-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D
Actually, we really could make homelessness a thing of the passed, if we but follow God's Law.
In God's law, if someone is hit with financial problems due to whatever reason, they are supposed to be taken care of by their families as slaves for 7 years. And slavery did NOT mean making no money. It meant finding ways to bring in what was needed in whichever way was possible, and then the person gave 90% to the family and kept 10%. And the whole purpose for family was to become a productive unit, so help out however you can.
After the 7 years was up, the person was free to leave, and had seven years of 10% profit to start anew, or could decide to stay. For another 7 years, or permanently.
In practical terms, it would look like this.
I became disabled, but John/hubby took care of me, while I took care of him. I could no longer work outside the home, so I worked in the home. Takes me forever to do chores, but I do them. I also had dinner ready when he came home. I tried making side money, but it never worked out.
Then he became disabled. What should have happened was the two well-off members of my family should have taken us in. At the time, Dad had come down with Alzheimers, but the very beginning stages. (And he is one of the two well-ff members of the family.) We volunteered to live with him in mutual need. He would give us a place to live and food, and we'd help him with housekeeping and whatever else he needed. (And it got to the point where what he needed was someone to remind him what to do next, or what he was trying to do.) With the three of us working together, he could have lived at home longer, and we wouldn't have gone through what we went through when our house foreclosed. (We did make it through that foreclosure. He did not stay in his home as long as he could have though.)
And when all three of us were a wreak, and then Dad was admitted into rehab/assisted-living, we should have landed at brother's steps. Brother had children. Built-in baby sitting services, and there is stuff we could have taught those kids. There is stuff John could teach my brother. John built a two room addition onto his house by himself. Only time he needed help was to lift heavy supplies. He knows how to install plumbing, electricity, and everything else required for any home project. Can't do it anymore, but could have taught the next generation.
If I needed to, I could add to the family income by selling on Etsy-bitsy, or writing articles that sold. I can polish copper, silver, wood, counters, whatever, just as long as you give me enough time to do it. I can crotchet clothes, blankets, booties, and even teddy bear holders.
We're not useless. We're disabled. And had God's law still worked in modern times people would realize family isn't useless.
In God's law, if someone is hit with financial problems due to whatever reason, they are supposed to be taken care of by their families as slaves for 7 years. And slavery did NOT mean making no money. It meant finding ways to bring in what was needed in whichever way was possible, and then the person gave 90% to the family and kept 10%. And the whole purpose for family was to become a productive unit, so help out however you can.
After the 7 years was up, the person was free to leave, and had seven years of 10% profit to start anew, or could decide to stay. For another 7 years, or permanently.
In practical terms, it would look like this.
I became disabled, but John/hubby took care of me, while I took care of him. I could no longer work outside the home, so I worked in the home. Takes me forever to do chores, but I do them. I also had dinner ready when he came home. I tried making side money, but it never worked out.
Then he became disabled. What should have happened was the two well-off members of my family should have taken us in. At the time, Dad had come down with Alzheimers, but the very beginning stages. (And he is one of the two well-ff members of the family.) We volunteered to live with him in mutual need. He would give us a place to live and food, and we'd help him with housekeeping and whatever else he needed. (And it got to the point where what he needed was someone to remind him what to do next, or what he was trying to do.) With the three of us working together, he could have lived at home longer, and we wouldn't have gone through what we went through when our house foreclosed. (We did make it through that foreclosure. He did not stay in his home as long as he could have though.)
And when all three of us were a wreak, and then Dad was admitted into rehab/assisted-living, we should have landed at brother's steps. Brother had children. Built-in baby sitting services, and there is stuff we could have taught those kids. There is stuff John could teach my brother. John built a two room addition onto his house by himself. Only time he needed help was to lift heavy supplies. He knows how to install plumbing, electricity, and everything else required for any home project. Can't do it anymore, but could have taught the next generation.
If I needed to, I could add to the family income by selling on Etsy-bitsy, or writing articles that sold. I can polish copper, silver, wood, counters, whatever, just as long as you give me enough time to do it. I can crotchet clothes, blankets, booties, and even teddy bear holders.
We're not useless. We're disabled. And had God's law still worked in modern times people would realize family isn't useless.
Depleted makes a good point in that the human race is perennially dark. Recent history is no exception.
But I think she misses the point of how Christianity was at least there as a moral proposition and backing for the legal code. A restraint mechanism that will surely incline us toward doom when we get to the next era of great moral decline (one I would argue we're entering).
Think of it this way- you can get into a car crash with a seatbelt on and get banged up pretty bad. But take the seatbelt off and puncture your airbags and you'll surely be disabled for life if not dead.
So while I share your appreciation for some people's historical ignorance, I think the garment-rending Christians are onto something and I find very little humor in it.
I am still dubious to the notion that the behavior you mentioned was considered "okay." It was practiced by a significant enough of a minority of the population to where it became a problem. I'm sure if we could reach for some reliable statistical data we would find most men did not behave in such a way.
Pretty sure you're exaggerating here. It likely happened more often, but was it considered okay?
Where and when was this happening? What law permitted it? Many of the original colonies issued the death penalty for those convicted of infanticide. After the "quickening" (what passed as evidence for life at the time), a woman was barred from killing her baby. Ingestion of poisons to kill an unborn child was likewise banned.
If true, what you propose sounds like some oddball local custom. Back in the 90's a bunch of folks in Kentucky got some brain disease from ingesting squirrel brains. Sure they were Americans on American soil, but an archaeologist or historian claiming "Americans Ate Squirrel Brains" would be stretching the truth.
This is actually something I want to read more about- the moral decline which spurred a moral panic which spurred the Prohibition. But it proves my point more than yours.
From where did that annoying Temperance Movement arise? The churches. It's unfortunate they had to get all political and prohibitive, because the temperance movement was a great success as a social movement .
I am still dubious to the notion that the behavior you mentioned was considered "okay." It was practiced by a significant enough of a minority of the population to where it became a problem. I'm sure though that if we could reach for some reliable statistical data we would find most men did not behave in such a way.
Perhaps my family was puritanical, but I cannot think of one direct descendant from the 1800's who conducted themselves as such. They had to be functional because there was nobody around to bail them out. Plus Jesus told them so.
Pretty sure you're exaggerating here. It likely happened more often, but was it considered okay? What would you consider a "beating?"
No it wasn't. They just kept it a secret. A very nuanced situation to be sure.
Shameful indeed.
Again, I think both you and those you criticize are seeing things through a skewed lens. Our forebears were not angels, but the cross kept their baser appetites restrained. On the whole, they were better behaved than we are. Well enough to build a civilization we're on course to squander under a rancid blend of post-Marxist morality and compulsive narcissism.
But I think she misses the point of how Christianity was at least there as a moral proposition and backing for the legal code. A restraint mechanism that will surely incline us toward doom when we get to the next era of great moral decline (one I would argue we're entering).
Think of it this way- you can get into a car crash with a seatbelt on and get banged up pretty bad. But take the seatbelt off and puncture your airbags and you'll surely be disabled for life if not dead.
So while I share your appreciation for some people's historical ignorance, I think the garment-rending Christians are onto something and I find very little humor in it.
I am still dubious to the notion that the behavior you mentioned was considered "okay." It was practiced by a significant enough of a minority of the population to where it became a problem. I'm sure if we could reach for some reliable statistical data we would find most men did not behave in such a way.
Pretty sure you're exaggerating here. It likely happened more often, but was it considered okay?
Where and when was this happening? What law permitted it? Many of the original colonies issued the death penalty for those convicted of infanticide. After the "quickening" (what passed as evidence for life at the time), a woman was barred from killing her baby. Ingestion of poisons to kill an unborn child was likewise banned.
If true, what you propose sounds like some oddball local custom. Back in the 90's a bunch of folks in Kentucky got some brain disease from ingesting squirrel brains. Sure they were Americans on American soil, but an archaeologist or historian claiming "Americans Ate Squirrel Brains" would be stretching the truth.
This is actually something I want to read more about- the moral decline which spurred a moral panic which spurred the Prohibition. But it proves my point more than yours.
From where did that annoying Temperance Movement arise? The churches. It's unfortunate they had to get all political and prohibitive, because the temperance movement was a great success as a social movement .
I am still dubious to the notion that the behavior you mentioned was considered "okay." It was practiced by a significant enough of a minority of the population to where it became a problem. I'm sure though that if we could reach for some reliable statistical data we would find most men did not behave in such a way.
Perhaps my family was puritanical, but I cannot think of one direct descendant from the 1800's who conducted themselves as such. They had to be functional because there was nobody around to bail them out. Plus Jesus told them so.
Pretty sure you're exaggerating here. It likely happened more often, but was it considered okay? What would you consider a "beating?"
No it wasn't. They just kept it a secret. A very nuanced situation to be sure.
Shameful indeed.
Again, I think both you and those you criticize are seeing things through a skewed lens. Our forebears were not angels, but the cross kept their baser appetites restrained. On the whole, they were better behaved than we are. Well enough to build a civilization we're on course to squander under a rancid blend of post-Marxist morality and compulsive narcissism.
Depleted makes a good point in that the human race is perennially dark. Recent history is no exception.
But I think she misses the point of how Christianity was at least there as a moral proposition and backing for the legal code. A restraint mechanism that will surely incline us toward doom when we get to the next era of great moral decline (one I would argue we're entering).
Think of it this way- you can get into a car crash with a seatbelt on and get banged up pretty bad. But take the seatbelt off and puncture your airbags and you'll surely be disabled for life if not dead.
So while I share your appreciation for some people's historical ignorance, I think the garment-rending Christians are onto something and I find very little humor in it.
I am still dubious to the notion that the behavior you mentioned was considered "okay." It was practiced by a significant enough of a minority of the population to where it became a problem. I'm sure if we could reach for some reliable statistical data we would find most men did not behave in such a way.
Pretty sure you're exaggerating here. It likely happened more often, but was it considered okay?
Where and when was this happening? What law permitted it? Many of the original colonies issued the death penalty for those convicted of infanticide. After the "quickening" (what passed as evidence for life at the time), a woman was barred from killing her baby. Ingestion of poisons to kill an unborn child was likewise banned.
If true, what you propose sounds like some oddball local custom. Back in the 90's a bunch of folks in Kentucky got some brain disease from ingesting squirrel brains. Sure they were Americans on American soil, but an archaeologist or historian claiming "Americans Ate Squirrel Brains" would be stretching the truth.
This is actually something I want to read more about- the moral decline which spurred a moral panic which spurred the Prohibition. But it proves my point more than yours.
From where did that annoying Temperance Movement arise? The churches. It's unfortunate they had to get all political and prohibitive, because the temperance movement was a great success as a social movement .
I am still dubious to the notion that the behavior you mentioned was considered "okay." It was practiced by a significant enough of a minority of the population to where it became a problem. I'm sure though that if we could reach for some reliable statistical data we would find most men did not behave in such a way.
Perhaps my family was puritanical, but I cannot think of one direct descendant from the 1800's who conducted themselves as such. They had to be functional because there was nobody around to bail them out. Plus Jesus told them so.
Pretty sure you're exaggerating here. It likely happened more often, but was it considered okay? What would you consider a "beating?"
No it wasn't. They just kept it a secret. A very nuanced situation to be sure.
Shameful indeed.
Again, I think both you and those you criticize are seeing things through a skewed lens. Our forebears were not angels, but the cross kept their baser appetites restrained. On the whole, they were better behaved than we are. Well enough to build a civilization we're on course to squander under a rancid blend of post-Marxist morality and compulsive narcissism.
But I think she misses the point of how Christianity was at least there as a moral proposition and backing for the legal code. A restraint mechanism that will surely incline us toward doom when we get to the next era of great moral decline (one I would argue we're entering).
Think of it this way- you can get into a car crash with a seatbelt on and get banged up pretty bad. But take the seatbelt off and puncture your airbags and you'll surely be disabled for life if not dead.
So while I share your appreciation for some people's historical ignorance, I think the garment-rending Christians are onto something and I find very little humor in it.
I am still dubious to the notion that the behavior you mentioned was considered "okay." It was practiced by a significant enough of a minority of the population to where it became a problem. I'm sure if we could reach for some reliable statistical data we would find most men did not behave in such a way.
Pretty sure you're exaggerating here. It likely happened more often, but was it considered okay?
Where and when was this happening? What law permitted it? Many of the original colonies issued the death penalty for those convicted of infanticide. After the "quickening" (what passed as evidence for life at the time), a woman was barred from killing her baby. Ingestion of poisons to kill an unborn child was likewise banned.
If true, what you propose sounds like some oddball local custom. Back in the 90's a bunch of folks in Kentucky got some brain disease from ingesting squirrel brains. Sure they were Americans on American soil, but an archaeologist or historian claiming "Americans Ate Squirrel Brains" would be stretching the truth.
This is actually something I want to read more about- the moral decline which spurred a moral panic which spurred the Prohibition. But it proves my point more than yours.
From where did that annoying Temperance Movement arise? The churches. It's unfortunate they had to get all political and prohibitive, because the temperance movement was a great success as a social movement .
I am still dubious to the notion that the behavior you mentioned was considered "okay." It was practiced by a significant enough of a minority of the population to where it became a problem. I'm sure though that if we could reach for some reliable statistical data we would find most men did not behave in such a way.
Perhaps my family was puritanical, but I cannot think of one direct descendant from the 1800's who conducted themselves as such. They had to be functional because there was nobody around to bail them out. Plus Jesus told them so.
Pretty sure you're exaggerating here. It likely happened more often, but was it considered okay? What would you consider a "beating?"
No it wasn't. They just kept it a secret. A very nuanced situation to be sure.
Shameful indeed.
Again, I think both you and those you criticize are seeing things through a skewed lens. Our forebears were not angels, but the cross kept their baser appetites restrained. On the whole, they were better behaved than we are. Well enough to build a civilization we're on course to squander under a rancid blend of post-Marxist morality and compulsive narcissism.