Take this, Jimmy Dobson!

[Keller]

I was being nostalgic and reviewing my college e-mail account and came across this list and thought yall'd find it an interesting read.

Without further ado....

The Presidential Prayer Team is urging us to "Pray for the President as he
seeks wisdom to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it
will be according to Biblical principles. With many forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."


In support of the Prayer Team's goals, here is a proposed Constitutional
Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles:



A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man
and one or more women (Genesis 29:17-28; II Samuel 3:2-5).



B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition
to his wife or wives (II Samuel 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21).



C. Marriage shall be valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not
a virgin, she shall be executed by stoning. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).



D. Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden (Genesis
24:3; Numbers 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 10:30).



E. Since marriage is for life, no state or federal law shall permit
divorce. (Deuteronomy 22:19; Mark 10:9).



F. If a married man dies childless, his brother shall marry the widow. If
he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her
children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a
manner to be determined by law (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10).



G. If there are no marriageable men in a young woman's town, she must get
her father drunk and have sex with him (even if he previously offered her
to men as a sex toy), tag-teaming with any sisters she may have (Genesis
19:31-36).



H. The King or President has the divine right to gather all of the
beautiful young virgins in the land, emprison them in a harem, have sex with them all; and then marry the one who best pleases him. (Esther 2:2; Esther 2:17)



I. If a man is having trouble finding a wife to marry, he may grab any
woman from a dance, rape her and force her to marry him. (Judges 21:20-23)



J. Marriage among first cousins and half brothers and sisters is
permissible and is in fact often perferrable. (Gen. 29:10, Gen. 29:10; Gen.
20:14, 20:16)

[Anailea]

:nono: shhh Don't encourage them, they are doing of good job of trying to mess it up all ready.

Anailea

[Warriorbird]

Can you imagine how expensive more than one wife would be? Then again, it has Biblical foundations, so has to be the way to do things, right Latrin?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Can you imagine how expensive more than one wife would be?Yes.
Then again, it has Biblical foundations, so has to be the way to do things, right Latrin? No.

I've posted it before, and I'll post it again: Mark 10: 2-12

Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. No divorce. I don't know what those Jews were up to, but Jesus sure did. This Jesus guy knows what he's talking about.

[Skeeter]

I get it. so only quote the bible when convenient to your case. It all makes sense now.


<3 the hate monger christians.

[Warriorbird]

Curious. So what is your opinion of Biblical contradiction? If the New Testament is the New Covanent do we completely discard the old?

Somehow not everyone seems to feel that way.

In your heart if you really do believe in Christian values, I'm sure you could examine it differently.

But then again, all that love and acceptence that Jesus preached was real, wasn't it?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Skeeter
I get it. so only quote the bible when convenient to your case. It all makes sense now.There is a clear contradiction in the Bible. If there is an objective source of morality, only one can be correct. Moses was a great guy, but he's no Jesus.

I don't mind the "hate mongering" comment too much, because you (obviously) don't know me very well. It'd be cool if you were more charitable in the future, though. :)
Originally posted by Warriorbird
But then again, all that love and acceptence that Jesus preached was real, wasn't it?Yes, although some of the stories in the New Testament (Sermon on the Mount, for instance) did not actually happen as written. That's why it's good to talk to someone who knows the whole culture/history shebang (e.g. a priest) before, during, and after reading the Bible. :)

We don't have to completely discard the OT, just have to be aware that the NT takes precedence.

[Skeeter]

who decides what really happened and what didn't? Do we have it on camera? Religion is opinion, and some people seem to buy into whatever opinion supports their narrow minded beliefs.

Religion is a helluva drug. keep pimpin that dogma.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Skeeter
Religion is opinion, and some people seem to buy into whatever opinion supports their narrow minded beliefs.You're free to take whatever position you like, of course. I'd suggest you meditate upon the glaring failings of a subjectivist morality before declaring your support for it again, though.

[Keller]

You're exactly right, Latrin. We do have to exegete scripture (that is, take it in the context of the whole work, the passage, and the time period it was written in). When you step back from your current 21st century ramifications of scripture and contemplate the exegetical meaning you'll have to at least consider the possibility that Paul is talking about child molestation, that Jesus hasn't encountered committed homosexual relationships and instead probably is addressing issues of heterosexual infidelity and that beastiality was more common than you would believe.

When you figure that there exists the possibility that Jesus/Paul are not refering to the 21st century understanding of arsenokoitai/malakoi, then I think you run the risk of perverting a person's god-given sexuality by telling them they must change to please god. All that does is eventually ruin a family unit when that person can no longer pretend to be of the sexual orientation that god did not give them.

I know there are different variations of homosexual relations that are not all like my example However I think a majority of the relationships are. Regardless, the point is issue's not as simple as you would wish to make it.

[Edited on 5-4-2005 by Keller]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Keller
I think you run the risk of perverting a person's god-given sexuality by telling them they must change to please god.I've never said that sexuality in any way pleases or displeases God.

I wish people would look at what I say rather than think "Bible-thumper, he must hate this, this, and definitely hates that."

[Keller]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Keller
I think you run the risk of perverting a person's god-given sexuality by telling them they must change to please god.I've never said that sexuality in any way pleases or displeases God.

I wish people would look at what I say rather than think "Bible-thumper, he must hate this, this, and definitely hates that."

Did I say you hated gays? No. I said that you think God is displeased by homosexual relations. Do you think of God as being a completely analytical sin calculator with repentance and belief as Jesus as a clear button? Otherwise I think it is fair to think that what you consider to be a sin does in fact displease God. Wasn't God pleased with Jesus for his earthly behavior? Or does that part of the bible not pertain to this conversation? I'm not trying to attack you in the least. I just want to make it clear that this issue cannot be thought of in black and white terms.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Keller
I said that you think God is displeased by homosexual relations.The reason I've never said that is because I don't think that.
Do you think of God as being a completely analytical sin calculator with repentance and belief as Jesus as a clear button?No.
Wasn't God pleased with Jesus for his earthly behavior?I would hope so, he did a lot of good.
Or does that part of the bible not pertain to this conversation?I don't know the specific part of which you're speaking.

[longshot]

It's all bullshit.

Seriously... How the hell can you believe any of that shit?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by longshot
How the hell can you believe any of that shit? I'm a scientist, and crappy things didn't happen to me when I was a kid. I'm pretty sure those are the big two reasons.

[Warriorbird]

"We don't have to completely discard the OT, just have to be aware that the NT takes precedence."

This is why debating theology with the Christian faithful rarely works.

"Originally posted by Skeeter
I get it. so only quote the bible when convenient to your case. It all makes sense now."

Hit it in one.

"That's why it's good to talk to someone who knows the whole culture/history shebang (e.g. a priest) "

That's hilarious. Why not a historian or a real theologian?

They might be, maybe, unbelievers, or poke holes in your religion though. Shucks.

"We don't have to completely discard the OT, just have to be aware that the NT takes precedence."

Yet we can go back to the sociopathic god whenever it's convenient...whenever things bother us and make us think of the more conservative of the disciples.

We're accepting! Except when we deny Jesus's love for everyone. Fundamental flaw.

[Parker]

Oh man...I'm really going to hate this thread, Religion scares me, and I spent many years in religious schools.

Alright, in the bible, it states "Nothing is defiled in the marriage bed"

Now, this means, ladies, that if we are taking the bible for truth and taking it literally, that there's no such thing as "Not being in the mood." if your husband wants it, and you get a convenient headache, tough cookies darling, he can rape you.

I'm a born catholic, but I've learned enough about catholicism and the bible to make me sick.

I don't know, these religious topics are studies in talking in circles, there's no correct answer, it is only whaty ou belive...Love you guys!

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
This is why debating theology with the Christian faithful rarely works.

"Originally posted by Skeeter
I get it. so only quote the bible when convenient to your case. It all makes sense now."

Hit it in one.Once again, Moses was a cool guy, but he's no Jesus. That doesn't mean he was always wrong, but when Jesus says something that contradicts with Moses, Jesus always wins. Have you ever seen me quote an OT passage that was in any way a contradiction to Jesus?
That's hilarious. Why not a historian or a real theologian?Did I say one couldn't? No, I said "for example, a priest." Note how there's isn't any "I'll cut out your mother's eyes if you talk to someone else".
Yet we can go back to the sociopathic god whenever it's convenient...whenever things bother us and make us think of the more conservative of the disciples.

We're accepting! Except when we deny Jesus's love for everyone. Fundamental flaw. I don't know who you're talking about. I've never once said Jesus didn't love everyone.

Again, I'd appreciate it if people took what I say are my beliefs and consider those my beliefs. Saying I believe the exact opposite isn't the most polite or constructive thing to do in a conversation.
Originally posted by Parker
Alright, in the bible, it states "Nothing is defiled in the marriage bed" Where exactly does it state that? The only references to "marriage bed" I found were in Hebrews (Let marriage be honored among all and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers.), a similar admonition in Sirach, and a reference to virginity being cool in Wisdom.

[Warriorbird]

Yet, gays shouldn't get married or become religious officiaries...

and their love is a sin in your eyes. So very accepting.

Sure, you can parrot the, "Love the sinner, not the sin." in my eyes... and that's one of the reasons Christianity fails for me. I don't think people being in love is a sin. I don't think Jesus would've either.

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

[ElanthianSiren]

If two individuals want to marry, go ahead. It's not like we're crossing humans with donkeys! Oh my god two people want to affirm devotion to each other! Oh no!!

It doesn't effect me. It doesn't CHANGE the meaning of marriage. I will honestly NEVER understand the immense debate over marriage -- especially in a country that preaches separation of church and state.

-Melissa

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yet, gays shouldn't get married or become religious officiaries...

and their love is a sin in your eyes. So very accepting. Where do you get this stuff? How many times do I have to say that I don't believe something before you'll stop saying I do? If I said red was not blue, I'm not saying the condition of being red is a sin, or in any way inferior to the condition of being blue. Why can't you accept that?
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
It doesn't CHANGE the meaning of marriage.I think it's pretty clear that there are different definitions of marriage being espoused in this thread. That being said, I've never had anything but support for any people who want to affirm their devotion to each other, given a certain level of maturity.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

I think it's pretty clear that there are different definitions of marriage being espoused in this thread. That being said, I've never had anything but support for any people who want to affirm their devotion to each other, given a certain level of maturity.

I wasn't attacking you, more the fact that our government feels the need to step in on something that IMO should clearly fall in the boundaries of a religious affair, after waving the flag of separation of church and state for so many years.

If a religious practitioner wants to issue a marriage liscense to homosexuals, government should honor that in regard to tax, rights etc IMO.

I absolutely agree with the maturity thing. If individuals of either/both sexual preference are pawing in public, I'm going to ask them to stop or leave the area. That's just common sense, and I don't quite see how it applies to a homosexual lifestyle over the heterosexual one -- if that's what you meant. If not, I'm lost.

-Melissa

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I wasn't attacking you:)
If a religious practitioner wants to issue a marriage liscense to homosexuals, government should honor that in regard to tax, rights etc IMO.If I had my druthers, it'd be any unionized coupling of homosexuals that would get those tax things that married heteros get.
I absolutely agree with the maturity thing. :heart:
That's just common sense, and I don't quite see how it applies to a homosexual lifestyle over the heterosexual one -- if that's what you meant. If not, I'm lost.I just meant that maturity or the lack thereof applies equally to both types.