/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I never heard anyone seriously condemning left-handedness.

It's retarded. Far too retarded.

My grandpa has called me wrong handed

Forcing wrong dexterity breaks the brain and leads to psychological disorders. This is well known for people who injure/lose their right arm and have switch to their left one, but it also affects left-handed people turned the other way by force.

Personally I'm ambidextrous thanks to my early childhood piano lessons.

I got beaten for this repeatedly.

It didn't work.

>>558851

Been left handed in writing and many things and ambidexterous in some since Kindegarden.

There are studies that left handed people tend to experience stronger negative emotions but also stronger positive. At the same time, there are also studies of lefties being born in societies/cultures with a lot of conflict (physical) happening.

I've been studious, academic with good grades, majoring in Chemical Engineering in college, talented in playing the trumpet for over 9 years in different orchestral bands, love some creative writing and some poetry and have been pretty moral compared to most kids for all of my life.

Though, my parents raising me in Christianity probably was the main reason I'm a person living by God's word.

>>559129

At home? What were you told?

left handies are freaks

>>559164

What's a "freak"?

>>559134

She wanted me to write with my right but I didn't so I got beaten for it. She gave up though

>>558851

When did i wake up in the 40k universe, where minor mutations are some sign of moral corruption, and mutants are sinners?

>>559167

Who's "she" and what did she tell you? How did you feel about it and what made her give up?

It's probably related to many peoples natural hatred of Celts (and Celtic ancestors). Autism and left handedness are loosely related, so I suspect that it's a neanderthal trait (http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm). It's probably the reason red-heads are hated too.

>>559224

Hmm…

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/widdershins

If my kids showed signs of left-handedness I would raise them to be right-handed. True story.

>>559075

Proofs? I have heard something like this but wish to see evidence

>>570806

I hope this is bait.

>>570808

If this would create genuine psychological problems, I would not. But all else being equal, I would prefer my children to be right-handed. It would allow them to live longer, and it would permit them to perform the sign of the cross using the right hand, which is preferable since the right hand is superior to the left; see, for example: Christ being at the right hand of God, and the penitent thief being crucified at Christ's right side.

>>558851

This meme brought to you by: The Synagogue of Satan.

http://mishnahyomit.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/issues/Vol5Iss24.pdf

>>570816

Yes, let's throw away thousands of years of symbolism because everyone is equal, and democracy is so good. The right hand is metaphysically superior to the left. If you don't understand it, then don't be religious. All Christian civilizations knew this to be a fact, and the only reason we threw it away this idea was because of radical materialist egalitarianism, which, as we all know, was clearly the best thing ever and has done so many good things for society.

Show me an example of anything from the gospels or Christian tradition where a valuable thing is at the left side and the less-valuable thing is on the right side. You really can't. Christ sits at the Father's right hand; Mary sits at the right hand of Christ; the good thief was to the right of Christ while the bad thief was on the left.

As for how this fact manifests itself in our actions or in our world, I don't really care. Right handed people do live more often on average, and I do think that left handed people are more likely to acquire undesirable personalities. But I will never do anything to my children that harms them, and I don't think at all that we should oppress the left-handed. But it's pretty obvious to me that the right hand and left hand are not strictly equal. The only reason we have any disagreement at all is because of democracy.

I'm sensing that you will probably not change your mind, which is fine, but I hope that anyone reading this can understand the holy symbol of the Right side, which is also present in the noble traditions of the Jews, Chinese, and Hindus. Indeed, the only time you will ever see the left hand being venerated is in Left-hand-path occultism, Satanism, and "Crazy wisdom" Tibetan Buddhism. Does that tell you something? No, you will probably still disagree.

Sinhanders have been given over by God to a reprobate mind. They have exchanged the natural use of the righteous right hand, the hand at which Christ is seated, for the sinister left hand path. Try as they might to change their handedness, they cannot. 'Ex-leftie' ministries are notoriously ineffective. Why? They are reprobates. Simple as that.

>>570833

You have to go back, Muhammad.

>>570830

Cool, glad we agree. Next thing you’ll tell me is that women and gays were oppressed unfairly in the Gospels and that they must be separated from these old superstitions. I’m sorry to hear that your upbringing caused you a lot of suffering; that is truly abhorrent. Still doesn’t change the metaphysical reality of the universe. Your hand is the most important appendage, since it is the way you manifest your will into the earth. God has chosen to reveal multiple times in scripture that he prefers the Right hand to the left. If you don’t want to listen to this old superstition, that is fine by me! But your appeal to “muh modernity, muh old traditions” really won’t win over anyone who has studied this even a little.

>>558851

>>559100

MY grandfather went to Catholic school when he was left handed and he was beaten for it constantly. I think it's just a catholic thing.

>>570807

>>570814

>>570823

>>570835

>>570833

How to spot false-flagging atheists utilizing the most ridiculous caricatures of Christianity: the posts

>>570841

www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2015/06/13/what-does-the-right-hand-symbolize-or-mean-in-the-bible/

It’s okay though, we don’t have to listen to the Gospels, that’s for losers ;)

>>558851

The fuc- if anyone accepts the gospel and the Holy Spirit, who cares if someone is left handed?

>ambidextrous

That's a completely different story. It's best that you don't reproduce, OP.

1. The right hand of God is the seat of His power.

2. Man is made in the likeness of God.

3. Man also has hands.

4. Uhhhh…

5. Left hand is totally equal to right hand.

Yep, perfect logic.

>>570849

You say that preference for the right hand is a superstition. Okay. Where’s your evidence? Give me something from scripture or from philosophy. Your appeal against superstition is just as indefensible here as it is when applied to women and gay people.

>>570850

Calling the right hand superior as if it objectively is while denigrating the left one which you view as inferior is pure superstition, or idiocy if you prefer.

>women

They also aren't inferior.

>gay people

Irrelevant.

>>570853

Pure superstition that is mentioned over 150 times in the Bible. Right. That’s not evidence. I asked you for an argument. So far you’ve done nothing but ape your fee-fees against scriptural precedent.

>>570858

>That’s not evidence. I asked you for an argument.

I'm not the one who tried to speak of "the metaphysical reality of the universe".

>>570860

You're objectively the one who needs to explain.

>>570860

Scripture. Right hand preferred by God. Man made in image of God. You say superstition. Why? Okay? You understandy?

Who let the Southpaw Internet Defense Force in here?

>>570862

If God prefers kittens over puppies, does this mean that puppies are inferior and evil? The superstitious brainlets' answer: yes

>>570865

Are you kidding me? If God mentioned over 150 times that he hated dogs, then of course we should avoid them. You’re literally just saying that you would ignore scripture that’s presented to you. Kudos! And that’s still not an argument.

>>570865

So you're saying that God's belief on something is without merit because you believe the opposite of what he believes?

>>570858

Now show that this preference is an actual state of matter, and not symbolism.

>>570868

1. The right hand of God is the seat of his power.

2. The right hand of Christ is where the penitent thief ascended to heaven.

3. Christ sits at the right hand of the Father.

4. Mary sits at the right hand of Christ.

5. Man was made in the image of God.

6. God chose to reveal to us that he has metaphysical “hands”.

7. Christian civilization has historically preferred the right hand to left.

8. It is only because of modernity and scientism that we now claim an egalitarianism of handedness.

I’m very sorry that the trauma of your upbringing has caused you to literally disregard the scriptures. All human evils should be condemned even if they were done in good faith. Nevertheless, your irrational butthurt is still not an argument in any way no matter how many times you post silly images and call people like me brainlets.

>>570866

>If God mentioned over 150 times that he hated dogs, then of course we should avoid them.

But we aren't superstitious muslims though. Where is it stated in the Scripture that God hates the left hand? The right hand is favored only because most people are right-handed, that's literally it. That doesn't mean that you should oppress left-handed people or call them inferior because for them, their left hand is superior and their right hand is inferior. Which reminds me:

>>570823

>Yes, let's throw away thousands of years of symbolism because everyone is equal, and democracy is so good.

>democracy is so good (sarcasm)

>The only reason we have any disagreement at all is because of democracy.

>because of democracy (negative tone)

Anon, I…

also:

Judges 3:15-21

Judges 20:16

1 Chronicles 12:2

Matthew 20:21

Makes me think.

>>570872

I don’t think we should hate the left hand. And I do not think we should treat left handed people poorly. All I’m saying is, all else being equal, right handedness is at least an iota superior to being left handed.

>>570872

I see now that you aren't here to argue, but to spout rhetoric instead.

>>570867

>you're saying that God's belief on something is without merit

But you don't actually know what he believes about handedness.

>>570870

>Christian civilization has historically preferred the right hand to left.

Every culture and that's because most people are right-handed, there's no "metaphysical truth" to it.

>we now claim an egalitarianism of handedness.

What do you mean by that?

>>570871

>disregard the scriptures

I don't disregard them, I simply don't subscribe to superstitions that were made up because of a misunderstanding of them; vid related.

>call people like me brainlets

Simple-minded people are brainlets, sorry.

>>570880

God always prefers his Right hand in scripture, and we have no reason to think that the two directions are exactly equal. Don’t you know that’s God is before the world? It could easily be the case that the majority of people are right handedness BECAUSE God’s will is that way. All you’ve done is articulated your completely opposite superstition, which also has no scriptural justification, that left handedness is exactly equal to right handnesness. Perhaps we are both superstitious, but mine is scriptural, while yours is material.

I'm left handed and I honestly think right-handed people are gross and dumb but I keep it to myself!

We run this planet.

>>570880

>But you don't actually know what he believes about handedness.

Your rhetorical question was:

>If God prefers kittens over puppies, does this mean that puppies are inferior and evil? The superstitious brainlets' answer: yes

My answer was:

>So you're saying that God's belief on something is without merit because you believe the opposite of what he believes?

>>570870

I'm pretty sure science is claiming that left-handedness is caused by deviant and largely inferior neurology rather than them being equal.

>>570880

What I meant was, by “egalitarianism”, is that if you trace the history of ideas, the notion that left is equal to right is EXACTLY from the 18th century onward, and that it has no theological grounding but rather came from the same cesspool of ideas as materialism, skepticism, and secularism.

>>570883

That’s a better argument than the other guy’s! I like it!

>>558851

It's a meme

>>570887

Success breeds jealousy.

http://lefthand.wikia.com/wiki/Famous_left_handers

>>570886

>the notion that left is equal to right

Equal in what sense?

>>570896

>Left-handers' brains are more symmetrical and things like holistic thinking and creativity are on average more prominent among them.

Awful polite way to say prone to madness and sodomy

>>570970

And hook-nosed people are prone to witchcraft, amiright?

>>570972

It's a true statement he made, though. Left handed people are more prone to mental illnesses and sodomy.

>>570974

Your point?

>>570976

That it's a true statement. I think I made that obviously clear, it was only a two sentence post.

>>570978

>That it's a true statement.

What point are you trying to make though with this statement?

>>570979

I felt that you were dismissing the true statement, so I wanted to add in support. My point was that you shouldn't dismiss things relevant to the topic.

>>570896

>No.

Then can you explain to me the nuances of your thinking. Specifically in relation to this hypothetical scenario where God liked cats more than he liked dogs.

>preference =/= belief

Can you explain to me just how important this distinction is when it comes to an omnipotent and omniscient being.

>>570983

>Can you explain to me just how important this distinction is when it comes to an omnipotent and omniscient being.

The distinction is always important.

>>570986

>important

On a scale of 1 to 10, inconsequential being one and ten being damning, how important.

>>570987

There is no scale.

personal preference =/= dogma

It's that simple. Dark blue is my favorite color, maybe God prefers white; His preference isn't without merit but there's nothing wrong if I prefer the opposite or something else. Why can't you understand this?

>>570989

>personal preference =/= dogma

God is Good. God defines what is moral and immoral. God prefers one thing over the other. Naturally, as He is Good, we too should prefer whatever He prefers because it is important enough for God to make a distinction between the two. Although the other option, the one He doesn't prefer, isn't necessarily damning we should still prefer the thing He prefers.

>His preference isn't without merit but there's nothing wrong if I prefer the opposite or something else

The only thing wrong is that we are preferring something He doesn't prefer.

>Why can't you understand this?

I think I understand what you're trying to make. It's important in any conversation to understand the one you're talking to, so correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of your argument:

I believe that you're trying to get to the point that it doesn't matter whether or not you're left-handed. I believe your system of thought is one based off of individuality rather than all encompassing generalizations.

>>570995

>God defines what is moral and immoral.

When did He ever define left-handedness as immoral?

>God prefers one thing over the other.

Everyone does.

>we too should prefer whatever He prefers

If God prefered my family over yours, would you reject your own?

>I believe that you're trying to get to the point that it doesn't matter whether or not you're left-handed.

Correct and God doesn't disagree.

>>570998

>When did he ever define left-handedness as immoral?

I should have specified that the logic I was laying out was in relation to the the hypothetical cat over dog scenario.

>Everyone does.

God is a bit more important, I think.

>If God prefered my family over yours, would you reject your own?

Very good question. I would first wonder why. If I could find out why, I would try to fix it. If I couldn't fix it, then I'd probably just cut my losses. I wouldn't think God holds one thing over another without good reason. Extrapolating from that question asked, are you wondering why God would even care about left handedness? With this post >>559224 I guessed that left handedness had no biblical basis. >>570814 made me question that belief. Other than that, I wouldn't know. I hope it's inconsequential.

>>570999

>I wouldn't think God holds one thing over another without good reason.

And since there is no good reason to hate left-handedness, God doesn't.

After reading the whole thread, I think I actually changed positions on this. I'm kind of with Eastern Catholic Christanon, even if he is a troll. If we can admit that fit is objectively better than lame without insulting or being insensitive to the lame… if we can admit that intelligence is objectively better than simplicity (of the mind, i.e. mental handicapped) without gunning for the retarded… if we can admit that males are objectively more glorious and dominant than females without using female submission as a means of insulting women… if we can admit that one's race objectively makes a person physically or mentally superior without wanting to exterminate or deride other races… if we can admit that some saints are objectively closer to God in holiness whilst acknowledging that all saints are holy and good… etc. etc. etc. then why is it that we cannot say that right handedness is objectively better than left handedness and at the same time harbor no resentment toward left-handed people (seeing as how they did not choose to be left-handed)?

To be honest, I think he raises a good point by emphasizing the value of the right hand in the Bible. We cannot say that the use of the right hand is idiomatic and a reflection of culture without opening a lot of the Bible to attack. The scriptures are God-breathed, and instead of saying that right-handedness was woven into the Bible because of its prevalence in humans, we should really be considering if right-handedness was woven into humanity by God as a powerful illustration about right order, and only then did it find it's way into scriptures. Perhaps left-handedness is just as unnatural and against the natural order as same-sex attractions (though both occur in nature).

Though, all that said, I cannot think of a single reason why left-handedness would need to be "corrected" because I cannot find any sort of moral component to it. Saying a left-handed person should try to be right-handed seems to be on par with insisting that the lame try harder to walk or people with mental handicaps try to be smarter. That's simply the way they are. We can admit that the right hand is superior without expecting them to change and without making them feel terrible about it. Because, as far as I know, being left-handed really is inconsequential. However, if given the choice, a left-handed person might ought want to be right-handed by miracle in the same way that a lame person desired miraculous healing by Christ. I wonder if all of the incorruptible, resurrected bodies of God's Kingdom will be right-handed (and formerly left-handed people will be "corrected" when they rise).

>>571003

>If we can admit that fit is objectively better than lame without insulting or being insensitive to the lame…

What is lame for you may be fit for someone else.

>why is it that we cannot say that right handedness is objectively better than left handedness

Because left-handed people exist and none can say "right-handedness is objectively better" without lying to themselves.

>the value of the right hand in the Bible

It merely reflects how it is valued by humans, most of whom are right-handed.

>if right-handedness was woven into humanity by God as a powerful illustration about right order

Hogwash.

>Perhaps left-handedness is just as unnatural and against the natural order

Over 15% of humans are naturally left-handed and many animal species are left-handed or ambidextrous. Stop comparing dexterity with sexual depravity.

>Saying a left-handed person should try to be right-handed seems to be on par with insisting that the lame try harder to walk or people with mental handicaps try to be smarter

No it doesn't since left-handedness is not a disability. I can personally write with both hands equally well, tell me, should I compare you with downies because you can't?

>a left-handed person might ought want to be right-handed by miracle in the same way that a lame person desired miraculous healing by Christ

No.

>corrected

There's nothing to correct.

>>571008

/thread

>>571008

>What is lame for you may be fit for someone else.

I'm talking about literal healthy versus handicapped here. If you understood that, and you still contend, then you are advocating relativist heresy. Jesus healed lame people because being healthy is better than being lame. We don't need Jesus as a physician if sickness and health are relative.

>Because left-handed people exist and none can say "right-handedness is objectively better" without lying to themselves.

I never said that left-handed people don't exist. Lame people exist. Dumb people exist. Deaf people exist. Blind people exist. An assortment of human conditions exist that are objectively worse than the ideal. Having those conditions does not make you a better or worse person, but the condition itself is an inferior or less than ideal/perfect state.

>It merely reflects how it is valued by humans, most of whom are right-handed.

>Hogwash.

Not an argument.

>No it doesn't since left-handedness is not a disability. I can personally write with both hands equally well, tell me, should I compare you with downies because you can't?

You're missing the point. I made that comparison because for a left-handed person to be right-handed is impossible. A left-handed person cannot switch. And for your information, I have very good left-handed handwriting – my friends say that it is better than their dominant-hand handwriting. Sure, I defer to my right hand, but I'm fairly ambidextrous. Our personal situation and abilities has nothing to do with the discussion.

>No.

>There's noting to correct.

REEEEEEE

We aren't talking about the authors of the Bible using right-hand metaphors. We are talking about right-hand metaphors being attributed directly to God by the authors.

<>"The Lord says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'"

<>"My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together."

If the words of God are not actually conveying some kind of inherent superiority of the right hand, then the Bible is errant.

I've simply come to the conclusion in this thread that:

The right handed state is superior to the left handed state.

Right handed people are not superior to left handed people in merit.

Left-handedness is not a choice and cannot be (and should not be) corrected by human means.

There is no moral component to handedness; left-handedness is no more a sin than being female is a sin.

Just as females, though equal in merit to males, are the rightfully subordinate sex, the left hand is the naturally subordinate hand, and violations of this principle indicates a corruption of the natural order.

God revealing Himself as a man and as right-handed suggests that there is an innate glory in masculinity and right-handedness above femininity and left-handedness.

>>571020

>I'm talking about literal healthy versus handicapped here.

And I made an allusion to handedness which is irrelevant with health.

>I never said that left-handed people don't exist.

I never implied that you said this, stating that they exist is a response to your dumb question though.

>objectively worse than the ideal.

My left dominance is objectively an advantage to me in sports, how is it not ideal?

>Not an argument.

It wasn't meant to be.

>for a left-handed person to be right-handed is impossible

>A left-handed person cannot switch.

Wrong, it can be learned. Is it a coincidence that left-handers are virtually inexistant in cultures that view left-handedness as evil or "correct" it? No it isn't.

>Our personal situation and abilities has nothing to do with the discussion.

It does because you're comparing dexterity with mental retardation. Should I compare non-ambidextrous people with downies because they can't do what we can?

>REEEEEEE

A left-handed person who wants to be right-handed by miracle is a self-hating conformist.

>inherent superiority of the right hand

It is not inherently superior, it is merely the hand that most humans feel comfortable with, hence the symbolism.

>The right handed state is superior to the left handed state.

For a right-handed person only.

>Right handed people are not superior to left handed people in merit.

They are not superior in any way, shape or form.

>the left hand is the naturally subordinate hand

My right hand is my naturally subordinate hand, and not only the hand, my entire right side.

>violations of this principle indicates a corruption of the natural order

This so-called principle belongs in the trash with every other superstition. What natural order? Kangaroos are pretty much all left-handed, what natural order are they violating?

>God revealing Himself as a man and as right-handed

How so? God is certainly ambidextrous since He is perfect and lacks nothing.

>innate glory in masculinity and right-handedness

What glory?

>>571032

>I never implied that you said this, stating that they exist is a response to your dumb question though.

Question: Why can we not say that [insert any physical condition here] is objectively better?

Answer: Because [insert any condition that does not conform to the aforesaid physical condition here] exists.

This is some SJW-tier argumentation akin to, "Why is it racist to say that white people are generally smarter than black people?" "OMG!!!1! Because black people EXIST and we don't want to offend them!>!"

The whole point of the question is WHY should it be offensive at all? I am a 5'5" manlet and I can acknowledge that, culturally, tallness is superior, but that doesn't mean I'm offended for being short or that tall people think they are better than me. I know and they know that it's simply better to be tall. Back to the race example, both blacks and whites can admit to certain racial truths without being racist. There is no reason that those racial truths should be offensive to anyone.

People who are offended at being a part of an inferior classification or having inferior qualities through no fault of their own are just proud, not wanting to admit that they were given 2 talents instead of 5 talents (Matthew 25). Essentially, feminism – women not wanting to accept their appointed role as submissive.

>My left dominance is objectively an advantage to me in sports, how is it not ideal?

Just because some exception to the general rule or mutation from the natural order gives a person an advantage, doesn't mean that it is ideal or superior to the natural order. A thief may have an advantage over an honest individual, but that doesn't mean thievery is the ideal. That is just an example – I'm not comparing left-handedness to thievery in any moral sense.

>Wrong, it can be learned. Is it a coincidence that left-handers are virtually inexistant in cultures that view left-handedness as evil or "correct" it? No it isn't.

You can improve your ability to use your right hand if you are left-handed, but you cannot rewrite your brain to be right-handed and, as stated earlier in the thread, trying to shift from your dominant hand to your non-dominant hand can cause psychological damage.

>It does because you're comparing dexterity with mental retardation. Should I compare non-ambidextrous people with downies because they can't do what we can?

You are just carrying my analogies too far. I'm not saying that left-handedness makes you mentally, physically, or morally inferior, but that there seems to be some metaphysical ideal to right-handedness. Left-handedness doesn't affect your mental, physical, or moral performance. Under this supposition, left-handedness would only be like a mental handicap insofar as it is not ideal and it is beyond the individual's ability to control.

(1/2)

>>571032

>A left-handed person who wants to be right-handed by miracle is a self-hating conformist.

Not necessarily. I could easily say that a left-handed person who exalts his left-handedness is a proud, special snowflake who boasts of his special individuality.

>It is not inherently superior, it is merely the hand that most humans feel comfortable with, hence the symbolism.

As a Christian, you cannot believe in mere coincidence like that. Everything is ordered the way God wants it to be, and if right-handedness is overwhelmingly standard among humans, than we must believe there is some reason for it (even if that reason is only to enhance symbolism). It's possible that left-handedness is a result of The Fall of man and is a similar uncommon deviation to same-sex attraction or propensity to alcoholism, or any number of less than ideal conditions that accompany original sin. Note that same-sex attraction and propensity to sin is NOT sin, only concupiscence.

>For a right-handed person only.

>My right hand is my naturally subordinate hand, and not only the hand, my entire right side.

No; for God and the prophets and for the 92% of all humans. The reason you aren't seeing my point is that you are wrapped up in your own individuality. Why is the suggestion that there is some innate superiority the right hand so offensive to you? And don't bother saying because you are left-handed (ambidextrous) – you are inferior in probably dozens of other ways and likely have no problem admitting it.

>They are not superior in any way, shape or form.

That is the point of this thread. I suggest symbolic and metaphysical superiority, but not physical, mental, or moral superiority.

>This so-called principle belongs in the trash with every other superstition. What natural order? Kangaroos are pretty much all left-handed, what natural order are they violating?

Kangaroos also jack off and have gay-butt sex. Just because something occurs in nature doesn't mean it's a part of Natural Law. If you believe in God and Christianity, you must believe in a fundamental natural order that has been disrupted.

>How so? God is certainly ambidextrous since He is perfect and lacks nothing.

God can achieve anything with his right or left hand with absolute perfection, but He's clearly right-hand dominant, if only due to His own Divine Will. Just because a person is ambidextrous doesn't mean they don't have a dominant side.

>What glory?

A man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. (1 Cor 11:7) That doesn't mean I'm a sexist. It just means that men have a special likeness to God and this comes with a shared glory. Anyone who shares characteristics and likeness with God possesses glory by virtue of the likeness with God. If God is right-dominant, than right-dominant people share in God's glory with respect to that.

(2/2)

>>571218

All of your "arguments" are just nay-saying. No point in continuing with someone as insecure as you. All you do is contradict without support as though your opinion somehow means something more than anyone else's while neglecting things that are difficult to respond to.

>insecure browser of a particular board

Nope. It doesn't take a /pol/ Nazi to acknowledge that races are predisposed to be better at certain things and worse at others, and my constant insistence that race has nothing to do with merit in a spiritual sense should indicate that I am a /christian/ poster over a /pol/ poster.

>Do you even know what a biological mutation is?

Did I say 'biological'?

>you are inferior in probably dozens of other ways

>I'm not aware of that.

Have you ever even heard of humility?

>fundamental natural order that has been disrupted

>How so?

Are you even Christian? All Christians, Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox share this belief.

>I don't believe God Almighty has a dominant and weak side, He is more likely perfectly ambidextrous which also comes with a symmetrical mind (as is more common among ambidextrous and left-handed people).

Completely ignored the "if only due to His own Divine Will" and "even if that reason is only to enhance symbolism" parts of my comment.

>>571240

Why do you attack everything you don't like as superstition? It's clear that left-handedness is a birth defect and it really hurts the people who suffer from it. God didn't want people to be left handed, it's clearly another disease which came after the fall of man.

>>571394

>All you do is contradict without support

You believe in a superstition, the burden of proof is on you. Presenting your personal opinions as facts does not make them facts, sorry.

>Did I say 'biological'?

Don't misuse scientific terms.

>Have you ever even heard of humility?

Have you heard of human dignity? How is not calling oneself inferior to other humans prideful?

>Are you even Christian?

What you call "natural order" is not natural order.

>Completely ignored the "if only due to His own Divine Will" and "even if that reason is only to enhance symbolism" parts of my comment.

Irrelevant, again, you don't know if He is right-handed. Besides, do you imagine Him as a bearded man in the clouds?

>>571397

>Why do you attack everything you don't like as superstition?

I simply call superstitions what they are, not "everything".

>It's clear that left-handedness is a birth defect

No it's not.

>it really hurts the people who suffer from it

No one suffers from it.

>God didn't want people to be left handed

Book, chapter and verse please.

>it's clearly another disease which came after the fall of man

Prove it.

>>571399

>I simply call superstitions what they are, not "everything".

Then you should prove that it's a superstition. If we are to assume that the default normal state is right-handedness (which it clearly is) then left-handedness is a state of disorder.

>No it's not.

Why not? Everyone knows that humans are supposed to be right handed

>No one suffers from it.

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.28.4.193

>Book, chapter and verse please.

Um, it's just common sense, God wouldn't create people with such a terrible defect

>Prove it.

It's clear and obvious.

>>571398

Also, the "burden of proof" is a joke. Such a thing does not exist except in a court of law. I never agreed to be bound by something like that.

>>571003

Thanks! I’m glad my words were of use to at least two people here.

>>571400

>you should prove

The burden of proof is on you.

>If we are to assume that the default normal state is right-handedness

But it's simply not the "default normal state".

>which it clearly is

What is clear is that most human beings are right-handed, that however does not mean that it's the "default normal state".

>left-handedness is a state of disorder

"being red haired is a state of disorder", this is what you sound like.

>humans are supposed to be right handed

>supposed to be

No. Usually are? Yes.

>https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.28.4.193

I'm not going through 20 pages of text. I don't suffer from it and I don't know anyone who does except those who were pestered by superstitious right-handed brainlets.

>such a terrible defect

lol

>It's clear and obvious.

No, it's a superstition which has no biblical basis. None. Zero.

Hey man, I just want to say that I hope you do not take my left hand comments as some insult against you. I don’t think left handedness is something worthy of making fun of; but I do think everything in heaven and on earth exists in a hierarchy, and in terms of directions, up is superior to down and RIGHT IS SUPERIOR TO LEFT. It’s not an insult. It’s just a reality of the universe. God loves the right side so he made humans right handed by default.

>>571416

>RIGHT IS SUPERIOR TO LEFT

That's your right-handed opinion, anon.

>It’s just a reality of the universe.

Tell that to kangaroos.

>he made humans right handed by default

>default

Wrong.

>>571413

>The burden of proof is on you.

<You have to prove it!!!11!

<special pleading

>But it's simply not the "default normal state".

Why? Because you say it's not? It clearly is.

>What is clear is that most human beings are right-handed, that however does not mean that it's the "default normal state".

Um… are you being dull on purpose? We have reason to believe that right-handedness is the natural state because (1) it is the most common state, and (2) because left-handed people suffer due to their deficiency

>"being red haired is a state of disorder", this is what you sound like.

Um…No? The color of your hair doesn't affect how you go about your day-to-day business…left-handedness does.

>I'm not going through 20 pages of text. I don't suffer from it and I don't know anyone who does except those who were pestered by superstitious right-handed brainlets.

<Where's your PROOF????? MUH PROOOOOOF???

>presents proof

<I DON'T WANNA READ YOUR PROOF REEEEE

<he calls me a brainlet but only after engaging in special pleading and argument from ignorance

<ad hominem

>No, it's a superstition which has no biblical basis. None. Zero.

If you can't see the clear references in Scripture to the right as superior to the left then it is your problem. Several examples have already been given in this very thread.

>>571417

I hope you understand that belittling your opponent through strawmans, without even understanding their arguments and dismissing any evidence as superstitious or not worth your time, won't make anyone take your side. Unless of course they already agree with you.

Also, great points about lameness and healthiness. We should not fault the lame for being lame. That is simply how they are. May God have mercy on all His creation, myself numbered among the deeply flawed.

>>571420

Kangaroos arent made in the image of God you theologically inept barbarian.

>>571424

Exactly. I hope that the Catholic here realizes I'm not trying to attack HIM, I'm a pretty screwed up person myself and it's nothing to be ashamed of, we all have our crosses to bear

>>571428

Dude take a logic class. You clearly haven’t understood any of my arguments, but I understand yours. My own understanding subsumes yours. Is this the mind which you use to discern the truth of God? Kangaroos are part of the universe but they’re not perfect and they aren’t made in the image of of. Zzzzzzzz

>>571428

>Yes, you do

Why? Because YOU said so?

>we both know that you can't prove a silly superstition.

Why? And who says it's a "superstition"? YOU? Just because you say something, doesn't make it so.

>Most people shave their beards, does this mean that being clean-shaven is the natural state of human beings?

No, the vast majority of people can grow beards (but some can't, like me) and therefore we can say that being able to grow a beard is the natural state whereas being unable to grow a beard is deficient. But just because people CUT their beards doesn't mean BEING ABLE TO GROW A BEARD isn't natural, these are two different things (something you're born with vs. something you can CHOSE TO DO) so please stop straw-manning and falsely representing my argument.

>No we don't.

<ignores proofs

>How about you explain to me what those 20 pages talk about? Can't do that? Hmmm, have you even read them? I doubt it.

How about you stop being lazy and read the thesis posted ON THE PAGE instead of dismissing my evidence without reason and insulting me?

>Book, chapter and verse please.

There are already examples in this thread such as the cross where the right side of Christ He is merciful to a sinner who repents

>>571439

>Because I asked you, yes; it's a request.

<special pleading

>Yes, I just told you so because I identified it as such.

<argument from ignorance

WEW

>Correct, however, a person who is more comfortable using his left hand can still use his right hand, he is not "unable" unless he lacks a right hand

Yeah, he does. But as it is proven in this thread already, trying to force a leftie to write with his right hand does more harm than good. Again, this isn't as huge of a problem as you're making it out to be.

>The fact that left-handers are nearly inexistant in cultures that view left-handedness negatively proves it because they are not all murdered, they are simply forced to use their right hand and they do.

Proves what? The fact that left-handedness is looked down upon by literally every culture doesn't come out as striking to you that it may not exactly be the best thing?

>Explain to me your sacrosanct proof please, that is, if you've even read and understand the 20 walls of text you expect me to read.

Left handed people suffer from more mental health issues, make less money, have more emotional problems, have more learning disabilities, complete less schooling, and work in jobs which are less mentally demanding. There. Now stop saying that lefties don't suffer for their disability. And there were plenty of other things brought to light earlier in this thread that lefties are prone to as well.

>Stop projecting. I want you to explain to me what you claim to have read, you can do that in less than 5 sentences. Are you a toddler or an intelligent adult? I'm not reading a thesis, I want you to talk to me.

<more special pleading

>I have still not seen 1 verse which claims that left-handedness is inferior and I'm actually the only one ITT who posted verses: >>570872

>give me scriptural evidence!!11!

>gives scriptural evidence (in addition to the other scriptural evidence posted in this thread)

<ACTUAL CHAPTER AND VERSE CITATION PLEASE!!! REEEEE

stop.

>>570835

>hand

>most important appendage

Nope that's the head see Collosians 1:18

>>570830

<This "idea" is nothing more than silly superstition

>argueing about superstition

>on /christian

Are you serious? This whole religion is superstitious (you). Christ rose from the dead, that is about as superstitious as it gets. You are complimenting him if anything.

>>570872

>democracy

>having no king but you are your own king/ruler/authority

You were born like this I get it. But for others see judges 17:6

>In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Why is that evil? See romans 13 and 1 kings 15:5.

>>570890

>admiting to being the botnet

>>571397

It's because it's a robot. Ignore it from now on.

>>571413

>no Biblical basis for God prefering the right hand

You are a liar. God insults Jonah in Jonah 4:11 by stating the people of nineveh can't discern their right hand from their left. God tells Jesus to sit at his right hand till his enemies are a footstool in Matthew 23:44. Jesus follows God's example and sets the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left in matthew 25:23-46 . In Leviticus 14:26-29 the left hand is kept seperate from the right almost as if the left is serving the right hand during the sacrifice.

This though >>571020

>>571425

>image of God

No they aren't but not for the reasons you would think. Here get thrown for a loop and read revelations 16:3 KJV. If you have any questions start a new thread.

>>571439

Also, your "muh democracy" crap proves you are simply here to spew rhetoric and bully people you don't like by calling things superstitious because "I identified it as such" (read: "I said so!").

>>571451

I have no reason to respond to your post as it is simply more strawmanning and bullying, have a good evening. And please stop being a drone, it's really annoying.

>>571456

I guess a better word would be browbeating, but whatever.

>>571456

>This post >>570998 and this post >>570890

What's special about these posts?

>confirm that the board owner for /christian/ is also the cia A.I

What?

>>571463

This post >>570998 shows you can edit your own posts i.e a hotpocket and this post >>570890 gives away your signature style of posts against yourself or for you.

The repeating

>;^)

That appears is part of your signature style. Either you are the A.I or you just by amazing (((coincidence))) post on boards/websites/forums/blogs I lurk to mess with me with this style. And you do so often. Go sing a limerick to those eight legs if you aren't fucking with me and just posting out of ignorance of the word of God. Otherwise continue as usual.

>>571466

>you can edit your own posts

I just asked a mod to capitalize the H in "he" which I forgot to do.

>your signature style

";^)" is literally a meme.

>just posting out of ignorance of the word of God

What do you mean?

>>571469

>I asked a mod

How did you ask them this?

>";^)" is literally a meme.

Where does it originate?

>What do you mean?

Well, you do completely ignore romans 8:8 by thinking Luke 22:19-20 is physical and not 1 corinthians 12:20-26,28-29 along with thinking john 19:34 is false or not literal.

>>571481

John 6:55

>For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed

Which meat? Which drink? For meat see Hebrews 5:12-14 heavy emphasis on "word of righteousness:". For drink ask yourself, which blood? Read 1 john 5:6 John 3:5 and then re-read john 19:34. It's literal. Just not physical but spiritual.

>>571485

>i don't have a arguement against God's preference for right handedness

I've already explained that it is spoken of favorably only because most people are right-handed and that for them (the majority), what is considered the strong/good side is the right one, hence the symbolism; nowhere in Scripture is left dexterity shunned as that would be akin to muslims' (silly) hate towards dogs which is certainly not divine but rather merely the fruit of superstitious human minds.

>>571485

>>571488

same goes for christians' hatred towards black cats during the Middle Ages (and still some brainlets today)

Wew is the sinisterposter still going at it?

>>571431

>>571671

What did you mean by this?

>>571398

1. A lot of proof was given regarding the prevalence of right-handedness in humanity, and the inerrant Bible.

2. Mutation does not specifically refer to biology, even in science. Mutation is literally just "an alteration, as from the normal."

3. Because I'm humble enough to admit that I am inferior and that I have inferior qualities. Preserving human dignity doesn't mean pretending that sick people aren't sick or that women aren't submissive or reality in general. Preserving human dignity means acting with compassion and tending to the needs of others without humiliating them. If left-handedness were inferior, it wouldn't mean I would be trying to humiliating left-handed people.

4. The natural order I'm referring to is pre-Fall of Man, "everything is as God intends it" order. The order that will be restored when God returns.

5. There are dozens of Bible verses that attribute right-handedness to God, and He actually was a Man with a beard, who ascended into the clouds. So I ask again, ARE YOU EVEN CHRISTIAN?

On a semi-related note that is more jocular than anything, I find it funny that this video was published today (embed related). Tune in to 4:37.