“You had to be a renegade those days.”
It’s interesting to me how different Bible translations subtly change the meaning…
BibleHub does a decent job of showing several versions along with corresponding Biblical texts. As an example of wildly varying interpretations, the harsh master in this verse has also been depicted as: unjust, ill-tempered, cross, cruel, froward, severe, perverse, or just plain unreasonable. Just noting how strange that is.
Also, we know with certainty that this verse and several others like it have been used to justify American slavery and racism historically as well as present-day. But you want a real mind-blower? I challenge you to *try* reading a contemporary apologist’s take on it, which starts out saying the Bible wasn’t referring to slavery as we’ve come to know it today (Roman slavery was different, donchyaknow), going so far as to claim that the actual interpretation of “unreasonable” means someone with a crooked spine from scoliosis, and ultimately finding a way to turn it all into the persecution of Christians and the suffering of poor innocent Jesus. I guess on the bright side, there’s only so long they can continue to kick up dust by dancing around the elephant in the room. Eventually, the haze of denial and deceit will settle. Maybe I’m just being optimistic. Anyway, for shits and giggles, if you dare: The Submission of Slaves to Masters by Bob Deffinbaugh
In the following video, you will hear Creationist Leader, Ken Ham, admit that Creationism is not scientific.
The nail in coffin? THE BIBLE OF COURSE!
BTW, if you’ve ever been curious, on December 24th from 10am to 3pm on X-mas Eve, admission to the Creation Museum is free.
Which can only be responded with:
“Mr. Speaker,” Maryland’s Democrat Rep. Chris van Hollen addressed Republican Jason Chaffetz, House Speaker Pro Tempore, “Pursuant to Clause 4 of Rule 22, I move that the House take from the Speaker’s table the Senate Amendment to the House Joint Resolution 59, recede from its amendment and concur in the Senate Amendment to open the government now.”
Speaker Chaffetz: “Under Section 2 of House Resolution 368, that motion may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee.”
van Hollen: “Parliamentary inquiry . . . the Standing Rule of the House reads, Mr. Speaker, ‘When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a Bill or Resolution with House or Senate Amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged.’ Mr.Speaker, my question is, is this parliamentary status of the bill, does it meet the requirements of 22/4?”
Speaker Chaffetz: “The House has altered that operation of that Standing Rule.”
van Hollen: “. . . This Standing Rule of the House, which I have here, has been altered by the House, is that what the Speaker is saying?”
Speaker Chaffetz: “The House adopted a resolution altering.”
van Hollen: “Parliamentary inquiry, Mr.Speaker, when was that alteration made?”
Speaker Chaffetz: “House Resolution 368.”
van Hollen: “House Resolution 368 . . . Parliamentary Inquiry . . . October 1st, resolved and Section 2 of that says any motion pursuant to Clause 4 of Rule 22 relating to the House Joint Resolution may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee, is that what you’re referring to, Mr. Speaker?” (Emphasis added).
Speaker Chaffetz: “That is the resolution.”
van Hollen: “So, Mr. Speaker . . . Parliamentary Inquiry. H. Res. 368 changed the Standing Rules of the House to take away from any member of the House the privilege of calling up the Senate bill to immediately re-open the government, is that right?” (Emphasis added).
Speaker Chaffetz: “It did change the operation of the Standing Rule, right.”
van Hollen: “So just, parliamentary inquiry, a privileged motion . . . would have allowed any member of this House, Republican or Democrat, to call up the Senate bill to open the government, is that right?”
Speaker Chaffetz: “The Chair did not give an advisory opinion on that.”
van Hollen: “But Mr. Speaker, a privileged resolution as cited in Rule 22/4 of the Standing Rules of the House would allow any member of the House to offer that resolution, is that right?”
Speaker Chaffetz: “The Chair will not give an advisory opinion.”
van Hollen: ” . . . You just . . . said that was changed so that it would no longer be a privileged motion for any member, but it would be exclusively the right of the Republican leader or his designee, am I right about that?”
Speaker Chaffetz: “The House will follow House Resolution 368.”
van Hollen: “. . . I want to be absolutely clear that H.Res 368 changed the Standing Rules of the House so that only the Republican leader or his designee . . . Parliamentary Inquiry . . . Is the majority leader or his designee . . . on the floor of the House today? Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker . . . the Rules Committee under the Rules of the House changed the Standing Rules of the House to take away the right of any member to move to vote to open the government and gave that right exclusively to the Republican leader, is that right?”
Speaker Chaffetz: “The House adopted that Resolution.”
van Hollen: “I make my motion, Mr. Speaker. I renew my motion that under the regular Standing Rules of the House, Clause 4, Rule 22, that the House take up the Senate Amendments and open the government now.”
Speaker Chaffetz: “Under Section 2 of House Resolution 368 that motion may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee.”
van Hollen: “Why were the rules rigged to keep the government shut down? Well, Mr. Speaker, I think democracy has been suspended, Mr. Speaker.”
I’ve lost my ability to make sarcastic commentary about this kind of thing. Maybe it will come back to me. Reportedly, the eagle was not seriously injured. Via BuzzFeed/ Oral Roberts University Students Released A Live Eagle During A Church Service And It Flew Into A Window
(Thanks, Thomas Wirt)
If this didn’t ring so true, it might have fallen under the “fuh-did-I-just-see?” category, but sadly, I’m logging it under History.
“You want to know about my motivation, don’t you? Well. It is the kind of sentiments anyone would have when he actually sees refugees face to face, begging with tears in their eyes. He just cannot help but sympathize with them. Among the refugees were the elderly and women. They were so desperate that they went so far as to kiss my shoes, Yes, I actually witnessed such scenes with my own eyes. Also, I felt at that time, that the Japanese government did not have any uniform opinion in Tokyo. Some Japanese military leaders were just scared because of the pressure from the Nazis; while other officials in the Home Ministry were simply ambivalent.
People in Tokyo were not united. I felt it silly to deal with them. So, I made up my mind not to wait for their reply. I knew that somebody would surely complain about me in the future. But, I myself thought this would be the right thing to do. There is nothing wrong in saving many people’s lives….The spirit of humanity, philanthropy…neighborly friendship…with this spirit, I ventured to do what I did, confronting this most difficult situation—and because of this reason, I went ahead with redoubled courage.” – Chiune Sugihara
“A child in North Carolina spent part of his Easter Sunday morning protesting outside a Winston-Salem church that has vowed not to host any wedding ceremonies until same sex marriage is legalized.”
via Raw Story
“Police said Riddle shot and killed his father, Richard Riddle, 52, as he was leaving Easter services at the Hiawatha Church of God in Christ Sunday afternoon.”
via Fox8 Cleveland
Show me, where is God in all of this?
(I don’t believe, but if I were asked to point it out, god would be there in the face of the woman who wanted to give that angry boy a hug.)