Forlife, you are a Jesus hating anti-dentite.
[quote]300andabove wrote:
You know what they say about too much of a good thing…
Well if you want the race to end, off with you i’d rather like it to continue…
[/quote]
The point of my comment was that a lot of things can be good in moderation, but dangerous in the extreme.
Having a 5% population of gays doesn’t hurt the population growth curve at all. If anything, it helps slightly to curb the overpopulation problem and provides a way of caring for kids in foster facilities.
[quote]forlife wrote:
300andabove wrote:
You know what they say about too much of a good thing…
Well if you want the race to end, off with you i’d rather like it to continue…
The point of my comment was that a lot of things can be good in moderation, but dangerous in the extreme.
Having a 5% population of gays doesn’t hurt the population growth curve at all. If anything, it helps slightly to curb the overpopulation problem and provides a way of caring for kids in foster facilities.[/quote]
overpopulation is only an issue in third world shit holes. The US is one of the few developed nations that meets (barely) the replacement rate. It may only be us and canada, can’t recall. The immigration trends in EU may solve the problem there.
Unless you are adopting 2.4 kids you are not equal to the average familiy in the US, although adoption is one of most noble causes. We may add a fourth this way.
Homosexuallity is the least of our worries if we are concerned with fullfilling the replacement rate in the developed world.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
So there you have it. Those trying to make us believe that there are many different types of Biblically-sanctioned marriages have an irrefutable argument against them. [/quote]
So you’re arguing that Abraham’s multiple wives, for example, weren’t sanctioned by his God, despite the old testament clearly stating otherwise, and that God did not approve of Abraham, despite Jesus clearly stating that he was a pillar of faith and was bound for heaven?
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
So there you have it. Those trying to make us believe that there are many different types of Biblically-sanctioned marriages have an irrefutable argument against them.
So you’re arguing that Abraham’s multiple wives, for example, weren’t sanctioned by his God, despite the old testament clearly stating otherwise, and that God did not approve of Abraham, despite Jesus clearly stating that he was a pillar of faith and was bound for heaven?[/quote]
If you had read the bible you would know that God changed his mind quite frequently. Especially regarding the fate of the jews. Not quite as frequently as in the quran, but still tough to follow at times.
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Forlife is arguing that polygamy is bad, then he turns around and says it is good because it is sanctioned by God.[/quote]
Where did you get that idea?
I’ve never said polygamy is “sanctioned by God”, because I don’t believe in “God” and consider the bible a book of fairy tales.
What I did say is that fundamentalist Christians are hypocrites when they tout marriage between one man and one woman as a “5,000 year old unchanging tradition” while ignoring the numerous examples of righteous men and women in the old testament that practiced polygamy and other forms of marriage.
If you choose to disagree with the collective consensus of every major medical and mental health organization, feel free. No doubt you believe your fairy tales trump decades of scientific research and will do anything necessary to cognitively rationalize the dissonance.
Maybe you should educate yourself more, instead of accusing people of throwing out a smokescreen:
[quote]Polyandry is one of the major problems found in Smith’s polygamy and many questions surround it. Why did he at first primarily prefer polyandrous marriages? A common misconception concerning Joseph Smith’s polyandry is that he participated in only one or two such unusual unions. In fact, fully one-third of his plural wives, eleven of them, were married civilly to other men when he married them. If one superimposes a chronological perspective, one sees that of Smith’s first twelve wives, nine were polyandrous. So in this early period polyandry was the norm, not the anomaly.
Polyandry might be easier to understand if one viewed these marriages to Smith as a sort of de facto divorce with the first husband. However, none of these women divorced their “first husbands” while Smith was alive and all of them continued to live with their civil spouses while married to Smith?
In the eleven certain polyandrous marriages, only three of the husbands were non-Mormon (Lightner, Sayers, and Cleveland) and only one was disaffected (Buell). All other husbands were in good standing in the church at the time Joseph married their wives. Many were prominent church leaders and close friends of Smith. George W. Harris was a high councilor - a position equivalent to that of a twentieth-century general authority. Henry Jacobs was a devoted friend of Joseph and a faithful missionary. Orson Hyde was an apostle on his mission to Palestine when Smith married his wife. Jonathan Holmes was one of Smith’s bodyguards and served as a pallbearer after Smith’s death. Windsor Lyon was a member in good standing when Smith united with Sylvia Lyon, and he loaned the prophet money after the marriage. David Sessions was a devout Latter-day Saint. (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 15-16)[/quote]
Joseph’s polygamy clearly included taking other men’s wives. For example, consider a sermon given in the Tabernacle by Jedediah Grant on Feb. 19, 1854:
Ann Eliza Young, who had been married to Brigham Young, charged that Joseph Smith was guilty of adultery:
[quote]Joseph not only paid his addresses to the young and unmarried women, but he sought ‘spiritual alliance’ with many married ladies. He taught them that all former marriages were null and void, and that they were at perfect liberty to make another choice of a husband. The marriage covenants were not binding, because they were ratified only by Gentile laws - consequently all the women were free.
One woman said to me not very long since, while giving me some of her experiences in polygamy: “The greatest trial I ever endured in my life was living with my husband and deceiving him, by receiving Joseph’s attentions whenever he chose to come to me.”
This woman, and others, whose experience has been very similar, are among the very best women in the church; they are as pure-minded and virtuous women as any in the world. They were seduced under the guise of religion.
Some of these women have since said they did not know who was the father of their children; this is not to be wondered at, for after Joseph’s declaration annulling all Gentile marriages, the greatest promiscuity was practiced; and, indeed, all sense of morality seemed to have been lost by a portion at least of the church." (Wife No. 19, 1876, pp. 70-71)[/quote]
Patty Bartlett Sessions, the wife of David Sessions, made it clear in her private journal that she was married to Joseph Smith for both “time” and “eternity”:
Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, the wife of Adam Lightner, testified:
In a speech given at Brigham Young University (see Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? pp. 215-216), Mrs. Lightner said that Joseph claimed an “angel” came with a “drawn sword” and told him that if he did not enter into polygamy “he would slay him.” She frankly admitted that she “had been dreaming for a number of years that I was his (Joseph’s) wife.” Since both Joseph and herself were already married, she “felt it was a sin.” Joseph, however, convinced her that the “Almighty” had revealed the principle and while her “husband was far away,” she was sealed to him.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
All of the Law has been fulfilled, which is why we don’t keep any of the typological aspects of it thanks to its fulfillment in Jesus. Christians aren’t marching down to Jerusalem every year and offering grain and animal sacrifices, are we? For the same reason, we don’t keep the ceremonial or civil aspects of the Mosaic Law: they’ve been FULFILLED. Jesus was the true Israel. [/quote]
That’s fine to claim it was all fulfilled.
But that is a very different thing from claiming it never happened.
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
Forlife, you are a Jesus hating anti-dentite. [/quote]
I hate all fairy tales equally, not just the Christian variety.
Not to say that Jesus was a fairy tale. He may have been an actual person, but most of the stories about him in the bible are just that.
On being an anti-dentite, guilty as charged.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
overpopulation is only an issue in third world shit holes. The US is one of the few developed nations that meets (barely) the replacement rate. It may only be us and canada, can’t recall. The immigration trends in EU may solve the problem there.
Unless you are adopting 2.4 kids you are not equal to the average familiy in the US, although adoption is one of most noble causes. We may add a fourth this way.
Homosexuallity is the least of our worries if we are concerned with fullfilling the replacement rate in the developed world.[/quote]
That’s fine, my point was simply that having 5% of gays in the world isn’t going to lead to the annihilation of the human race.
And as pointed out earlier, even if everyone were gay there are still ways to propagate the species without needing to have sex with the opposite gender (ick).
[quote]dhickey wrote:
If you had read the bible you would know that God changed his mind quite frequently. Especially regarding the fate of the jews. Not quite as frequently as in the quran, but still tough to follow at times.[/quote]
I’ve read the bible several times, and I agree with you.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
So there you have it. Those trying to make us believe that there are many different types of Biblically-sanctioned marriages have an irrefutable argument against them.
So you’re arguing that Abraham’s multiple wives, for example, weren’t sanctioned by his God, despite the old testament clearly stating otherwise, and that God did not approve of Abraham, despite Jesus clearly stating that he was a pillar of faith and was bound for heaven?[/quote]
I’m actually not arguing anything with you, since it’s not at all profitable or even possible.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
So there you have it. Those trying to make us believe that there are many different types of Biblically-sanctioned marriages have an irrefutable argument against them.
So you’re arguing that Abraham’s multiple wives, for example, weren’t sanctioned by his God, despite the old testament clearly stating otherwise, and that God did not approve of Abraham, despite Jesus clearly stating that he was a pillar of faith and was bound for heaven?
If you had read the bible you would know that God changed his mind quite frequently. Especially regarding the fate of the jews. Not quite as frequently as in the quran, but still tough to follow at times.[/quote]
I think you’re misunderstanding a basic OT literary device. Since you’re making a Muslim argument, here:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/changing_god.htm
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’m actually not arguing anything with you, since it’s not at all profitable or even possible. [/quote]
Of course not, because you are only capable of regurgitating tripe about the Law of Moses being fulfilled, without recognizing that in doing so you admit that the Law of Moses actually existed.
The whole point of the current thread is that polygamy was practiced under the Law of Moses.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m actually not arguing anything with you, since it’s not at all profitable or even possible.
Of course not, because you are only capable of regurgitating tripe about the Law of Moses being fulfilled, without recognizing that in doing so you admit that the Law of Moses actually existed.
The whole point of the current thread is that polygamy was practiced under the Law of Moses.[/quote]
If you could go back and influence enough delegates to refuse to ratify the constitution unless slavery was abolished, knowing that it would prevent our constitution from ever existing, would you? Heck, would you split the revolutionaries over the issue of slavery, if you had the influence to do so?
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m actually not arguing anything with you, since it’s not at all profitable or even possible.
Of course not, because you are only capable of regurgitating tripe about the Law of Moses being fulfilled, without recognizing that in doing so you admit that the Law of Moses actually existed.
The whole point of the current thread is that polygamy was practiced under the Law of Moses.[/quote]
So was the execution of homosexuals. What’s your point?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If you could go back and influence enough delegates to refuse to ratify the constitution unless slavery was abolished, knowing that it would prevent our constitution from ever existing, would you? Heck, would you split the revolutionaries over the issue of slavery, if you had the influence to do so?[/quote]
Dude, I’m not complaining about the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. I think it is fine that Christians used to practice polygamy.
What I’m pointing out is that they should be honest about the fact, instead of pretending that they have always and exclusively practiced marriage between one man and one woman.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If you could go back and influence enough delegates to refuse to ratify the constitution unless slavery was abolished, knowing that it would prevent our constitution from ever existing, would you? Heck, would you split the revolutionaries over the issue of slavery, if you had the influence to do so?
Dude, I’m not complaining about the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. I think it is fine that Christians used to practice polygamy.
What I’m pointing out is that they should be honest about the fact, instead of pretending that they have always and exclusively practiced marriage between one man and one woman.[/quote]
Curious what your answer is.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
So was the execution of homosexuals. What’s your point? [/quote]
The point is that you should own up to it as part of the history of your religious tradition, instead of insisting that marriage between one man and one woman is the only institution you have ever followed.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
So was the execution of homosexuals. What’s your point?
The point is that you should own up to it as part of the history of your religious tradition, instead of insisting that marriage between one man and one woman is the only institution you have ever followed.[/quote]
Well, now you’re conflating what ought to have been, (i.e., what Jesus explained in Mark 10:5), with what was. No one here is not owning up to marriages that existed in the Bible. That’s in your imagination.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Curious what your answer is.[/quote]
Hmm, I’m actually not sure. It is hard to sanction a Constitution that allows slavery, given what we know and value today.
Would it be better to accept the evil of slavery for a period of time, knowing that it would eventually be abolished, and that the Constitution would overall provide some of the best protection of human rights in the world?
Maybe, if the only choice were between that and not having a Constitution at all. Of course, that is a bit of a false choice since the Constitution we have today could have been written that way originally, had the founders understood and shared our values.