Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 586 of 759 (702934)
07-12-2013 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by Faith
07-12-2013 11:58 AM


Re: Pointy Sticks
It is absurd to call an ancient institution like marriage discrimination against people who don't qualify for it.
I did not call marriage discrimination against people who don't qualify for it, because I am not in the habit of spitting out random collections of words with no relevance to my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 11:58 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 587 of 759 (702935)
07-12-2013 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by Faith
07-12-2013 11:55 AM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Nobody is objecting to homosexual unions that are established spontaneously or with rituals of any sort that don't involve redefining marriage for the state or the whole society.
Many people object to them, in fact. If you think that homosexuality is perfectly unobjectionable, then you are more enlightened than many of your coreligionists, some of whom seem to think that it's a sin. Well done.
As for this stuff about "redefining marriage", again, if that's your objection, could you explain why it's an objection at all? People are more important than words. You can redefine a word without hurting it. It's a commonplace practice. What's more, it seems to have already happened. "Gay marriage" is, after all, not an oxymoron, we know what it means, whereas we do not understand (for example) the phrase "four-sided triangle". Ergo, the word marriage already means, among other things ... well, let me turn you over to a dictionary:
marriage [mar-ij]
noun
a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 11:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 593 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 11:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 588 of 759 (702938)
07-12-2013 9:30 PM


Kudos, Faith
Congratulations, Faith. You have become the sole adversary in 3 topics. You have nearly all active participants responding to the shit YOU write. We ought to rename this place to "EvF".
"Watch as Faith takes on all atheist heathens in a one against them all matchup. Only Jesus can come out on top with the help of Faith".

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 589 of 759 (702941)
07-12-2013 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by Taq
07-12-2013 5:05 PM


Re: Can't we just go back to "traditional" marriages?
That's hilarious given that the First Amendment tells everyone that they are free to ignore the First Commandment.
Good point, it does, to the nation's shame really. There were antichristian influences as well. But much of American law was also based on the Old Testament, through Blackstone. Both are true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Taq, posted 07-12-2013 5:05 PM Taq has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 590 of 759 (702942)
07-12-2013 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 579 by jar
07-12-2013 5:51 PM


Jar's misrepresentations of the Hagar story
You started your quote at the point where Sara "mistreated" Hagar, leaving out the reason she did it, Hagar's despising her for her infertility:
Gen 16:3 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.
Gen 16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
Gen 16:5 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.
Gen 16:6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid [is] in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face
You had also said in your Message 570 that God sent her back to "Abe," but God sent her back to her mistress Sarai. If that was intended to be your proof that God commanded polygamy it doesn't work for that purpose. It was Sarai who gave Hagar to Abraham in the first place, it was not God's plan and there is nothing anywhere in scripture that shows God commanding polygamy.
As He said in Genesis 2:24:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
ONE "wife" not plural "wives." And this was reiterated in the NT by both Jesus and Paul which I already quoted earlier in the thread. The polygamous Israelites were in sin.
So you were wrong about the three things you said, that God commanded polygamy and that God commanded she return to Abraham, and the implication that Sarai mistreated Hagar for no good reason. Here's that Message 570 where you said all that:
jar writes:
They were not just allowed to continue polygamy, according to the Bible God even commanded it.
When Hagar left Abe acauseof Sara got in her face and dissed her, God stopped her and commanded she return to Abe.
Also there were TWO episodes where Hagar was sent away, both times for the same reason of despising and mockery of her mistress, in the second case by her son Ishmael, which was the incident I had in mind:
Gen 21:8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the [same] day that Isaac was weaned.
Gen 21:9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
Gen 21:10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, [even] with Isaac.
Gen 21:11 And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son.
Gen 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Gen 21:13 And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he [is] thy seed.
Gen 21:14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave [it] unto Hagar, putting [it] on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.
Gen 21:15 And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.
Gen 21:16 And she went, and sat her down over against [him] a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against [him], and lift up her voice, and wept.
Gen 21:17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he [is].
Gen 21:18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.
Gen 21:19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by jar, posted 07-12-2013 5:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by jar, posted 07-13-2013 9:14 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 591 of 759 (702943)
07-12-2013 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 583 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2013 8:35 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Indeed, so far from him openly disapproving of polygamy, he set special blessings on such polygamists as Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, without even mentioning to them his preference for monogamy ... no-one would ever have guessed that he was secretly disapproving of their marital arrangements.
You might not guess it but a good Biblical exegete does.
God also called David a man after His own heart although David not only committed polygamy but seduced the wife of one of his loyal soldiers, then had the man killed to cover his tracks.
It doesn't have to be said in so many words for us to recognize sin in God's people, you simply have to know what God commanded and when they violate it you know they are in sin. Much of the OT shows sin that is not identified as such. You're supposed to know the commandments and know sin when you see it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 8:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:18 PM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 592 of 759 (702944)
07-12-2013 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 591 by Faith
07-12-2013 11:09 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
It doesn't have to be said in so many words for us to recognize sin in God's people, you simply have to know what God commanded and when they violate it you know they are in sin.
Yeah, but they didn't know they were in sin, because God never told them to be monogamous. No commandment, no personal communique ... even when God granted Solomon wisdom and knowledge (2 Chronicles 1:12) this apparently didn't include knowing that he shouldn't have all those wives and concubines.
God also called David a man after His own heart although David not only committed polygamy but seduced the wife of one of his loyal soldiers, then had the man killed to cover his tracks.
Yeah, it's almost as though he doesn't give a damn. He's fine with murder, adultery, polygamy, but orders the death penalty for picking up sticks on Saturday. Reading the Bible, one gets the idea that he has a fairly odd set of priorities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 11:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 11:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 593 of 759 (702945)
07-12-2013 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 587 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2013 8:51 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Nobody is objecting to homosexual unions that are established spontaneously or with rituals of any sort that don't involve redefining marriage for the state or the whole society.
Many people object to them, in fact.
Excuse me, I should have been clearer: The arguments against Gay Marriage as such are not against any other form of homosexual union, the objection is to the misuse of the institution of marriage.
As for the definition you supplied of "marriage" it's clearly a modern politically correct definition. You might consider Noah Webster's definition from his dictionary of 1828, and in fact those who deny the original Christian mindset of America might consider it as well:
marriage
MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.
1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.
2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 8:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 594 of 759 (702946)
07-12-2013 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2013 11:18 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Murder and adultery were also punishable by death. Often the Israelites forgot the commandments and went their own way, nothing unusual in that. The OT is a great deal about human sin and the failure to keep God's law. That isn't God's fault, that's human nature. Eventually their sins accumulate and they come under Judgment though.
Also, you can see God's judgment in the case of David's adultery and murder in what happened with his sons later. You can also see the consequences of Solomon's sins in the splitting of the kingdom and the rule by evil kings. You have to be alert to how God works, you see. You judge superficially, but God's workings are clear to those who understand.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 596 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 595 of 759 (702948)
07-12-2013 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 593 by Faith
07-12-2013 11:20 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
As for the definition you supplied of "marriage" it's clearly a modern politically correct definition. You might consider Noah Webster's definition from his dictionary of 1828 ...
Well, that was 1828. This is now. And my point remains: apparently marriage has already been redefined. If redefinition is a bad thing, then obviously we shouldn't redefine it again, should we? Redefining words is bad, right? We should stick with the definition we've got.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 593 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 11:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 596 of 759 (702949)
07-12-2013 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by Faith
07-12-2013 11:22 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Murder and adultery were also punishable by death.
Polygamy and concubinage, on the other hand, were punishable by sweet F.A.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 11:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 11:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 597 of 759 (702951)
07-12-2013 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 596 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2013 11:27 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
They got punished along with all the other sins committed by David and Solomon, and others too, as I describe above, in the consequences to David's sons and daughter, and the consequences to the nation of Israel as it was split into two kingdoms and had many evil kings.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 599 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:53 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 598 of 759 (702956)
07-12-2013 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by Jazzns
07-12-2013 6:10 PM


Re: Can't we just go back to "traditional" marriages?
What Christ CHANGED was their casual acceptance of the sin of polygamy, by emphasizing God's ordinance, not GOD'S ORDINANCE itself. Sheesh.
Where did Christ do this exactly?
I answered this back in Message 544 where I said:
Marriage is a Creation Ordinance, established by God, by which a man and a woman become "one flesh" which is expressed in the offspring they create which are literally one flesh out of the two of them. This is said in Genesis 2:24 and quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, and by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:16 and Ephesians 5:31. Although there are certainly conditions that prevent fertility in heterosexuals, they are still by principle able to become one flesh, whereas the rectum cannot conceive a child no matter how much you might wish it.
God stated the principle of marriage as one man and one woman uniting to make one flesh, and Jesus repeated it and so did Paul. The polygamous Israelites were in sin against God's ordinance and by reiterating it the New Testament establishes it and outlaws polygamy on its basis.
And what about the tradition of rape? There are clear commandments from god for rape and genocide victims to marry their attackers.
Doesn't occur to you that this was a mercy to the victims, who would otherwise be abandoned to a horrible fate, does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by Jazzns, posted 07-12-2013 6:10 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 605 by Jazzns, posted 07-13-2013 1:36 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 599 of 759 (702957)
07-12-2013 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 597 by Faith
07-12-2013 11:30 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
They got punished along with all the other sins committed by David and Solomon, and others too, as I describe above, in the consequences to David's sons and daughters, and the consequences to the nation of Israel as it was split into two kingdoms and had many evil kings.
But there's nothing in the Mosaic Law against them, is there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 11:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 11:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 600 of 759 (702958)
07-12-2013 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 599 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2013 11:53 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
No, it's not in the Mosaic Law, marriage is a Creation Ordinance, established at the Creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 601 by Theodoric, posted 07-13-2013 12:02 AM Faith has replied
 Message 602 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2013 12:03 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024