“You are to construct a table of acacia wood, thirty-six inches long, eighteen inches wide, and twenty-seven inches high. Overlay it with pure gold and make a gold molding all around it. . .You are also to make its plates and cups, as well as its pitchers and bowls for pouring drink offerings. Make them out of pure gold. Put the Bread of the Presence on the table before me at all times.” (CSB – Read the chapter)
In the summer between my junior and senior years of high school, I had the privilege of spending three weeks in Japan as part of a sister-city exchange program. Before going we took several classes to learn about Japanese culture so we didn’t embarrass ourselves or our hosts. One of the most important customs they drilled into our heads was gift giving. Anytime anyone does anything for you in Japan, it is appropriate to respond by giving a gift. The bigger the favor, the bigger the gift. Because of this, they almost never go anywhere empty-handed. In a similar way, Israelites were never to appear before God empty-handed. To help facilitate this, God told them to build a table to leave gifts on. Let’s talk about it.
Back when God was giving instructions for the three different festivals the people were to celebrate each year, one of the things He told Moses was that no one was to appear before Him empty-handed. The reason for that in context was that the people were to be expressing their gratitude for all God had done for them through those festivals. By bringing something to God, the people were reminded that He was the source of the things they were celebrating. It was a physical reminder that they didn’t have or accomplish anything without His abiding help and provision.
Encouraging an outlook of gratitude like this is a good thing. When we think we’ve done everything for ourselves, we tend to become less generous with our friends and neighbors. We are less willing to help when people around us are in need. But gratitude is inherently a directional attitude that requires a personal connection. To put that another way, you can’t be grateful to no one. Gratitude assumes someone else – another person – has done something for you. But if there is no other person, then to whom are you grateful? The answer is no one.
This is why religious people tend to be more grateful in their outlook than non-religious people. It is why religious people (but especially Christians) tend to be more generous than non-religious people. When we are not grateful to anyone, when no one has done anything to or for us to whom we can respond, we tend not to be grateful to anyone or do anything to express that attitude. You see, gratitude comes with a debt. When someone else has done something for us, we owe them a debt of gratitude. There are two ways to pay that debt. We can return the favor directly, or we can pay it forward to another person.
God’s commands for Israel when He was still working to establish them as a nation with Him as their God were mostly about returning the favor directly by having them bring various offerings to Him. He was doing worldview shaping with them. They were to learn to think of Him as the source for everything. There were not multiple different gods among whom they needed to split their time and devotion depending on their circumstances. There was only Him. Once this thinking was established, and they were reliably thinking of Him as their source for everything (a mindset that took a very long time to truly ingrain in their cultural hearts and minds), He could begin to direct them toward paying it forward as the right and proper way to express their gratitude.
One of the ways God was helping to shape this kind of thinking in them through the tabernacle instructions was with this table. It was to reflect the same design sense as the rest of the inner sanctuary of the tabernacle in that it was to be completely covered in gold. Also, like all the rest of the most sacred items, no one was to touch it directly. That’s the reason for the rings and the poles. We can also see here the ways God was still meeting the people where they were in terms of how they were thinking about divine beings more generally in order to shape that in the direction He was trying to get them to go. The table was to have plates and cups and other eating utensils. It was to be set like a person – in this case a god – could eat there.
The more important function of the table, though, was to be the location for a daily bread offering that was to be placed before God. The priests were to bake a fresh loaf of bread each day and set it on the table. This was bread dedicated to God that was actually eaten by the priests after its day on the table. The one exception which Jesus would later point to as a way of advancing a correct understanding of the Sabbath was when David and his men ate it while on the run from Saul.
The reason for the bread was symbolic. Bread has always been a basic necessity for life. Every human culture has had some form of bread that was and is one of their most basic food staples. By offering a daily gift of bread to God on this sacred table, the people were regularly reminded that God was the ultimate provider of the bread.
This daily bread in the tabernacle and later the temple helps provide the most important context for Jesus’ declaration that He is the bread of life. His being the spiritual bread of life is part of how He fulfilled and still fulfills the requirements of the old covenant so that we can enjoy the benefits of the new covenant. As the bread of life, Jesus appears daily before the Father. He is fresh and new each day. As one who was fully human, He gives of Himself as a gift to the Father on our behalf each and every day. Because He is the perfect gift being entirely without sin, the Father accepts this gift and accepts us – all of us – with Him.
In this way (although not only this way), it is through Jesus that we have access to the Father. Our gratitude for this should be immense. But because Jesus gives of Himself to the Father for us, we can express this gratitude best by keeping Jesus’ commands. Actually, scratch that. We can express this gratitude best by keeping Jesus’ command. He only gave one that counts. We are to love one another after the pattern of His own love for us. That is the best expression of our gratitude to Him, when we love one another. In fact, that is the defining mark of someone who is truly one of His followers, their love for the one anothers around them. Jesus is our gift to God. Let’s express our gratitude for this gift properly by being God’s gift through Jesus to those around us by our love.
One last thing. Here’s an artist’s digital rendering of the tabernacle table to help you get your mind around what it might have looked like. Have a great start to your week.
The Nexus 
When you assert religious people are more generous could you be more specific?
LikeLike
https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics-on-u-s-generosity/
Scroll down to the section on religion and charitable giving. The numbers speak for themselves. Religious people give far more than non-religious people including to secular causes. They also volunteer more of their time. The most generous states are the ones with the most religious people (and specifically Christian religious people, although Mormons tend to outgive Christians). Conservative people (who tend to be more religious) make a little less money on average than more liberal people (who tend to be less religious), but give substantially more.
On a secular worldview (you pick the flavor), there’s not a driving reason to be generous with others like there is in many (but not all) religious worldviews. This is especially true when it comes to the comparison between Christians and non-religious people.
For instance, the largest disaster relief organizations in the world are the Southern Baptist Disaster Relief ministry and Samaritan’s Purse. Religious (and in this case explicitly Christian) people are far more likely to voluntarily give of their time and resources to help other people than secular people are. We can (and should) hypothesize as to why that is, but the numbers speak for themselves.
In case you want more….
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/
LikeLike
So why do you think this is?
LikeLike
Honestly, because the Christian worldview encourages generosity in ways a secular worldview does not. You can get there on a secular worldview, but you have to do some work and overcome a whole lot of very reasonable (on secularism) arguments to the contrary. With the Christian worldview, on the other hand, it’s baked into the cake.
LikeLike
I don’t think I’ve heard of such arguments?
What are they?
LikeLike
Let’s start here: Do you consider generosity to be a good thing?
LikeLike
Are you asking me from a personal perspective or is this one of the secular arguments against giving?
LikeLike
Just personally. Do you think generosity is a good thing?
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
Good. I agree. Why? What is it that should motivate a person toward generosity?
LikeLike
In general terms, to help out.
When do you get to the secular arguments you mentioned or are we going for a detour?
LikeLike
I’m working us in that direction. No detour intended. Why should you help out someone else?
LikeLike
Rather you just get to the arguments instead of the twenty questions which, to be honest, are beginning to be irritating.
LikeLike
I’m just thinking through what it would be that would rationally motivate a secular person toward generosity that is not the result of borrowed capital from the Christian worldview.
On a purely secular worldview, being generous with someone who either can’t repay the favor at all, or who isn’t either an immediate family member or else a member of your immediate tribe doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense in Darwinian terms. You are taking resources that could be used to further your own aims or those of your family or larger tribe, and committing them to people who have no means of helping you and, if history is any guide, likely won’t.
I would argue that on a secular worldview, generosity doesn’t ultimately make sense. This is why non-religious people tend to be less generous than religious people generally, but especially Christian people.
LikeLike
So why does generosity make sense from the perspective of ac Christian worldview?
LikeLike
Beyond the fact that it’s commanded of us, it’s a function of living out Jesus’ command to love one another after the pattern of His love for us. Jesus was generous with His very life with us, laying it down as a sacrifice on our behalf. Being generous with others with our resources falls perfectly in line with that.
Here’s another reason. Because God is the source of everything, it all ultimately belongs to Him. The things we call “ours” aren’t actually. Instead, we are stewards of His resources. Because of this, it is right and proper for us to use the resources He has given us to manage for Him after the pattern of His use of His stuff. And God’s pattern is one of generosity.
And one more reason. God has provided everything for us. It all comes from Him. Our gratitude for this is and rightly should be profound. Yet we can’t give God anything He doesn’t already have. What we can do, though, is to pay our gratitude forward by being generous with others even and especially when they can’t return the favor to us.
I’m going to assume from the standpoint of pattern that you don’t agree with me on much of this (although you could surprise me and simply say, “okay, that sounds good.”). I’m curious why you think generosity is a good thing. Helping out…okay…but why. What makes that a good thing to do on a purely secular worldview framework? And I don’t just mean helping out your neighbor next door who can return the favor sometime. Why would it be a good thing to take a week (or much more if you can afford it) to go somewhere else in the world at potentially great personal expense, and serve people you’ve never met and who could in no ways return the gesture?
LikeLike
Aside from the proselytizing drivel your reasons are ostensibly based on what you have been instructed to do via the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth rather than any genuine concern for your fellow human.
In other words, if you hadn’t been told to be generous you wouldn’t have done so off your own bat,correct?
LikeLike
First, I wasn’t doing any proselytizing. I was explaining arguments from out of the Christian worldview. Second, no, generosity is eminently reasonable on the Christian worldview absent any command to practice it. That’s why I said all three of those reasons go beyond any sort of a command. The character and example of Jesus are what motivate genuine concern for my fellow human. So, no, that is not even remotely correct. That position is uncharitable, unreasonable, and, honestly, irrational.
Again for you, though, what is it that motivates generosity on a secular worldview?
LikeLike
You laid out reasons based on your religious beliefs, ergo, what you believe the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth said.
My follow up question.
Do you believe you would still consider generosity if it were not for your bible/ religion?
LikeLike
Absent the Christian worldview, no, there’s not a similarly compelling reason for generosity. And the numbers bear that out.
LikeLike
In that dare this does not say much for the character of individual who calls themself a Christian.
LikeLike
Nor anyone who calls themselves non-religious. And that perfectly fits with the Christian doctrine of sin. Which is why the Christian worldview is better than its many alternatives.
LikeLike
Ouch!
Not that old sin canard again?
This only drives home the point that Christians only do good things because they are commanded to do so, rather than exercising critical thinking and personal conviction/understanding.
LikeLike
Or, by way of their critical thinking, they recognize the goodness and rightness of the Christian worldview and its call to generosity and compassion, and adopt it for that reason. But, I agree with you that absent the Christian worldview people don’t naturally choose generosity or compassion or kindness. Yes, there are absolutely many notable exceptions, but those are consistently exceptions to the rule. The very fact that you think any of those are good things at all just bears out how deeply influenced you are by the Christian worldview in the first place. Before Christianity, things like compassion and kindness and generosity and humility were not consider good things at all. Christianity made that change. And again, the numbers bear this out. Even if the only reason Christians do the good they do is because of a command (that’s nonsense, of course, but for the sake of argument), that obedience is resulting in more good being accomplished in the world by Christians than by non-religious people who have rejected such a command.
LikeLike
And along with all that compassion and goodness we had slavery, burning witches and lots of other great things your religion championed.
Would you be generous if it weren’t for your religious convictions?
LikeLike
You keep bringing up the slavery canard, but Christians are also the ones who introduced to the world the idea that slavery is a moral evil. We’re the ones who have worked the hardest to overturn it over the course of the last 2,000 years. The slave trade in your own homeland wouldn’t have ended but for the work of a committed Christian named William Wilberforce. It was Christian abolitionist in my own country who led the efforts that ultimately resulted in a civil war that was always really about slavery whatever some modern southern apologists like to claim.
The burning of witches tended to happen in areas where the church had the least amount of influence and people were more given to pre-Christian superstitions than sound biblical theology.
But again, people claiming the mantle of Christ have been guilty of many awful things. I’ve never tried to deny that. That makes them wrong, not the religion itself. People claiming the name of Christ have been responsible for many more good things. But we’ve been over that before.
As for me, who knows. Based on the cultural numbers, it’s not likely. Most non-religious people aren’t generous. Or rather they are only spontaneous and emotional givers, responding to emotive pleas rather than pursuing it in some kind of a meaningful, sustained, ultimately transformative kind of way. The Christian worldview introduced that kind of generosity to the world. It didn’t exist before it and it still mostly doesn’t exist without it. I’m curious that you are so committed to the vileness of Christianity that you have to keep looking for ways to explain away the facts here rather than just accepting them as they are. Why, it’s almost like you’re trying to deny science. Surely not! ;~)
LikeLike
Yes, Wilbelerforce.. Blah blah.. 🤦
Witches:The Inquisition?
If you don’t know that casts some serious doubts on your credibility and the religious posturing in which you gleefully indulge.
There are oddles of good Christians. Although I suspect these folk would he good in spite of their vile religion.
Explain away the facts?
Have you presented any?
LikeLike
There you go hand-waving away a bit of history that doesn’t comport with your preferred narrative again. And I’ve given you several examples of good accomplished because of the Christian worldview over the course of our conversation. Like you did there with Wilberforce, you just hand-wave those away because they don’t fit your narrative.
LikeLike
Hand waving away?
Wilberforce?
No, sir, it is just that Christians love to wave old Bill’s name about so much it is a sickening cliché.
You need to remember that the US of eh? had a civil war over the right to own “Darkies” and more Americans lost their lives in that little spat than any other war.
Soca few Christians eventually developed a conscience? Whoopy frigging do!
Now all the freed African slave had to worry about was segregation and rampant racism. Oh, and discovering just how wonderful and loving was de lawd Jeezus, of course, bless his cotton socks.
Doesn’t your Christian history make you in the least bit ashamed?
There are times it makes me want to vomit.
LikeLike
I think I’m caught up again. Seven different conversations is hard to maintain.
LikeLike
Yes, let’s refine the topics. Your choice.
LikeLike
Heh. You pick which of your responses now you’re least concerned with my own response ;~)
Okay, new topic: Has Taylor Swift made my Kansas City Chiefs and the NFL generally the laughingstock of the world, or more relevant than it’s ever been? And…go.
LikeLike
Whoosh…
Right over my head.
LikeLike
Google it ;~) I personally tend to lean in the direction of the total ruination of the whole thing. But if that comes in the context of a third consecutive Super Bowl title, I’ll only complain about it a little bit. I still refuse to listen to any of her music.
LikeLike
I’ll get to whatever it is tomorrow. Working on the sermon for a couple of weeks from now.
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting topic.
1.When we consider the bible is supposed to be inspired by your god, Yahweh, and we read passages that show Yahweh actively endorsing slavery, why then, if Yahweh was capable of outlining a strict moral code in the Ten Commandments, which included laws against murder, theft, lying etc did he NOT include a commandment that forbade the owning of another human being?
2. Based on the Bible and the BIBLE ALONE do you consider these actions of Yahweh moral or immoral?
LikeLike
Oh, that’s fun. Okay, give me a bit to get today’s blog written and check a couple of other things off my list, and I’ll share some thoughts. We’ve touched on that before more than once, so I may not say anything new, but I’ll give it some focused attention all the same.
In the meantime, give this a watch and I’d be curious to know what you think.
LikeLike
One word:
Bullshit!
Again, based on the bible alone, do I take it you consider the actions of your god, Yahweh regarding owning another human being to be moral?
LikeLike
What about those three arguments do you not agree with specifically and why?
LikeLike
I don’t want to do this dance, Jonathan.
I would prefer if you addressed my comments rather than discuss the video, which is appalling by the way.
As Yahweh actively endorsed slavery in the Bible ( and I can pull up numerous relevent verses if you really are that unfamiliar with the Bible) why did he not include prohibitions on owning another human being in the Ten Commandments?
2. Based on the bible text and the bible alone do you consider the actions of Yahweh in this regard moral or immoral?
LikeLike
Well, there you went and made it less fun.
I’m not trying to do a dance. You dismissed the whole thing with a wave of your hand, and I asked for specificity.
As I said before, we’ve already talked about this…more than once…so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up again.
I did read the comments on the post and it’s mostly one commenter who ranted for a while. It looks like he (or she) just went to some atheist website and cut and pasted (and always with the KJV…why don’t atheists ever use a more accurate translation?). The comments reflect zero knowledge of the Hebrew language that I can tell. It’s the same old, “but the Bible says” complaints that always demonstrate almost no contextual understanding of the Scriptures.
Your question is nothing more than a “gotcha” question, and not a serious one that I can tell. I might as well ask you why all of the explicitly atheistic governments have been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of their own people and have absolutely abysmal human rights records when atheism is supposedly so much more morally enlightened than Christianity?
Yes, slavery is mentioned in the law. Yes, it is allowed and even assumed. No, it is not condoned as a good thing. Yes, God put restrictions on slavery that didn’t exist anywhere else in the world at the time. No, God’s actions aren’t immoral.
The bigger historical truth is that the only reason you would even ask a question like this is because you assume the immorality of slavery. But, absent the influence and impact of the Christian worldview, you wouldn’t question the morality of slavery at all. No one did in any meaningful sense until Christians started (very early on in our history) arguing against it and trying to overturn it. Yes, there have been a whole lot of people claiming the banner of Christian who participated in, supported, or otherwise assumed that slavery was an okay thing. And, yes, they took some verses out of context from both the Old and the New Testaments to justify their position. But they were uniformly wrong. The clear moral trajectory of the Scriptures points in the direction of the immorality of slavery which, again, is why Christians started publicly opposing it almost immediately, often at risk to their own lives.
You are once again here guilty of a selective reading of history carefully crafted to make an argument against Christianity in a way that borders on outright dishonesty. Let’s pick something else that doesn’t make you look quite so much like you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about when it comes to the Christian worldview.
LikeLike
You are once again guilty of trying to defend the actions of your god, Yahweh with regards slavery.
Furthermore, why does there have to be “context” with regards owning another human being/ regarding them as property as your god instructed?
Are you once again defending such actions?
My “reading” of Christianity is as always based on those who are or were Christians and includes the Biblical text.
You did not answer my question regarding the Commandments.
Let me refresh in case you missed it as that old pink mist of rage descended and clouded your judgment.
As your god, Yahweh included commands against murder, theft, lying etc, why do you think he did not include a single law against the owning of another human being?
LikeLike
I’m not trying to defend. I’m simply saying what is.
The shortest answer to your question is that I don’t know why He didn’t include an eleventh command prohibiting slavery. He could have included an eleventh command prohibiting a lot of things that we understand to be explicitly wrong today and which the broader witness of the Scriptures makes clear isn’t consistent with His character that He didn’t in that context. We’re left to speculate why exactly that is. The presuppositions we bring to the question will play an enormous role in determining the nature and shape of that speculation.
LikeLike
It says a lot about his complete lack of morality that he condoned slavery and evangelical Christians like you are left to make excuses for such a revolting God.
Furthermore, don’t you think it casts a certain amount of doubt upon your own personal integrity that you would defend slavery?
LikeLike
Now you’re just being silly to keep trying to make a point that doesn’t have much of a bearing in reality. I’ve never defended slavery and the Scriptures don’t condone it. They allow for it. Two different things. God meets people where they are and moves them forward morally from there. That’s how He’s always operated. I’ve explained that before. You didn’t like the idea then either. Oh well.
LikeLike
Your god didn’t meet people where they were when it came to murder, blasphemtmh, theft, lying etc. Why not?
So in truth, once again, you are using religio- speak to defend the heinous actions of your god Yahweh and his condoning, and ordering/regulating the ownership of another human being.
Which earmarks him… Oh, I’m sorry… Him as an immoral monster.
I understand you are commanded to defend your god, Yahweh, but it doesn’t get much better after he manifests in the flesh in the New Testament.
And it makes your personal integrity on this matter rather shady, to be honest.
LikeLike
Wait, you think I’m commanded to defend God? How silly. He doesn’t need me to defend Him and doesn’t command any such thing anywhere in the Scriptures.
Once again, slavery is presented, not commended. It is regulated, not condoned.
As for why it’s not outright prohibited, again, I don’t know. One thought is that murder, lying, and theft can completely undermine the establishing of a stable society in ways that slavery does not. But, that’s just speculation on my part because the text doesn’t give a clear answer. Perhaps God in His wisdom knew that was something that wasn’t going to take then, and so He laid a theological foundation that was built on by the New Testament authors to ultimately point His followers not only away from it themselves, but to oppose it even at great personal cost.
Just because you refuse to understand the text fully and to always and only take one part of it in the context of the whole thing doesn’t mean I have any dearth of integrity when holding to it.
LikeLike
The Great Commission?
Apologetics is what your religion is all about, is it not?
Slavery is not only presented it is commanded, codified and condoned.
I am not going to post specific verses as you know them only too well, so please stop lying on your god’s behalf, that really is below the belt.
And your apologetic drivel in defense of your god’s heinous actions is truly gobsmacking.
Again there is no context that can justify the ownership of another human being. That you continue to assert this I am sorry to say illustrates either your complete indoctrination or an utter collapse of any integrity you may have had.
LikeLike
Have you read the Great Commission lately? That’s not about defending God at all. Might want to give that one a fresh look if that’s what your thought on it is.
And, no, slavery is merely presented and regulated, not commended. I’ll aim to get to those videos on Monday, but that’s not likely to be a point you’re going to get me to budge on. I agree there’s no context that justifies owning another human being. But God for some reason understood that explicitly forbidding that wasn’t the wisest long-term approach to undoing this moral evil. Instead, He took the approach of regulating it in such a way that pointed to the equal dignity of all people such that His followers would eventually figure it out for themselves. We did, and we were pretty much the first ones in the world to do that in any kind of a serious way. No other culture outside of those directly influenced by the Christian worldview has ever meaningfully opposed slavery. Many around the world not directly impacted by it to a critical mass degree still allow for its practice, if quietly because of the moral disapproval of the majority of the world that has been impacted by the Christian worldview. Sorry, you won’t convince me of any kind of a lack of integrity on this point.
LikeLike
I actually meant to write commanded.
Sorry for the Typo… Again.
If Yahweh considered they needed to figure it out for themselves why did he not take the same approach to such things as theft, lying, murder etc?
How could owning another human being demonstrate equal dignity?
I will remind you once again, your country had a civil war over slavery and both sides believed they were perfectly justified ( no doubt using the bible) and both sides were Christian.
As you seem rigid in your belief that Christianity was the basis for the opposition of slavery, even though the bible endorses slavery throughout, Old and New, please direct me to a single verse that condemns slavery, or has Jesus saying it is bad – not love thy neighbour or all people are equal etc, but actually states condemns slavery.
If you can identify just one verse I will retract my assertion regarding lack of integrity.
LikeLike
I see your slavery video and call.
LikeLike
This is brilliant.
This young man ‘owns’ ( pun intended) Christian apologist de Souza and if this is what you are defending with regards slavery and your god, Yahweh you really need to indulge in some very serious self reflection.
I would normally end such a comment with the word ‘enjoy’, but if you choose to watch it I doubt this will be the case
LikeLike
This is brilliant.
This young man ‘owns’ ( pun intended) Christian apologist de Souza and if this is what you are defending with regards slavery and your god, Yahweh you really need to indulge in some very serious self reflection.
I would normally end such a comment with the word ‘enjoy’, but if you choose to watch it I doubt this will be the case
LikeLike
I’ll get to all these later…probably Monday now. What’s funny to me is that you raised this issue without any intention of it being a debate. Your mind was already made up regardless of what I said. Seems silly to ask questions whose answers your already confident of knowing and to which I couldn’t have said anything you were going to agree with that wasn’t in lock step with what you had already decided was true.
LikeLike
I suggested you pick a topic for discussion because of a the disparate threads.
You replied I should choose.
I chose slavery in the bible ( although the question of the barbaric human sacrifice remains unanswersd) and now you seem to be complaining?
If you would rather not continue the discussion on slavery, fair enough.
But you might find the video of de Souza educational, if only to see how much of a disingenious fool he is and to hone your own game.
As the saying goes, use it, don’t use it.
Seems your ‘mate’ Tom is a bit miffed at my behaviour and would have blocked me already. So much for open debate and his big boy pants.
😉
Enjoy the weekend, Jonathan.
T’ra
LikeLike
Oh, and I strongly suggest you read some of the comments left by viewers.
LikeLike
I think that finally makes me caught up with everything. That’s probably it from me today. Have a happy Tuesday.
LikeLike
Typo: In that case
LikeLike
I knew what you meant 😉
LikeLike
I know, but I was trying to help out.
Typos tend to disrupt the flow of the dialogue and this platform does not have an edit facility and I know how frustrating it can be sometimes having to make sense of typos.
LikeLike
I appreciate it. I can always edit from my end if you want, but I’d rather leave your comments fully alone. I don’t want anyone wondering if things have been changed all. That’s not fair to either of us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Date night. I’ll be back in touch tomorrow.
LikeLike
Now all the freed African slave had to worry about was segregation and rampant racism
Really? You want to go there? The country of Apartheid? Cause black people have had it so much better in South Africa? Please tell us about the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Immorality Amendment and the Population Registration Act? The country where 7% whites ruled over 93% blacks? You see my son was a history major in college and I proofread many of his papers. One of his courses was Apartheid and South Africa.
There may be a lot of countries that can preach to the USA about race relations but South Africa would not be one of them. Seems like the pot calling the kettle black, no pun intended.
LikeLike
@Thomas
Just a heads up, I live in South Africa but I am not South African and Apartheid was as vile a system as one could imagine.
Ironically, like slavery in the US the Bible was used to justify much of it, including separate Churches.
Oh, isn’t the Christian religion so wonderful!
I came to SA on a 12 month work contract, many moons ago and met someone and stayed.
When the first democratic elections took place non citizens like me (I am a permanent resident) were allowed to vote( not allowed since) so I stood in line for hours to cast mine and have never once supported Apartheid.
So while you were looking forward to gleefully jumping all over me, looks like you rather peed down your leg. Oops!
Don’t you feel like a schmuck?
LikeLike