StinkHole Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 This is a brilliant man. His dissent now called hate speech by leftist scum. Not only does his dissent nail it, this his comment on how the makeup of the SCOTUS is unrepresentative of the American people tells all... Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on todays social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in todays majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation. Bingo Not only do we need term limit reform, we need SCOTUS reform. Read more about Scalias dissent here.... http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/30/in-depth-4-harms-the-courts-marriage-ruling-will-cause/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRogvqrBZKXonjHpfsX67O0sWKG1gYkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMRcZkNK%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 The left waited until the right time to bring this case before the Supreme Court. You had 4 liberal judges who there was no doubt how they would rule as 2 of them had already officiated gay marriages. That should have made them recuse themselves from ruling on this case but they didn't. Then you have the moderate conservative Kennedy who has a history of ruling on gay rights in every case. It was a slam dunk ruling I knew was coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 So if you've been involved in a gay wedding, you should recluse yourself. What about a straight wedding? Maybe Scalias and conservatives didn't get their way, so now the supreme court is bad? Also, statistically, a group of only 9 people is not going to be perfectly representative of the US population. By that logic, there also aren't enough women either, but I didn't see that mentioned in the OP. Not to mention, some groups will be more prone to completing all of the steps necessary to become a supreme court judge. Sure, there are less from the middle of the US, or less evangelicals, but those groups could be less likely to complete all of the schooling required to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 "So if you've been involved in a gay wedding, you should recluse yourself." It is *recuse* not *recluse* but I guess you are cursed by the lack of schooling with the rest of us living in the middle of the U.S. "Sure, there are less from the middle of the US, or less evangelicals, but those groups could be less likely to complete all of the schooling required to get there." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 It was a decision not based on emotion but of principle "rights", those which can't be abridged even by the majority. If the "majority" in this country wanted to go back to slavery and the scotus shot it down....would they be "activist" judges? Sometimes the SCOTUS has to go against the will of the majority IF it involves a social issue. Our culture has been debating for decades now whether gays in our midst intrinsically harms us...they don't. They are good people and bad people, just like us...no different "a all". So to continue to deny them the right to marry each other based on religious beliefs of the majority, wasn't right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I think you could see this coming a mile away after the Supreme Court redefined the definition of marriage: Montana man seeks license for second wife HELENA, Mont. - A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife. Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy - holding multiple marriage licenses - but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied. "It's about marriage equality," Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy." County clerk officials initially denied Collier's application, then said they would consult with the county attorney before giving him a final answer, Collier said. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Of course we knew this was going to happen. You'll have people wanting to marry animals too, doesn't mean they're not crazy. This was the point of my prior post, we've been debating this topic for decades and as a culture have concluded that gays were not a threat to our society. "Maybe" polygamy goes the same way, I expect a vigorous debate which I will enjoy listening to. In any case, it will be a long time before that gets resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 What does the Bible say about polygamy? Or is that in the part everybody conveniently ignores? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 "So if you've been involved in a gay wedding, you should recluse yourself." It is *recuse* not *recluse* but I guess you are cursed by the lack of schooling with the rest of us living in the middle of the U.S. "Sure, there are less from the middle of the US, or less evangelicals, but those groups could be less likely to complete all of the schooling required to get there." Fat finger, I apologize. Next thing you know I'll be talking about how a man can live inside a whale... You also ignored the bulk of my original post, fyi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Fat finger, I apologize. Next thing you know I'll be talking about how a man can live inside a whale... You also ignored the bulk of my original post, fyi Michelle Obama might be able to help you with that fat finger. Why should I respond to your ludicrous comment that somehow a person living in the middle of the United States cannot be as educated as someone living anywhere else in the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 What does the Bible say about polygamy? Or is that in the part everybody conveniently ignores? What does Scripture say about Polygamy? In Matt. 19:4 we are told by Jesus that God created one “male and [one] female” and joined them in marriage. Mark 10:6-8:"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. The two as one is the pattern on how marriage was to be conducted from the start. NOT three or four as one (or two men or two women) http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp75.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Why was God cool with polygamy in the Old Testament and then changed his tune in the New Testament? Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all had multiple wives and it was no biggie. This is the stuff that makes me think that the folks who wrote it just added their own flare to the stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 "We have examples of saints in the Old Testament going off the commandment i.e Solomon, but this is not God approved. Many of the patriarchs took more than one wife. Abraham, by recommendation of Sarah, took her maid. Jacob was tricked through Laban, into taking Leah first, and then Rachel, to whom he had been betrothed. polygamy was not wrong in ancient cultures, but was a departure from the divine institution that God ordained. In the Bible I count 15 examples of polygamy from the time of Lamech to 931 A.D. 13 of these men had enough power that no one could call into question their practice, they were unaccountable or no one dared approach them. Lamech Genesis 4:19; Abraham Genesis 16; Esau Genesis 26:34; 28:9; Jacob Genesis 29:30; Ashur 1 Chronicles 4:5; Gideon Judges 8:30; Elkanah 1 Samuel 1:2; David 1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3; Solomon 1 Kings 11:1-8; Rehoboam 2 Chronicles 11:18-23; Abijah 2 Chronicles 13:21; Jehoram 2 Chronicles 21:14; Joash 2 Chronicles 24:3; Ahab 2 Kings 10; Jehoiachin 2 Kings 24:15; Belshazzar Daniel 5:2; 1 Chronicles 2:8; Hosea in Hosea 3:1,2. Polygamy is mentioned in the Mosaic law and made inclusive on the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record (Gen.29:15-30, Jacob and his wives.) Was Abraham, David Solomon condemned or approved for practicing polygamy? Well they certainly did not get blessed for it! The fact that every polygamist in the Bible like David and Solomon (1 Chron. 14:3) were punished. This should be evidence that this is not God’s will. God never condoned polygamy but like divorce he allowed it to occur and did not bring an immediate punishment for this disobedience. Deut. 17:14-17: “I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' “you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' “Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.” This is the command of God, and he has never changed it. 1 Kings 11:3 says Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines violating the principle of monogamy that he was given through the law of Moses. Consider that Solomon at one time was the wisest man in the world. In I Kings 11:4: “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.” Notice Solomon became a polytheist because he was influenced in polygamy. In his case many wives, became many gods. Scripture has always commanded monogamy (Ps.128:3; Prov. 5:18; 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-29; Eccl. 9:9)." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 This is the stuff that makes me think that the folks who wrote it just added their own flare to the stories. I'll go you a step further. This is the stuff that makes me think the folks who wrote the bible 'WERE COMPLETELY FULL OF DOGSHIT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Michelle Obama might be able to help you with that fat finger. Why should I respond to your ludicrous comment that somehow a person living in the middle of the United States cannot be as educated as someone living anywhere else in the country? I must have missed where I said that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 What does the Bible say about polygamy? Or is that in the part everybody conveniently ignores? Actually what do you say about it? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Actually what do you say about it? WSS The demographic distribution across the US will probably not match the demographic distribution of people qualified to be supreme court judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I must have missed where I said that.. "Not to mention, some groups will be more prone to completing all of the steps necessary to become a supreme court judge. Sure, there are less from the middle of the US, or less evangelicals, but those groups could be less likely to complete all of the schooling required to get there." ************************************************************************************************************************* Why would someone either being an evangelical Christian or living in the middle of the U.S. make any difference as to having less schooling or less likely to complete all of the schooling necessary to become a supreme court judge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted July 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Why was God cool with polygamy in the Old Testament and then changed his tune in the New Testament? Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all had multiple wives and it was no biggie. This is the stuff that makes me think that the folks who wrote it just added their own flare to the stories. There was a lot of confusion and misunderstanding in The Old Testament... God became frustrated so he sent his son to clear things up and set things straight in the New Testament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 The Supreme court made a huge mistake in ignoring our Constitution. See the Dredd-Scott decision. Gay "marriage" is a farce. ********************************************** The Supreme Court used raw judicial activism and wrongly ruled that there is a constitutional right to same-sex "marriage" in America. Regardless of the Court's ruling, the redline of marriage is a line we cannot and will not cross. As Liberty Counsel has emphasized for many years, this is the most divisive and culturally destructive issue to face America since the Supreme Court's abortion decision in Roe v. Wade. It is the cultural battle of our generation. The difference between the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decision and the recent ruling is its coercive nature. As horrific as Roe v. Wade was, that Supreme Court decision did not force people to participate in abortion. This decision that says same-sex "marriage" is a constitutional right will result in coercion against religious freedom and conscience rights. + + As people of faith, we owe obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law. Over 160,000 Americans, including hundreds of Christian leaders, have endorsed our powerful Marriage Solidarity Pledge, which declared, in part... "Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the State.This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights. ... Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason.We will view any decision by the Supreme Court or any court the same way history views the Dred Scott and Buck v. Bell decisions. Our highest respect for the rule of law requires that we not respect an unjust law that directly conflicts with higher law. A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order. As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law." (underlines added) With the Supreme Court ruling advancing same-sex "marriage," we face a cultural redline. We dare not cross this line without expecting to experience dangerous consequences.We have no choice but to resist an unjust law, particularly one that will force believers to participate in acts that are in direct opposition to the Natural and Revealed Law.Liberty Counsel is calling upon people of faith throughout the nation to recognize the need for "principled resistance" against the Supreme Court's unjust ruling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 "Not to mention, some groups will be more prone to completing all of the steps necessary to become a supreme court judge. Sure, there are less from the middle of the US, or less evangelicals, but those groups could be less likely to complete all of the schooling required to get there." ************************************************************************************************************************* Why would someone either being an evangelical Christian or living in the middle of the U.S. make any difference as to having less schooling or less likely to complete all of the schooling necessary to become a supreme court judge? Based on polls results and averages, it is less likely. Again, 9 very specialize, academic people are never going to perfectly represent the US. Especially when they make a decision you disagree with.... Look at these charts College Degrees by County I see a lot in the Northeast and West Coast. Not as much in the middle. ABA Approved Law Schools Again, not as many in the middle. College Degree by Religious Affiliation And it looks like Evangelical Christians are lower than average here. Add all of that together, and I stand by my previous statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 There was a lot of confusion and misunderstanding in The Old Testament... God became frustrated so he sent his son to clear things up and set things straight in the New Testament. Didn't set slavery straight, that's for damn certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 The number of law schools in various states is just about meaningless as I doubt if anyone other than an Ivy league school graduate would get nominated to the Supreme Court (all 9 justices came from Ivy league with 8 of them from Harvard or Yale and one from Columbia) but that doesn't mean you have to live or be from the Northeast to go to one of those schools. I would like to know the percentage of the graduates from Ivy League schools that are from out of state. People from all over the country go to Ivy League schools and since Ivy League schools seem to be the primary source for Supreme Court candidates there goes that meaningless chart of law schools across the country. As for the meaningless religious chart and college degrees it seems odd for Hindus which are a tiny portion of our society to be on top of that list. Matter of fact it seems like the top of that list consists mainly of those with the smallest population such as atheists, Buddhists, and other minority groups in this country. It looks like most of the Supreme Court justices fall into the below average of that chart so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make? I'm not buying there are less evangelical Christian college graduates than Hindus. Even if the comparison is factoring in proportion or ratio of population to college degree for the argument you are making it is an apples and oranges comparison. I don't even have to look it up to know that there are hundreds of evangelical Christians with college degrees to every one Hindu. I thought your point was about the numbers? Also it looks like evangelicals on that spirograph chart are even with Catholics and 6 of the Supreme Court justices are Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 The demographic distribution across the US will probably not match the demographic distribution of people qualified to be supreme court judges. Excellent take on polygamy. ....????? (I mean what you say might well enough be true but it has something to do with the question) WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Didn't set slavery straight, that's for damn certain. Does God Approve of Slavery According to the Bible? Skeptics claim that the God of the Bible approves of and encourages slavery. What they won't tell you is that selling a person into slavery was grounds for the death penalty, according to the Old Testament... http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Does God Approve of Slavery According to the Bible? Skeptics claim that the God of the Bible approves of and encourages slavery. What they won't tell you is that selling a person into slavery was grounds for the death penalty, according to the Old Testament... http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html I'm well aware of both arguments. In my readings of scripture I've found multiple instances of hypocrisy or conflicting statements throughout the Word. As the song says "I'd like to think I can go my own way and meet you in the end". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 In my readings of scripture I've found multiple instances of hypocrisy or conflicting statements throughout the Word. Tiam ****************************************** Name a few? Where? Some translations from the original Hebrew and Greek can cause that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 In my readings of scripture I've found multiple instances of hypocrisy or conflicting statements throughout the Word. Tiam ****************************************** Name a few? Where? Some translations from the original Hebrew and Greek can cause that.... Perhaps I should have said contradictions? You'll have to forgive as I'm currently sitting outside soaking up sun and surfing, I hope you're doing the same? Anyway, I remember stark contrast to the Lord being a "man of war" yet later referred to as a 'God of peace'. I also distinctly remember reading the righteous will prosper yet how the righteous will be undone as well. I'm sure I could google that shit but it would be unfair to the argument I've created. This is from my memory, its entirely possible I'm wrong but if this conversation is to prolong I'll search for results. Either way those are the two biggest off the top of my head. I know there's more to be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Does God Approve of Slavery According to the Bible? Skeptics claim that the God of the Bible approves of and encourages slavery. What they won't tell you is that selling a person into slavery was grounds for the death penalty, according to the Old Testament... http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html That's a nice piece of contextual editing there. You, and probably the author as well...know full well this relates to other Israelites only. You could do fuck all you want with anybody else. DOn't beleive me? Here... There are many Bible passages which directly sanction and regulate slavery. Quoting from the KJV (except as noted) some of these passages are: bullet The Ten Commandments: Rabbi M.J. Raphall (circa 1861) justified human slavery on the basis of the 10th commandment. It places slaves "... under the same protection as any other species of lawful property...That the Ten Commandments are the word of G-d, and as such, of the very highest authority, is acknowledged by Christians as well as by Jews...How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments--how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job--the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he emphatically connects his own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to give the character of 'perfect, upright, fearing G-d and eschewing evil' (Job 1:8)--that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?" 1 Exodus 20:17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." bullet Deuteronomy 5:21"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's. Beating and Killing Slaves: Although an owner could beat a male or female slave, she/he would have to avoid serious injury to eyes or teeth. The owner would have to avoid beating the slave to death. But it was acceptable to beat a slave so severely that it only disabled him or her for two days: bullet Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]." bullet Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." Emancipation of Slaves: Slaves in ancient Israel were automatically emancipated after 6 years of slavery, but only if they were Jewish. However, if the slave owner "gave" the slave a wife, the owner could keep the wife and any children as his property. Passages in Exodus state that female slaves who were sold into slavery by their fathers would be slaves forever. A corresponding passage in Exodus contradicts this; it required female slaves to be given their freedom after 6 years. One could purchase a slave from a foreign nation or from foreigners living with them. These slaves would remain in slavery forever, unless the owner chooses to frees them An Israelite who was a slave could be freed by a family member or by himself if he had the money. The cost of freeing a slave was computed on the basis of the number of years to the next Jubilee Year; this could be 1 to 50 years. Male Israelite slaves were automatically freed during the Jubilee Year. Depending upon which verse was being followed, female Israelite slaves might also have been freed at that time as well. Foreign slaves were out of luck. Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." bullet Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him." bullet Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." bullet Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV) bullet Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him." Restrictions on the Re-selling of Slaves: A slave was considered a piece of property, and thus could normally be resold to anyone at any time for any reason. However, special rules applied for Hebrew slaves. If a person bought a female slave from her father and she displeased him, he had no right to sell her to a foreign owner. If the owner required her to marry his son, then the owner was required to treat her like a daughter-in-law. If the owner marries his slave and later marries another woman, he was required to treat his slave as he previously had. If he violates any of these requirements, then she must be emancipated. But she would leave without any money or means of supporting herself; she would be free, but abandoned. bullet Exodus 21:8: "If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money." Sexual Activity with an Engaged Female Slave: A man who rapes or engages in consensual sex with a female slave who is engaged to be married to another man must sacrifice an animal in the temple in order to obtain God's forgiveness. The female slave would be whipped. There is apparently no punishment or ritual animal killing required if the female slave were not engaged; men could rape such slaves with impunity. Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 The number of law schools in various states is just about meaningless as I doubt if anyone other than an Ivy league school graduate would get nominated to the Supreme Court (all 9 justices came from Ivy league with 8 of them from Harvard or Yale and one from Columbia) but that doesn't mean you have to live or be from the Northeast to go to one of those schools. I would like to know the percentage of the graduates from Ivy League schools that are from out of state. People from all over the country go to Ivy League schools and since Ivy League schools seem to be the primary source for Supreme Court candidates there goes that meaningless chart of law schools across the country. As for the meaningless religious chart and college degrees it seems odd for Hindus which are a tiny portion of our society to be on top of that list. Matter of fact it seems like the top of that list consists mainly of those with the smallest population such as atheists, Buddhists, and other minority groups in this country. It looks like most of the Supreme Court justices fall into the below average of that chart so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make? I'm not buying there are less evangelical Christian college graduates than Hindus. Even if the comparison is factoring in proportion or ratio of population to college degree for the argument you are making it is an apples and oranges comparison. I don't even have to look it up to know that there are hundreds of evangelical Christians with college degrees to every one Hindu. I thought your point was about the numbers? Also it looks like evangelicals on that spirograph chart are even with Catholics and 6 of the Supreme Court justices are Catholic. I would start with correctly reading the chart, then get back to me. And for the hundredth time, I'm talking in averages. Not absolutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.