WN: Obama declares support for gay marriage - AP

[Guest shiloh357]

Yet to have homosexual thoughts is to lust, and isn't that sinful? Some of the "ex-gays" in that video were continuously battling their innate desires, ie in an internal struggle with issues of homosexual lust. Is that not still sinful/are they not still sinners in your eyes?

It is one thing to struggle with temptation to sin. All of us probably battle temptation at some point in our lives. It is not a sin to be tempted. The difference is in the struggle. When some one is struggling with sin, they are acknowledging that it is wrong. Any time a sin has been conquered, we must be vigilant that it not return. We recognize an area where we are weak, whether it be alcohol, porn, homosexuality, over-eating, drugs, smoking, whatever. The temptation itself is not the issue. The issue is what you do with the temptation; do you resist it, or do you entertain it? It is normal to struggle with sin and temptation.

Ex-gays should not be left to fight it on their own, but need accountability partners, prayer partners who are Christians who can come along side them to strengthen them and hold them up. The only Person who has the power to deliver homosexuals from their abberant lifestyle is Jesus. Jesus is the only hope for humanity and the only one who can deliver anyone from a self-destructive lifeystyle no matter what it is.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

(sorry for the triple post - I think that might be easier to break up different questions directed towards me)

The problem is, again, is that you don't understand the nature of fruit. Lot's of people can act "religious" but that is no reason to assume they are genuine Christian. In fact, the more "religious" a person acts, the less genuine they are. Fruit is evident because fruit goes to character. In fact, some of the most abusive households are typically very religious with domineering personalities. They might even serve as deacons or whatever and be "upstanding" in their church and all of that. Anyone can put on a religious mask and pretend to be a Christian.

But "fruit" of Christian character is altogether different. It is the anti-thesis of religion. It is one thing to wear all of the religious trappings and carry a bible and appear to be Christian. You can fool people for a while, but that facade is very difficult to maintain. Most "religious" people are eventually exposed for what they are because religion is not a deterrant for living in sin. Religious people tend to do all they can to hide their sin, in order to keep up the facade. Genuine beleivers know they are sinners and they repent and come to Jesus for forgiveness. They don't live in a lifestyle of sin. When they sin, they don't run from Jesus, they run to Him. They don't try to hide it behind the mask of pretense. A religious person can't keep that up forever. It takes a lot of energy and a lot of planning to make sure you are keeping up the act.

Secondly, "religious" people like what you describe are generaly biblically illiterate. They might be able to cite a few verses of Scripture from Sunday School, but they generally produce no fruit. And no, appearing religious is not "fruit." I am not talking about people who appear to be "good" Christians. i am talking about people who produce genuine fruit. I am talking about people who live out what they believe and make a genuine impact for the Kingdom of God. I have talked to "religious" people and they can throw around a lot of terminology, but they don't know how to use it, and they typically reveal their true character not in how they act, but in how they react. You can plan your actions, but you can't plan your reactions.

We are in agreement that appearing religious/Christian does not necessarily make someone a 'true' Christian. However I'm a little bit confused about this issue of good fruit vs good deeds, which I can elaborate on a little later.

Every person who has been born again bears certain birthmarks that will stand as visible evidence of salvation. They are birthmarks that are the natural outflow of the new birth, not something that can be faked or used by religious people to put up appearances.

Birthmarks? Are you talking about literal physical marks, or something else? How does one find these birthmarks on another person?

I realize that you are not equipped either intellectually or spiritually to understand that, but that is just the reality of the matter. The fact is that knowing who is and is not a true believer is very scriptural. In fact, the books of I, II, and III John are all about knowing who is and is not a genuine believer. The Bible teaches us to how to know the differences, so the bottom line is that you don't know the Bible and are not fit to really even debate on this issue due to your relatively high degree of personal ignorance of the matter.

Come now, we can't have an honest exchange if you are going to be condescending.

The questions are centered around your relationship with Christ. Let's say you claim to be friends with a certain celebrity, and I begin asking you questions about that celebrity and the questions I ask only pertain to what a person who has a friendship with that celebrity would know. By the answers you give, I can tell if your claim is true, or if you were making a false claim. It is the same with being a Christian. We claim to be in relationship with Jesus, so it makes sense that I can frame questions that only a genuine Christian could answer.

Ok let's carry this analogy further because it's a good one.

Shiloh, in real life I am a friend of Brad Pitt. Here's how I can prove it.

-Brad Pitt has 6 chairs at his kitchen table.

-Brad Pitt's favorite movie is 101 Dalmatians.

-Brad Pitt enjoys jokes about walrus.

Shiloh, since I just proved that I am a friend of Brad Pitt, you need to answer some questions for me. If you get them right I will know that you are a friend of Brad Pitt too.

-How many rooms does Brad Pitt have in his house?

-What is Brad Pitt's favorite color?

-What is his least favorite tree?

My point is there is no one to confirm or deny my claims except for Brad Pitt himself. I can claim I am a friend of Brad Pitt and judge other's friendship of Brad all I want, but unless Brad specifically says "Oh Hamburgers is my friend" there is no proof. That's my point with this situation regarding true Christians, except that's even more difficult to confirm because there are a lot of personal things that have to happen that aren't always displayed for everyone to see.

The Bible has some seemingly straight forward answers in it, but there is also a lot of room for interpretation regarding what exactly is meant by one passage or another. In this way I don't think there is any one person who is knowledgeable enough to accurately determine the true faith of anyone with 100% accuracy.

If my example isn't enough I'd be happy to give another.

Good deeds are not the same as good fruit. The apostle Paul talks about doing great things, even to giving up every thing you own and giving it to the poor and yet having done nothing at all.

Ghandi and Mother Teresa were good people but for all their goodness, they were no closer at bridging the gap between them and God than worst person you can think of. The gap between them and God is as wide as the gap between God and Hitler. Good deeds won't get you any closer to God at all. The difference between good fruit and good deeds, is that good fruit is only produced in our lives when we are connected to Jesus. And when your good fruit is the product of a relationship with Jesus, your "fruit" is what is used to build the Kingdom of God and to impact and engage the world on that basis.

Lot's people do good deeds, movie stars, rock starts, politicians, humanitarians, philanthropists, etc. But their good deeds are meaningless ultimately if they are not an outgrowth of a relationship with Christ. What's more, they will not find eternal life through their good works. It is a shame to spend all of your life and expend all of your wealth to do good deeds, only to step out into eternity and hear Jesus say, "I'm sorry, I never knew you. Depart from me..." Many deluded people go to hell, not because they were prostitutes, or thieves or muderers, but because they never were. There are many good people who strutting right into hell who think they are on their way to heaven because of their personal goodness. Very sad...

So now good deeds aren't always good fruit? Who makes that distinction? Mother Teresa praised God etc and taught about Jesus. That wasn't good fruit?

You have chosen to resort to the tired old liberal comparison of inter-racial marrriage and gay marriage. I was wondering how long it would take you to drudge that silly arguement up.

You cannot draw any comparison between gender and race. There are no differences between races, but we naturally separate genders. That's why we have men's and women's bathrooms. Men and women are naturally different whereas races are not not. You can receive a kidney from a person of a different ethnicity. You can recive a blood transfusion from someone of a different ethnicity. Separation on the basis of gender can be morally desirable. Separate bathrooms for men and women is rational and necessary. Separate bathrooms for whites and African Americans is not. There are no differences between races but there are significant differencences between the sexes and these differences are meant to compliment each other. To opppose interracial marriage is bigotry, but to oppose gay marriage is simply in keeping with the wisdom of the Creator who made man and woman for each other other and designed their differences to be complimentary. God designed marriage to be between man and woman.

Yes, there were those who opposed interracial marrage but they opposed all Christian and secular norms in the process. They represented a limited social abberation relegated to a certain group, nolt the whole of Christianity in America. Even today, the same people still oppose inter-ratical marriage, but they are still in the minority. The Bible forbids marrying people of different religions not different races. So I can oppose gay marriage on biblical grounds without committing the same error as those who opposed inter-racial marriage.

Is it not possible that those who opposed interracial marriage believed themselves to be biblically sound in their day? Is it not possible that someone could interpret the Bible in a way that might allow for homosexual relationships?

Also, you make the genders out to be black and white, however there have always been a small % of the population who are transgendered in some way. I don't believe there is any mention of them in the Bible. What should we make of that?

[Matthitjah]

Yet to have homosexual thoughts is to lust, and isn't that sinful? Some of the "ex-gays" in that video were continuously battling their innate desires, ie in an internal struggle with issues of homosexual lust. Is that not still sinful/are they not still sinners in your eyes?

It is one thing to struggle with temptation to sin. All of us probably battle temptation at some point in our lives. It is not a sin to be tempted. The difference is in the struggle. When some one is struggling with sin, they are acknowledging that it is wrong. Any time a sin has been conquered, we must be vigilant that it not return. We recognize an area where we are weak, whether it be alcohol, porn, homosexuality, over-eating, drugs, smoking, whatever. The temptation itself is not the issue. The issue is what you do with the temptation; do you resist it, or do you entertain it? It is normal to struggle with sin and temptation.

Ex-gays should not be left to fight it on their own, but need accountability partners, prayer partners who are Christians who can come along side them to strengthen them and hold them up. The only Person who has the power to deliver homosexuals from their abberant lifestyle is Jesus. Jesus is the only hope for humanity and the only one who can deliver anyone from a self-destructive lifeystyle no matter what it is.

Amen!

Re 12:11

And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto death.

The word for lives there is their soulish life. They Loved not their self, their soulish lives, unto death.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

It is one thing to struggle with temptation to sin. All of us probably battle temptation at some point in our lives. It is not a sin to be tempted. The difference is in the struggle. When some one is struggling with sin, they are acknowledging that it is wrong. Any time a sin has been conquered, we must be vigilant that it not return. We recognize an area where we are weak, whether it be alcohol, porn, homosexuality, over-eating, drugs, smoking, whatever. The temptation itself is not the issue. The issue is what you do with the temptation; do you resist it, or do you entertain it? It is normal to struggle with sin and temptation.

Ex-gays should not be left to fight it on their own, but need accountability partners, prayer partners who are Christians who can come along side them to strengthen them and hold them up. The only Person who has the power to deliver homosexuals from their abberant lifestyle is Jesus. Jesus is the only hope for humanity and the only one who can deliver anyone from a self-destructive lifeystyle no matter what it is.

This is an aside and probably taking things further off the topic than we need to However it just struck me as something I couldn't think of a good answer to.

Temptation to is not considered a sin, I think that is agreed upon (by me as well). Committing the actual act you are tempted to do is where the sin kicks in.

However how do you (or anyone if they have an idea) distinguish temptation from lust in particular? I'm asking this because lust is a sin of the mind, not one where you actively 'lust'. You can commit the sin of lust without doing anything tangibly.

IE For example, stealing has a very clear set of steps (you could be tempted to steal -> you actually steal something)

However by the time you're tempted to lust and the time lust is actually committed...

[nebula]

Rev. 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable , and murderers, and pornos, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

pornos -

Definition

a man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire

a male prostitute

a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator

[Guest]

.... Yet to have homosexual thoughts is to lust, and isn't that sinful? Some of the "ex-gays" in that video were continuously battling their innate desires, ie in an internal struggle with issues of homosexual lust. Is that not still sinful/are they not still sinners in your eyes?...

Step

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: James 1:13

By Step

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14

It Gets A Little Closer

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:15

~

Dear One

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

You And I Know Better

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Some Will Grab Onto Their Own Understanding And Insist "What A Good Boy You Are"

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,

not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:28-32

Others Will Cleave Onto Jesus The Christ

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. John 3:16

And Say "LORD Save Me"

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13

~

Believe

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.

Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, Revelation 1:5

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[Guest]

However how do you (or anyone if they have an idea) distinguish temptation from lust in particular....

On

I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid? Job 31:1

Guard

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Philippians 4:8

In Jesus

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. John 16:3-4

And The Word

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

That's How You Keep From Temptation

Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. Psalms 119:9

~

Dear One, Just Like Ernest Hemingway You Used To Know The Truth

“I live in a vacuum that is as lonely as a radio tube when the batteries are dead, and there is no current to plug into.”

https://bible.org/node/13903

~

Beloved

Knowing The Dangerous Paths You Walk

In All The Years I've Known You, You Have Remained In My Prayers

Praying~!

Love, Joe

[jasoncran]

And here is why I oppose both. I don't believe the government has any business forcing people to accept gay marriage as equal to marriage between a man and a woman through the use of anti-descrimination laws. That is the main reason I voted for the marriage amendment in North Carolina, along with 61 percent of the people in this state.

If the government were more philosophically libertarian, then it wouldn't have anti-discrimination laws to begin with. Government barges its way into all kinds of things that it shouldn't be in. And most of what the government does IS un-Constitutional.

I believe - and this is consistent with Scripture - that God wants us to come to Him NOT from an EXTERNAL imposition (through secular law), but from WITHIN. At the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

As for sin, the issue to me isn't habitual sin. Jesus taught us to forgive, 70 x 7 if necessary. The question is over the defense of a sinful practice, one that is condemned in scripture. When a real Christian sins, they are sorry, and try to do better. A person that is in a gay marriage isn't even acknowledging they are doing anything wrong. This isn't a grey area in scripture. The OT calls it an abomination, and Romans chapter 1 of the New Testament calls those involved reprobates. I oppose homosexual marriage and civil unions because I don't want the government forcing people to accept it at the risk of lawsuits because they don't provide insurance or other benefits. I don't want the government saying a home owner must rent to two homosexual men or women. It is none of the government's business.

Let me reiterate that I personally find the homosexual lifestyle abhorrent - and have nothing but pity for those involved in it. That's one reason you will never see me refer to anything about it as "gay."

So in no way am I defending the practice. But at the same time, I cannot justify a SECULAR government saying that two-consenting adults cannot enter into a mutual contract (although like I said earlier, I would prefer it not be called a marriage)

Consider - when we say the goverment should ban a sinful practice just because it IS sinful, are we not giving it more "power" that we give to God?

Going all the way back to the Garden, did not God create Man with free will? The answer is - He did. And the truth is, we may not always like or agree with the results of man's free will, but we have to live with it.

And ultimately let God deal with the one who exercised his free will - if his free will has caused him to conflict with God's will.

Blessings!

-Ed

I have a question for you Ed. Let's look at your comment about a secular government saying two conscenting adults can enter into a mutual contract. Are you ok with allowing civil unions for Mormon polygamists? I have no problem with that or civil unions for gays, so long as the secular government doesn't have the authority to make anyone accept those unions, at the risk of lawsuits. I don't believe this desire for recognition is just for general acceptance. I believe it is to force people to grant homosexuals the same rights afforded heterosexual couples, and I can't go along with that. Make it a meaningless document, and who cares? Give it teeth, and I will continue to oppose it.

It was during the Clarence Thomas hearings back in the early 90s that I first became aware of the term "Natural Rights". The knock against Thomas (from all democrats as well as some republicans) was that he was an advocate for those.

Another term for "natural rights" is "God-given" rights. In other words, it's a belief that all rights come from God; not government. It was what the writers of the Declaration of Independence meant when they wrote "endowed by their Creator."

Now, I've taken a somewhat roundabout way to answer your question, but my point is this: If one is a believer in "natural rights" (as I am); then he should realize that it is one's "right" to enter into any kind of a contract with another; as he chooses - as long as no one is harmed.

Ah, there's the rub. I may have libertarian leanings, but I'm not an anarchist. Governments (secular) DO have a role. So of course, two people cannot enter into a contract to kill someone - that would be conspiracy to murder. And if they carry it out, then it IS murder.

But back to the subject at hand - civil unions. If two people (or more, to respond to the Mormon component of your question!) want to enter into a civil union, who does it harm? (other than their own eternal souls, but they and God must deal with that)

Also in your question, you mentioned being "forced" to accept their "civil union" at the risk of a lawsuit. I don't know if you had a specific example in mind, but I'll supply one here.

What about a Christian landlord who does not want to rent to a homosexual couple?

Well, I'll go back to my original contention that government already does way too much. In my "libertarian" (or better term - Constitutional) government, the right to do with one's own private property will not be infringed. So, the Christian landlord can rent to - or choose not to rent to - whomever he pleases.

I will admit there is a tougher example, and that would be homosexual couples that wish to adopt children. While a libertarian society would likely permit Church or religious run adoption agencies or orphanages to discriminate, any government run institution would likely not be allowed to do the same.

So all that to say this: There is no perfect form of government - this side of heaven. That's why I've always said I'm a believer in a Benevolent Dictatorship (as long as Our Lord and Savior is the Dictator, that is)

The government "allowing" (or better yet, remaining silent on) civil unions is not a "perfect" solution. But to go back to a point I made earlier - giving the government power to limit people from committing one sin (which we might favor) will lead to the government having too much power. And it will surely use it in ways we DON'T favor)

Blessings!

-Ed

I am not sure I really disagree with you, except perhaps in one small point. I would require that we do away with anti-descrimination laws before allowing homosexual unions, and it seems like you would allow the civil unions without those laws first being repealed? I don't believe in anti-descrimination laws, period, even if that descrimination works against me. If someone is a hard core atheist, and doesn't want to rent a room to a Christian, if it is his business, purchased with his money, that is his right, in a truly free society. On the other hand, if it is a tax supported school trying to descriminate, that is another story, because all tax payers helped finance the institution. You would have similar issues with a private owned bus verses a city bus. If it was a private owned company, they have every right to descriminate against anyone. It could be a black owned bus company that makes whites go to the back of the bus. At the same time, if it is a city bus, they shouldn't be able to descriminate. So again, if we do away with all anti-descrimination laws, I am ok with homosexual unions, though I wouldn't personally accept those couples as married.

my problem here is that i from the south. i used to work at a church where A CHRISTIAN BLACK WOMAN WAS told that she being black could only serve in the soup kitchen while being paid to work for this white baptist church. she complained and finally sued them for her rights.sad aint it.

that however, was long before i came to work with her. it was about 1980 when they finally told her ok you can work elsewhere within the church grounds. sad still. a believer treated like that.

Problem you have in that comparison is that i've never read anywhere that God says that there is anything wrong with being black. He has said there is something wrong with gay sex. So using that comparison is weak at best and deceptive at worst.

he said that he wants to do away with anti-discrimination laws thats why.

that said when i was with that church they never asked me if i was saved inorder to work for them. i went to that church and i did make it known but do we want to ask and have the pastor and the elders in our lives that much? i dont. i wont work for the church like that again. i will volunteer but i have learned how pharisiticals churches can be

let me ask you all these things?

would you stop listening to christian music(ccm) if i told you that there gay musicians in that industry? and im sure some are in their recording the songs. making the cds etc. and by recording i mean sound enginneer. i have heard it from a freind whose daughter went to the dove awards as she wanted to sing. she say a gay section and was appaled at how carnal that whole thing is and from that day i have seen it too with the christian versions of talent shows etc.

would you go to a gay doctor if he was the only one who could cure you? would hire one to work on your car? these i ask because we all can see their sin ast its obvious but what about that nice man that says all the right things and has porn in his life. we dont ask for this level of accountability when we go to stores or rent do we?

so if a couple is in sin and they offend you dont then rent but then also if you go to any sinner for a product then dont buy from them. when its all said and done lets withdrawal from the world into our little cubby holes and bubbles.

THAT ISNT THE GOSPEL

And that is not the issue. The issue is the right of a private individual to be prejudiced and to descriminate. I believe they should have that right. It is up to the individual who they patronize and why? One reason I go to the doctor I do is because I know he is a Republican. I could find a better doctor, but I don't want to patronize a liberal when I have a choice. I would think twice about supporting a homosexual gospel singer. I definately wouldn't support them if they were defending their lifestyle as ok, rather than struggling with it and trying to quit. It does make a difference to me when it comes to who I do business with, but not to the point where I am openly boycotting anyone. People should have the right to withdraw to their own little cubby holes if that is what they wish to do. That is their right. I stand by my position in favor of repealing all anti-descrimination laws effecting privately owned businesses. They really should have been struck down as unconstitutional anyway.

ok so if the whole state of florida made it illegal to be a black man or other color or white to live in this state and work thats ok?

i work for a company that i doesnt discriminate against gays.the problem for you is that christians sadly at time are the most hateful. seen it and had it done to me by when i was a bisexual.

i dont watch tv if they have a gay charachter in them. thats fine. but well its hard not to do anything without sinner supported by it, good luck with your idea. i was a jw and that is what they pushed. dont deal the world all that much.its that strong of a cult.

legal yes but well i wont go into what they did to me and well others who are far worse then me when they came out. im sorry but i will go here since the kkk used to be near me.

if a sign said no jews allowed or blacks allowed in all businesses thats OK? yup that did happen here and it was the kkk behind it all.im sure that a jew like me wouldnt be too welcome in the areas where they had control here. my last name screens he is a jew!while we cant make a man love one another we can contain the hate they act on. remember if i take your logic of right to hate to its end then slavery should be legal.

[nebula]

A top-newsmagazine interviewed me. “First question: what do you think about homosexuality?”

My mind was racing. I’m not used to this type of question. “O”, I replied, “it’s quite simple. When I need gasoline for my car, I put the spout in the tank, not the exhaust.”

Some people present started to laugh. “Wait a minute”, I hurried to say, “I am not trying to joke, ridicule or offend anybody. All I’m saying is that a car is not built like that and man is not created like that.”

~REINHARD BONNKE~

[jasoncran]

ok so if the whole state of florida made it illegal to be a black man or other color or white to live in this state and work thats ok?

i work for a company that i doesnt discriminate against gays.the problem for you is that christians sadly at time are the most hateful. seen it and had it done to me by when i was a bisexual.

i dont watch tv if they have a gay charachter in them. thats fine. but well its hard not to do anything without sinner supported by it, good luck with your idea. i was a jw and that is what they pushed. dont deal the world all that much.its that strong of a cult.

legal yes but well i wont go into what they did to me and well others who are far worse then me when they came out. im sorry but i will go here since the kkk used to be near me.

if a sign said no jews allowed or blacks allowed in all businesses thats OK? yup that did happen here and it was the kkk behind it all.im sure that a jew like me wouldnt be too welcome in the areas where they had control here. my last name screens he is a jew!while we cant make a man love one another we can contain the hate they act on. remember if i take your logic of right to hate to its end then slavery should be legal.

I thought I was pretty clear when I stated that private businesses have the right to descriminate. I did not say the same right applied to state agencies, or that a state has the right to pass descriminatory laws. All people pay taxes, people of all races, so they have rights when it comes to the government. I am speaking only of privately owned businesses. I made it very clear that if the descrimination was against me for being a white evangelical, that should be the right of a business owner who was an atheist or whatever. If I said it in relationship to me, of course it would apply to a bigot who doesn't want to hire or serve someone because they are black or Jewish. I don't know how much more clear I could have been about it? That would open the door for someone else to open a competing business and cater to those being descriminated against by others. I would want to hire the best people, and would want to serve anyone, so I could rake in the money others were throwing away, and have the best employees.

As for slavery, there is a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits it, so no, my logic doesn't reach that conclusion. At the same time, I do believe some forms of slavery would be useful. The Bible actually allows for slavery and regulates it. It never prohibits it. There are some people living in conditions worse than slavery, living on the streets, and going hungry working in low paying jobs. Why shouldn't someone be able to sell themselves into slavery as they did in OT times, with the chance to leave after 7 years? It might be an improvement for some, if they were required to get room and board for their labor, but no actual spending money. I've actually suggested that before to help with homelessness, but it wouldn't be race based, but needs based. An individual would have the choice to become a slave.

well your idea has been tried that is what the jim crow laws in the south were. but well as my jewish family found out. it doesnt look good white hires blacks or help them.

here they were ran out of town at night. the blacks out number the white then and now but yet if the whites owned all the business.

and well you misdunderstand the torah and this nation was built on indentured servitude!

the jews when they were in roman control didnt have slaves all that much.

http://www.chabad.or...nd-the-Jews.htm

Edited May 22, 2012 by ~candice~