[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Curious what your answer is.
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?
[/quote]
I’ll let that stand as is.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
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]
Not so. Fundamentalist Christians criticize gay marriage all the time, stating it is contrary to their “5,000 year old unchanging tradition of marriage between one man and one woman”.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
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.
Not so. Fundamentalist Christians criticize gay marriage all the time, stating it is contrary to their “5,000 year old unchanging tradition of marriage between one man and one woman”.[/quote]
Christians would of course be refering to God’s plan for marriage. Not a corrupted practice that would eventually be abolished.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll let that stand as is. [/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I think the evolving morality of the bible is a good thing. I just don’t think that people should lock themselves into the cultural values of 33 AD, when society has in fact continued to progress in enlightenment since then.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Christians would of course be refering to God’s plan for marriage. Not a corrupted practice that would eventually be abolished.[/quote]
Clearly, it wasn’t abolished for thousands of years and people who practiced it were still saved. So it is a bit disingenuous to claim that marriage between one man and one woman has always been the standard, and that it is impossible to return to God in any other way.
Especially when you consider that even in the new testament, marriage between one man and one woman was viewed by Paul as inferior to celibacy.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
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.
Not so. Fundamentalist Christians criticize gay marriage all the time, stating it is contrary to their “5,000 year old unchanging tradition of marriage between one man and one woman”.[/quote]
I’m more interested in the biblical data, not your imaginary opponents.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’ll let that stand as is.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the evolving morality of the bible is a good thing. I just don’t think that people should lock themselves into the cultural values of 33 AD, when society has in fact continued to progress in enlightenment since then.[/quote]
The morality is locked into place.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Christians would of course be refering to God’s plan for marriage. Not a corrupted practice that would eventually be abolished.
Clearly, it wasn’t abolished for thousands of years and people who practiced it were still saved. So it is a bit disingenuous to claim that marriage between one man and one woman has always been the standard, and that it is impossible to return to God in any other way.
Especially when you consider that even in the new testament, marriage between one man and one woman was viewed by Paul as inferior to celibacy.[/quote]
Then your standard is slavery?
TOUCHE!! Clearly I have not been reading the same books. I’m glad you posted the references so that I can go and read them in context. I would hate to base my opinion on just reading something posted here. I shall read and learn more.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Not so. Fundamentalist Christians criticize gay marriage all the time, stating it is contrary to their “5,000 year old unchanging tradition of marriage between one man and one woman”.[/quote]
For crying out loud, how long are you going to go on about this? It’s not likely Rick Warren isn’t aware of polygamy in the OT. He was most likely speaking within the context of the redefinition placed by Jesus on marriage in the NT. And so what if he wasn’t and you’ve proven him wrong? Does that mean our basic definition of marriage should change? Not at all. All the reform you’re going to get on that was 2000 years ago. The main thing for you as a practicing sodomite to note is marriage has ALWAYS been HETEROSEXUAL.
Can we reform that too? Nope, Paul made it clear that sodomy is unnatural, “unseemly”, and wicked. Just because you are able to tie this unnatural act to higher feelings of love and companionship does not change that. It just means you are perverted, have found someone to share in that perversion, and have made it the center and obsession of your life.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’m more interested in the biblical data, not your imaginary opponents. [/quote]
Hardly imaginary, when people like Rick Warren say:
Every one of those examples he opposes occurs in the old testament.
Maybe he and people like him need to read their bible more closely.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The morality is locked into place. [/quote]
That’s the point, isn’t it? You accept the evolution of morality during the first 2,000 years but refuse to accept the ongoing evolution of morality during the next 2,000 years.
Society tends to become more enlightened with time, as evidenced in recent history by increasing support of civil rights for people like women and racial minorities that have traditionally been disenfranchised.
We didn’t live 2,000 years ago. We live today, and have made a lot of progress since then.
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
TOUCHE!! Clearly I have not been reading the same books. I’m glad you posted the references so that I can go and read them in context. I would hate to base my opinion on just reading something posted here. I shall read and learn more.[/quote]
Cool, always nice to see people open minded enough to educate themselves.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Can we reform that too? Nope, Paul made it clear that sodomy is unnatural, “unseemly”, and wicked. [/quote]
Paul made it clear that the highest standard should be celibacy, rather than marriage between a man and woman. He also commanded women to keep their heads covered, and not to speak in church.
Glad to see you are living true to Saint Paul’s words.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
It could be she was just sick of all your bullshit.
I wonder how many times she had to hear:
“I’m Gay…no I’m straight…no no I’m sure I’m gay.”
[/quote]
I told her I was gay before we married, and never once claimed I was straight. Nor did I ever cheat on her.
Nice try though, dipshit.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m more interested in the biblical data, not your imaginary opponents.
Hardly imaginary, when people like Rick Warren say:
I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
Every one of those examples he opposes occurs in the old testament.
Maybe he and people like him need to read their bible more closely.[/quote]
By “5,000 year old,” he means “Since Genesis 2,” which is what Jesus was referring to in Mark 10. No Biblical redefinition occurred between Adam and Jesus, rather sin entered due to the Fall and man (including sinful OT characters like Abraham and Moses) began acting accordingly. The ought not have acted the way they did, but they did. Lot lay with one of his daughters, and I don’t see anyone running around suggesting anyone else do the same. The OT characters were declared righteous because of their faith in spite of their [/i]works[/i] as the books of Hebrews and Romans explain, and which none of the “Jesus is a hippy” crowd care to read.
Why is this so hard for someone with a PhD to understand?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
No Biblical redefinition occurred between Adam and Jesus, rather sin entered due to the Fall and man (including sinful OT characters like Abraham and Moses) began acting accordingly. [/quote]
Show me one scriptural passage to the effect that Abraham’s polygamy, for example, was a sin under the Law of Moses. You have none, because you know as well as I do that it wasn’t considered a sin at the time.
Why would God send an angel to Abraham’s second wife and tell her to return and submit to his first wife, promising fertility through Abraham, if God considered this second marriage to be a sin?
[quote]Genesis 16
1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
6B ut Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thine hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
13 And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?[/quote]
Why would God specifically tell David that he had given him the wives of his master in marriage if he considered polygamy a sin?
[quote]2 Samuel 12:8.
And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.[/quote]
At that point in time, David had already been married to at least seven wives (1 Samuel 18:27, 25:42-43, 2 Samuel 3:2-5).
But, in chapter 12 (above), God was not condemning David for all of his wives. To the contrary, chapter 12 shows God himself actually saying that he was the one who had given David his wives.
If God was against David’s polygamy, he certainly would not have said that he had given David his wives.
Moreover, God went further to say that if David had wanted more wives, he would have given him even more.
Please. Your rationalizations are ridiculous, and only reveal your willingness to twist anything to fit the idea that marriage has always been divinely approved as between one man and one woman.
While we’re at it, how about addressing Paul’s injunction to be celibate rather than to marry? Doesn’t that throw a fly into your ointment of marriage between one man and one woman being the ultimate standard?
The Law of Moses wasn’t even around under Abraham. It came at least 500 years later. You keep trying to take passages out of their redemptive-historical context which is why your arguments fall flat on their face.
A story about Sarai and Abram’s screw-up is not a justification for repeating the behavior of that screw up. You’ll recall God promising Abram a seed through his wife, Sarai, not his servant Hagar. The fact that God chose to bless Hagar in spite of Abram’s screw-up is not an endorsement of further like screw-ups down the road.
Uh, no. You’ve committed a category error. “Celibacy,” by definition, is not “marriage,” which the Bible defined in Genesis 2 (and later exegeted by Jesus) to be between a man and a woman. We’re discussing the standard for “marriage” here, not what is better for the sake of the kingdom.
[quote]2 Samuel 12:8.
And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
[/quote]
The point of the passage, to the ancient Near Eastern literature illiterate, is that God gave David the spoils of Saul’s house. The specific commandment for kings of Israel was “…not to multiply wives, lest they turn your heart away from the Lord,” (Deut 17:17) which is the very thing Solomon did.
But you still have irrefutable argumentation from Jesus himself on what the Biblical standard is, yet you refuse to address any of this. I’m expected to sit here and try to address every one of your blind stabs at Scriptural exegesis while you just ignore everything I’ve presented.
I shouldn’t be surprised. This is what you do with Thunderbolt23.