A Prayer For Ricky Meany
According to researchers in the Texas Legislative Study Group, 17.3 percent of the state's population lives in poverty, 4.26 million people. 66 percent of Latino children and 59 percent of black children live in low-income families, compared to 25 percent of white children. 28 percent or 6.1 million of the population of Texas is uninsured, the largest share of uninsured in the nation. And if you are a woman with a child and in financial straits, don't come knocking on Uncle Tex's door for a handout. In 2010, the average monthly benefit for Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) recipients in Texas was $26.86, the lowest in the country. Yes, that's for a month. You want more, you better pray. But so far that hasn't worked in Texas.
Perry didn't pray about any of that or the fact that Texas is 50th in workers' compensation, 50th in percent of women receiving prenatal care, 50th in percent of non-elderly women with health care, 50th in per capita spending on mental health, 49th in per capita state spending on Medicaid. Texas was sad before he became governor but Rick Perry has turned the state into a tragedy.
Maybe that's because we aren't all doing our share to help our neighbors or perhaps we aren't praying enough to be heard. Perry, of course, wants to privatize much of government and believes that faith-based groups, individuals, and non-profits can help reduce the burden on government. This is what you'd expect of a conservative man of faith, and that he would do his personal part to help the less fortunate (since the government he is running clearly does not give a damn about "the least of these"). The evidence in Rick Perry's tax returns, however, indicates he may have missed some Sunday school classes on giving.
In 2007, the governor of Texas earned $1,092,810. According to his IRS form, he gave $90 of that total to his church. He was a tad more generous in 2008 when the governor's adjusted gross income was $277,667 and he donated $2,850 to his church. Perry was feeling less magnanimous in 2009 when he earned $200,370 but shows all zeroes as a line item for church donations. For the years 2000-2009, Governor Perry's adjusted gross income on his tax returns adds up to $2,694,253 and church donations are $14,293. He did, however, manage to itemize each article of clothing and household items he donated to Goodwill, which amounted to a deduction of $30,768 during those same nine years.
Perry isn't exactly troubled by daily expenses, either. He lives in a $10,000 per month mansion, which the state is leasing for him since fire destroyed the historic residence of the governor. No fretting about making mortgage payments, and health care is provided, along with all transportation costs, and he does not pay for utilities, food, or property taxes. Maybe he could have edged up those church donations a bit without much personal suffering.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-mo...comm_ref=false
The Biggest Religious Movement You Never Heard of: Nine Things You Need to Know About Rick Perry's Prayer Event
“Perry’s endorsers are not just a random group of radical evangelists making outrageous statements,” researcher Rachel Tabachnick subsequently wrote at Alternet.org. “These are the apostles and prophets of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), the biggest international religious movement you never heard of.” Almost simultaneously, investigative reporter Forrest Wilder of the Texas Observer published an extensive article on Perry's prayer event and his endorsers, “Rick Perry's Army of God.”
The NAR's intellectual godfather, C. Peter Wagner, one of Perry's early endorsers, brags that it's the most significant change in how Christianity is practiced since the Protestant Reformation. Like him or not, in a sense he's right: With tens, even hundreds of millions of followers worldwide, the NAR's stress on Godlike prophetic and apostolic powers, its revisions of end-time prophecies, its methodology of “spiritual warfare,” and its agenda of theocratic dominion over all aspects of society are not just threatening to modern secular democracy and the religious pluralism it protects, they have been sharply criticized by other conservative Christians as unbiblical, deviant teachings, even a form of the very demonic practices they obsessively declare war against
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/151911
FYI...
Slave isn't the correct term for the word used. The person is "bonded" to the other, but wasn't a slave as we think of one through our history.
Don't argue semantics with me. Did the girl had to please the man that bought her?
Wow...
The NAB is really wrong here. It's not if the servant takes longer to die that it's OK, it's that the servant can be hit for consecutive days.
The problem is that all the English translations are written to favor the ruling powers. Need to strive to understand the original language.There's lots OT crazy stuff that Bible-thumping literalists just ignore.
One of the biblical teachings is to obey the laws of man. Such practices have been around before Judeo-Christian values have spread. It would be obvious to say the Jehova never tried to micromanage man's existence, in fact, made man ruler of earth and others.
Living in bondage was a common practice of ancient times. Men were the laborers and women were the life bringers. For someone of no assets and no ability to provide for one self, they became "bonded" to other and served them. Women were treated in a similar fashion, needed the labor of men to survive. Granted, it's a way of life that we would never think right, but these were different times, and no government handouts.
Still arguing semantics?
Call it what you will.Still arguing semantics?
Tell me, what were the options of the day?
As far as the topic we're discussing is concerned, the options were owning slaves and not owning slaves.
What about those who couldn't provide for themselves? The point is, this was the social system of the time. There wasn't a nanny state. If you couldn't provide for yourself, you were en indentured servant.
Again, what were the options for those who could not provide for themselves?
So God approved of indentured servitude at one point in time? That's messed up. It's even worse that he believes that indentured servants can be beaten to near death with no repercussions for their owner.
So you think Biblical teachings only apply for the time they were given?
Under that viewpoint, the Bible is in effect obsolete. You really can't have it both ways.
Please explain.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bondage
Listed synonym for "bonded" or "bondage":
slavery
enslavement
servility
servitude
Listed antonyms:
freedom
liberty
If the bible was written for a different social system and a different time period, why do Republicans think it holds so much weight in how laws should be made for this time period and this social system?
If someone can't provide for themselves now, is it okay for them to become indentured servants?
I might have to enslave the next homeless person I see. It's only right if he can't provide for himself.
Stupid idiots. You can bond them to you. That's totally different.
I don't think any reasonable person disputes the idea that the laws of the time were for those time. The 10 commandments however are for all times.
Please note they are synonyms. Not an exact match.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bondage
Listed synonym for "bonded" or "bondage":
slavery
enslavement
servility
servitude
Listed antonyms:
freedom
liberty
I'll ask you the same thing. What other option would there be?
Why? Did God all of a sudden change his opinion on those thing?
So the Bible is the absolute word of God, except when it isn't.
We're talking about the bible, not about the laws of the time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
