israel, and doesn't seek a society of civility and loving one's neighbor as one's self, which is the law of Christ.

[Aquila]

:spit
OK, even if I was a flaming liberal We Wuz Kangs Afro-Centric Black Hebrew Israelite I couldn't possibly take you seriously any more. This was golden.

Does it make you feel insecure that there are large and thriving African cities???

[Apostolic1ness]

Does it make you feel insecure that there are large and thriving African cities???

I think the point was the issue is a culture stigma and not oppression that keeps some minority groups from excelling in the US.

[Esaias]

Does it make you feel insecure that there are large and thriving African cities???

Like Johannesburg?

:laffatu

[mizpeh]

Jesus's death on the cross gave us equal status.

[Esaias]

Jesus's death on the cross gave us equal status.

This doesn't even make sense.

[houston]

Lulz

[mizpeh]

This doesn't even make sense.The worth that he attributes to each and everyone by giving his life for each human person is equal. He did not love one more than another when he died on the cross. There are no "inequality" lines drawn according to race, status, sex, or financial worth cause we are all one in Christ Jesus. His death for EVERYONE is demonstration of this equality shown by God toward man. This is God's ideal form of equality from before the creation of the world.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


If you believe equality is Biblical, then please,

A. Define "equality", and

B. Demonstrate its basis in Scripture.

[Esaias]

The worth that he attributes to each and everyone by giving his life for each human person is equal. He did not love one more than another when he died on the cross. There are no "equality" lines drawn according to race, status, sex, or financial worth cause we are all one in Christ Jesus. His death for EVERYONE is demonstration of this equality shown by God toward man.


Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Christ died for all. Yet, the Scriptures clearly show preferences in various modes, whereby God evinces a definite inequality in regards to His dealings with people. Therefore, a universal application of mercy (like justice), does not equate to "everyone is equal".

The Passover was provided for every household, yet this did not eliminate social and religious inequalities. In fact, the Passover established many social and religious inequalities, most notably the "difference put between the Egyptians and Israel."

So I think my original point stands, namely that "equality" is a somewhat amorphous term and that, as used by egalitarian political and social philosophers, is totally unscriptural.

[Aquila]

I think the point was the issue is a culture stigma and not oppression that keeps some minority groups from excelling in the US.

I can see truth in that. In the US today, I think there are only pockets of oppressive discrimination. For the most part, it is a cultural stigma, and even a perpetuated state of mind that continues on to this day. It has taken generations for many to progress out of the slave mentality, now they are battling the oppressed mentality. The pockets of discriminatory oppression are pointed at by many and mischaracterized as the rule... when in fact... they are far from the rule.

[mizpeh]

Christ died for all. Yet, the Scriptures clearly show preferences in various modes, whereby God evinces a definite inequality in regards to His dealings with people. Therefore, a universal application of mercy (like justice), does not equate to "everyone is equal".

The Passover was provided for every household, yet this did not eliminate social and religious inequalities. In fact, the Passover established many social and religious inequalities, most notably the "difference put between the Egyptians and Israel."

So I think my original point stands, namely that "equality" is a somewhat amorphous term and that, as used by egalitarian political and social philosophers, is totally unscriptural.

Jesus brought in God's ideal way to live. The law was a shadow not the reality, not God's best design for mankind. God is not respecter of persons... isn't that a clear indication that He considers us all as equal?

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Jesus brought in God's ideal way to live. The law was a shadow not the reality, not God's best design for mankind. God is not respecter of persons... isn't that a clear indication that He considers us all as equal?

Good enough for me. Sometimes I just don't know about some of the stuff I read here.

[Esaias]

Jesus brought in God's ideal way to live. The law was a shadow not the reality, not God's best design for mankind. God is not respecter of persons... isn't that a clear indication that He considers us all as equal?

Jesus affirmed the continuing validity of God's Law, as does the rest of the New Testament. Jesus brought deliverance from disobedience via His atoning sacrifice and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Not being a respector of persons means God is righteous and equitable and does not pervert justice due to being impressed by someone's wealth or status. Universal application of justice does not equal (!) egalitarianism.

Koine Greek in the first century had a word for "equality", yet curiously we do not find either the Greek Old Testament nor the New Testament bending over backwards to affirm "everyone is created equal and have equal rights and equal value." THAT is a recent invention by philosophers and pundits who were moving away from a Biblical paradigm and who were adopting and developing humanism and republicanism.

[Esaias]

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_egalitarianism.html

[Amanah]

1 Peter has a lot to say about submission and humility

1 Peter 1:22 - love one another
1 Peter 2:13 - submit to laws and rulers
1 Peter 2:17 - honor all men, honor the King
1 Peter 2:18 - servants submit to masters
1 Peter 3:1 - wives submit to husbands
1 Peter 3:7 - husbands honor their wives
1 Peter 4:9 - be hospitable one to another
1 Peter 5 - elders have oversight of the church
1 Peter 5 - younger to submit to the elder

[jfrog]

Esaias, do you believe that some men are not created equal?

[jfrog]

My thoughts, all men are created equal because life itself is the gift of God. Some men are born into wealth and privilege and some men are born into poverty. But it is the same breath of life that God gives to all.

We will have unequal opportunities due to our parents status, our natural abilities, etc. We will have unequal outcomes for many of the same reasons. Despite all of these inequalities we are still equal in our dependence on God for our very life.

Because our very life is a gift from God then it becomes apparent that we all have a right to life.

[Esaias]

Esaias, do you believe that some men are not created equal?

No men are created equal. There is no biological equality among humans, because every single person is different, with different capacities, proclivities, abilities, etc.

There is no economic equality, for each individual is born into differing economic situations, in different families.

There is no "social equality" because a person's social status is ultimately determined by God and clearly different people have different social status.

Political equality sounds nice but never has been and never will be a reality.

The egalitarian movement's attempt to force "social, economic, and political equality" has been the direct ancestor of the current crop of "gender equalitarians" that have laid claim to over 50 some odd genders, as well as the idea that sexual deviants and perverts have "equal rights" to promote and pursue their deviancies. It is the father of so called attempts to "reconcile inequalities" among cultures and races that have resulted in "affirmative action" and a clearly observable agenda of disempowerment for white Christian males.

As I said earlier, "equality" is a battle cry and essentially a code word having no real meaning in itself other than revolution against the alleged evil white Christian heterosexual male patriarchy formerly known as western civilisation. It is not used by people who genuinely want "equality" but rather by people who desire to replace the existing power structures with themselves. They want to rule and we see it clearly in the news every single day.

Women's equality in divorce has resulted in the common situation where the courts almost always automatically side with the woman regardless, and drown the man in alimony, take his kids, house, property, money, reputation, etc.

"Sexual orientation equality" tried to force Christian bakers to use their skills and artistic abilities to promote and subsidise sexual deviants. Gay pride parades are without exception violations of all known obscenity and public indecency laws but they are a "protected" class. Why?

Because all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Equality is a myth and a propaganda slogan, nothing more.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

What Esaias is postulating is at the root of racism, classicism, etc. God created certain people to be lesser than us. If God created them lesser, who are we to usurp God's Authority and attempt to think, act, and live as if xxx people are equal to ddd people.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Esaias, are you in favor of segregation?

[houston]

Esaias, are you in favor of segregation?

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1551072&postcount=29

[Esaias]

What Esaias is postulating is at the root of racism, classicism, etc. God created certain people to be lesser than us. If God created them lesser, who are we to usurp God's Authority and attempt to think, act, and live as if xxx people are equal to ddd people.

Yawn.

[Esaias]

Esaias, are you in favor of segregation?

Are you in favor of communism?

[Amanah]

1 Peter has a lot to say about submission and humility

1 Peter 1:22 - love one another
1 Peter 2:13 - submit to laws and rulers
1 Peter 2:17 - honor all men, honor the King
1 Peter 2:18 - servants submit to masters
1 Peter 3:1 - wives submit to husbands
1 Peter 3:7 - husbands honor their wives
1 Peter 4:9 - be hospitable one to another
1 Peter 5 - elders have oversight of the church
1 Peter 5 - younger to submit to the elder

Submission means being flexible and bending to authority, it means not always getting what you want.

It means submitting to: law, leaders, Govt, employers, pastors, husbands, and elders and each other.

1Pe 2:17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

The bible does not teach equality but unity in diversity

1 Cor 12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts. And yet I will show you the most excellent way.

[mizpeh]

No men are created equal. There is no biological equality among humans, because every single person is different, with different capacities, proclivities, abilities, etc.

There is no economic equality, for each individual is born into differing economic situations, in different families.

There is no "social equality" because a person's social status is ultimately determined by God and clearly different people have different social status.

Political equality sounds nice but never has been and never will be a reality.

The egalitarian movement's attempt to force "social, economic, and political equality" has been the direct ancestor of the current crop of "gender equalitarians" that have laid claim to over 50 some odd genders, as well as the idea that sexual deviants and perverts have "equal rights" to promote and pursue their deviancies. It is the father of so called attempts to "reconcile inequalities" among cultures and races that have resulted in "affirmative action" and a clearly observable agenda of disempowerment for white Christian males.

As I said earlier, "equality" is a battle cry and essentially a code word having no real meaning in itself other than revolution against the alleged evil white Christian heterosexual male patriarchy formerly known as western civilisation. It is not used by people who genuinely want "equality" but rather by people who desire to replace the existing power structures with themselves. They want to rule and we see it clearly in the news every single day.

Women's equality in divorce has resulted in the common situation where the courts almost always automatically side with the woman regardless, and drown the man in alimony, take his kids, house, property, money, reputation, etc.

"Sexual orientation equality" tried to force Christian bakers to use their skills and artistic abilities to promote and subsidise sexual deviants. Gay pride parades are without exception violations of all known obscenity and public indecency laws but they are a "protected" class. Why?

Because all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Equality is a myth and a propaganda slogan, nothing more.
When we get to the next world, after the resurrection, will there be equality?

[Aquila]

Are you in favor of communism?

I'm curious, do you support segregation?

[Aquila]

No men are created equal. There is no biological equality among humans, because every single person is different, with different capacities, proclivities, abilities, etc.

That is true. There are definite biological differences.

I remember reading how the geneticists studying the human genome discovered that white and non-African races had higher traces of Neanderthal in their genome, Europeans having the highest trace of Neanderthal genes in their genome. This indicates that at one time, Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal interbred. It makes sense, seeing that Neanderthals and their remains are primarily found in Europe. As Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals encountered one another, perhaps there was war, rape, trade, etc. leading to a blending of our genes. They say that almost every white European has at least 2% of their genome originating from Neanderthals.

The strain of human genome containing the least amount of Neanderthal DNA (and sometimes none at all) tends to originate from Africa. So, as it relates to the most genetically pure human, science would have to argue that the most genetically pure human beings originate from... Africa.

How Neanderthal are you? This was an interesting title of a video from the Natural History Museum on this:

How Neanderthal are you? Tracing our genetic ancestry | Natural History Museum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl-hI2IsCo0

[Aquila]

Esaias, do you believe in British Israelism?

I'm just curious.

[Esaias]

When we get to the next world, after the resurrection, will there be equality?

Ask Jesus - Luke 19:12-27 for example.

[mizpeh]

Ask Jesus - Luke 19:12-27 for example.
I think we might be speaking past each other. I think in terms of 2 kingdoms...the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God. In the kingdom of God there is true equality. In the kingdom of this world (which, imo, is ruled by Satan and his cohorts) there will never be true equality.

I believe the Bible teaches that we all are equal in God's sight because of the work of Christ, that is, Christ's death was for everyone irregardless of social, physical, political, racial standing.


So what do you think that parable means?

[Esaias]

I think we might be speaking past each other. I think in terms of 2 kingdoms...the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God. In the kingdom of God there is true equality. In the kingdom of this world (which, imo, is ruled by Satan and his cohorts) there will never be true equality.

I believe the Bible teaches that we all are equal in God's sight because of the work of Christ, that is, Christ's death was for everyone irregardless of social, physical, political, racial standing.


So what do you think that parable means?

If you will notice, the kingdom of the world marches under the banner of "equality". The parable clearly shows differences in the Kingdom between members after the return of the nobleman. The servants were not made equal.

In the parable of the workers hired at various hours of the day, they all received a penny but for differing amounts of work. Some worked a whole day, some worked a single hour. One might say they got equal pay, but broken down by hour, their wages were clearly different. Earning 10 bucks a day is by no means equal pay as earning ten bucks an hour, although technically the pay is the same - ten bucks.

Again, it the world that invented and promotes the philosophic Utopian ideal of "equality". Prior to humanism's rise during the Enlightenment, it was unheard of. And for some two hundred plus years afterwards, even the egalitarians maintained what by today's standards are clearly un-egalitarian views. Jefferson NEVER would have tolerated the idea of gay rights as a logical product of his egalitarianism. He didn't even apply it to ethnic issues or cultural issues.

The modern iteration of "equality" is purely the programme of the socialist revolutionary (progressive or communist) movement. It has been repeated so much and so ubiquitously that Christians nowadays think it was invented by Jesus, preached by the apostles, and has always been Christian doctrine. They don't realize it is essentially a modern, communist, propaganda campaign meant to overthrow existing systems to make way for global oligarchy and tyranny.

[Esaias]

And once again, let me be clear. "Equality" is a politicized word with certain meanings and ideas attached to it. Equal administration of justice (that is, universal obligation to obey law) or grace (that is, universal opportunity to receive pardon) is NOT what egalitarianism is about. Most people don't seem to know what the term actually means, everybody when queried comes up with different ideas, etc. But this doesn't change the fact that egalitarianism is a particular agenda aimed at upending existing social and political order on behalf of certain beneficiaries.

By keeping to a Biblical framework, one can avoid being carried along by emotional buzzwords into supporting unbiblical agendas.

[Aquila]

Esaias, I'm hearing you. But you're not showing me how your view would apply to society. How is this applied? Does this mean we can bring back institutionalized racism, slavery, etc.? Deny women the right to vote? Bring back child labor? How can your view be exploited by evil? And if exploited by evil, how is it still better than the enlightened view of human rights? Do we bring back laws that permit husbands to use corporal punishment on their wives? What does this view do and create?

When I speak of "equality", I find it important to maintain categorical ontological distinctions. For example, I believe that all Americans should be provided equal representation under the law. I believe that all Americans should have equal rights under the law. But I'm fully aware that not all Americans are equal in strength, intelligence, or ability.

[jfrog]

So Esais, who are you equal with and who are you greater than and who are you less than?

If you don’t believe men are created equal then tell me those you were created greater than.

It’s time to put up or shut up IMO

[Esaias]

Using 4 samples of adolescents from 3 nations (Australia, Sweden, and the United States), the authors explored whether the gendered nature of the family socializa-
tion environment affected young people’s level of group-based social egalitarianism. It was hypothesized that the greater the father’s influence in the family, the greater the children’s level of group-based social anti-egalitarianism. The results were consistent with the authors’ expectations. Children from father-headed households had the highest level of group-based social anti-egalitarianism; children from mother-headed households had the lowest level of group-based anti-egalitarianism; and children from dual-parent households were in between. Similarly, children from homes in which the father had the greatest decision-making power tended to exhibit the highest levels of anti-egalitarianism, whereas children from homes in which the mother had the greatest decision-making power displayed the lowest levels of social anti-egalitarianism. Family structure did not interact with either the nationality or gender of the child.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t7wWjfE70-_Am7ADzEBnodw03G5DxHJh/view

[Scott Pitta]

Yes, men and women are equal.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Yes, men and women are equal.

Scott, male and female are not equal.

[Esaias]

Yes, men and women are equal.

While you might be the equal of most women, and vice versa, most men and women intuitively know the truth. And a growing number of us are beginning to point it out.

The study I posted indicates there is a high likelihood your mother was the main decision-maker in your family. True, or no?