Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,920 Year: 4,177/9,624 Month: 1,048/974 Week: 7/368 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 203 of 313 (751582)
03-04-2015 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by nwr
03-03-2015 11:40 PM


Yup, Roy Moore got pissed cause he was dissed
Yup, as I noted the majority of the Probate Judges of Alabama understood Roy is just an idiot and bigot and so ignored his assertion that they did not have to issue same sex marriage licenses and more and more were issuing them every day.
Since once again the intelligent and educated folk in Alabama realized he was just a silly twit he had to show that the Christian Cult of Ignorance will simply oppress when they fail to persuade.
Roy is a great example of why we need to fear any Biblical Christian in a position of power and authority.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by nwr, posted 03-03-2015 11:40 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 210 of 313 (751605)
03-04-2015 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
03-04-2015 11:28 AM


the fact that past societies were ignorant intolerant misogynic bigots ...
does not mean we need to be ignorant intolerant misogynic bigots.
Faith writes:
Marriage is NOT about "recognising a loving emotional and financial commitment for life for a couple" or "stable loving environments" or any other such subjective feeling-defined crap. It's about the simple objective fact that heterosexuals are DESIGNED for each other and that together they have the physical capacity to produce babies. Oh and please spare me all the sophistry about the exceptions, the infertilities and so on, they don't affect the basic fact of the design for fit that is the apparatus of reproduction.
Utter bullshit Faith. Marriage, even in the Bible, was a secular contract. It was purely financial, a matter or power and wealth and social standing.
Marriage today just as in the Bible is a social, secular contract.
It really is that simple. It has jack shit to do with sex, sexual orientation, sexual practices and everything to do with rights and inheritance and responsibility.
No God need apply or is needed.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:53 AM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 214 of 313 (751611)
03-04-2015 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
03-04-2015 11:56 AM


learn history Faith
Faith writes:
No I am not talking about marriage as a religious institution but as a universally recognized institution in all cultures. Really there shouldn't BE any legal criteria. It should be a private matter recognized in a general way.
But there has always been a legal criteria. The Jews had laws governing marriage. Why do you keep posting stuff that is so obviously just bullshit that it destroys any chance of anyone taking anything you say seriously.
Faith writes:
There IS a God and He doesn't let a government get away with perverted laws, just as judgment is also brewing against the official sanctioning of the murder of the unborn.
So you post yet more utterly stupid lies as a response?
Sheesh Faith.
Not just that but is there ANY reason that any nations should do anything more than chuckle about a judgement from the god you try to market?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 12:06 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 218 of 313 (751616)
03-04-2015 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
03-04-2015 12:06 PM


Re: learn ANYTHING jar
Sure Faith.
You bought wives just like any other property (and sold kids the same way). One party set a price and the negotiations started. How man cattle or sheep or goats for that little doe eyed piece.
The laws governed marriage between tribes and what to do with an excess widow. They established treaties and alliances, marriages for political or economic purposes.
This remained true throughout the Biblical fables.
Gotta ask yet again Faith, have you ever read the Bible?
One way is see a woman prisoner you want and take her.
Deut writes:
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Find the guy with an excess of daughters to get rid of and water his flock.
Exodus writes:
16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock.
17 And the shepherds came and drove them away: but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock.
18 And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day?
19 And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock.
20 And he said unto his daughters, And where is he? why is it that ye have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread.
21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.
Rape some virgin and then pay off her dad.
Deut writes:
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Buy some property and get a wife thrown in as part of the deal.
Ruth writes:
5 Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.
6 And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.
7 Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.
8 Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.
9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.
10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.
I can keep going just about all day but not every single example shown is a matter of contract.
Shall I keep going?
Have you read Gen. 29:15-30, 1 Sam. 18:27, Hosea 1:1-3, 1 Kings 11:1-3, Esther 2:3-4, 1 Sam. 18:27?
They are all examples of "Biblical Marriage".
Edited by jar, : left out a closing quote mark
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin (mine not the Bibles)

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 12:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 224 of 313 (751628)
03-04-2015 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Faith
03-04-2015 12:46 PM


Re: getting government out of the marriage business
Sorry Faith but they are examples of the State (several states) sanctioning marriage. There was no other government at the time. You want examples of government sanctioning marriage, well the Bible was that basis, in fact many of those examples com from "the Laws & the Prophets".
Did you not see the references to Deuteronomy and Judges and Kings in what I posted?
Of course, we are certainly wiser and far more moral today than Jesus or any of the Prophets or even the God(s) of the Bible and we simply don't condone Biblical Marriage practices.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 12:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 225 of 313 (751631)
03-04-2015 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
03-04-2015 1:05 PM


palming the pea does not work
Faith writes:
I happen to care about the condition of society itself, not just my own little life, which has never been a part of my thinking on this.
However, it does seem that no matter how you cut it, they are still going to persecute Christian businesses for refusing to provide wedding services for a gay wedding.
No matter how many times you repeat falsehoods they are still not true.
And Faith, that also has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread which is about the utter stupidity of Judge Roy Moore.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 1:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 261 of 313 (751729)
03-05-2015 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
03-05-2015 1:35 AM


the only benefits were social benefits Faith
Faith writes:
But I'm sure you mean social benefits and one would certainly be the protection of women, which would have been more necessary in earlier times, though up until fairly recently. And stability and security for the raising of children. That one's rather a joke in our age of easy divorce but in a society where marriage is valued and enforced as a standard that could be said of it.
But if you had ever actually read the Bible Faith you would know that Biblical Marriage was never for the protection of women or even stability and security for the raising of children. You are just making shit up again as I pointed out in Message 218.
Since you obviously didn't read it that time I will gladly repeat it again.
quote:
Sure Faith.
You bought wives just like any other property (and sold kids the same way). One party set a price and the negotiations started. How man cattle or sheep or goats for that little doe eyed piece.
The laws governed marriage between tribes and what to do with an excess widow. They established treaties and alliances, marriages for political or economic purposes.
This remained true throughout the Biblical fables.
Gotta ask yet again Faith, have you ever read the Bible?
One way is see a woman prisoner you want and take her.
Deut writes:
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Find the guy with an excess of daughters to get rid of and water his flock.
Exodus writes:
16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock.
17 And the shepherds came and drove them away: but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock.
18 And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day?
19 And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock.
20 And he said unto his daughters, And where is he? why is it that ye have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread.
21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.
Rape some virgin and then pay off her dad.
Deut writes:
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Buy some property and get a wife thrown in as part of the deal.
Ruth writes:
5 Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.
6 And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.
7 Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.
8 Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.
9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.
10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.
I can keep going just about all day but not every single example shown is a matter of contract.
Shall I keep going?
Have you read Gen. 29:15-30, 1 Sam. 18:27, Hosea 1:1-3, 1 Kings 11:1-3, Esther 2:3-4, 1 Sam. 18:27?
They are all examples of "Biblical Marriage".
In the Bible women and children were chattel, possessions, personal property that was not just real estate.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 11:32 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 266 of 313 (751749)
03-05-2015 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Faith
03-05-2015 11:32 AM


Re: the only benefits were social benefits Faith
Faith writes:
Your examples are about how some marriages came about, not how the marriage itself was legally defined.
More utter misrepresentation from Faith.
They are examples from the "Laws and the Prophets" Faith. They also show that protecting women and children were not part of Biblical Marriage and that women and children were not even seen as anything more than property, stuff to buy and sell. They describe "Biblical Marriage".
Thank God we have become far more moral than any of the characters in the Bible and have moved beyond the horror called "Biblical Morality".
But Faith, Roy Moore is still just a bigot and idiot with no respect for the US or Constitution.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 11:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:02 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 268 of 313 (751753)
03-05-2015 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Faith
03-05-2015 12:02 PM


Re: the only benefits were social benefits Faith
Faith writes:
Nothing I suggested about the social meaning of marriage implied that it was consciously designed that way, but women had to have the protection of a father or a husband in most societies throughout history because of the barbarian inclinations of men left over from the Fall, which cursed women with being ruled over by men. Which IS illustrated in your examples.
Got it Faith.
Getting sold as property offers women protection.
Getting raped offers women protection.
Pick a prisoner offers women protection.
Some guy making a deal with a father to buy you offers women protection.
Do you have any idea how your posts are making you look as much a bigot as Roy Moore?
Biblical Marriage like Biblical Morality was and is horrific and thank God most folk today are far more moral than anyone found in the Bible stories.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:23 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 270 of 313 (751756)
03-05-2015 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
03-05-2015 12:23 PM


Re: the only benefits were social benefits Faith
Faith writes:
You are generalizing a few anecdotes into law.
Too funny Faith.
I am not generalizing rather quoting what is in the "Law & the Prophets".
Thank God we as a nation have moved beyond "Biblical Morality" and "Biblical Marriage".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 278 of 313 (751799)
03-05-2015 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
03-05-2015 9:57 PM


more total falsehoods from Faith
Faith writes:
No, marriage did not change over the last two millennia at all, up until a little over half a century ago, when it started falling apart in the west under the onslaught of Cultural Marxism / Political Correctness.
Faith, when you say stuff as absurd as that you have to be either totally delusional, willfully ignorant or just plain lying.
Marriage has constantly changed and changed based on era, culture and society. No "Biblical Marriage" practice as I outlined several times here in this thread would be acceptable in any western country today and most not for hundreds of years.
It's been awhile since women were just chattle, property to be bought or sold, not yet long enough though
It's been a long time since the way to get a wife was to rape a virgin and then give her father 50 sheckels.
It's been awhile since you bought property and a wife got thrown in.
It's been awhile since to get a wife you slew 200 men and brought their foreskins to the King.
It's been awhile since God said to take a wife from whoredom and knock her up.
Having seven hundred wives and three hundred mistresses is not really acceptable anymore.
It's not general practice to have district officers gather all the fair young virgins together and the one that pleases the King become Queen.
For most of history marriage between different races was fine until Christianity decided it was wrong. Fortunately that madness was finally outlawed.
Marriage has changed and to claim that "marriage did not change over the last two millennia at all, up until a little over half a century ago, when it started falling apart in the west under the onslaught of Cultural Marxism / Political Correctness" is at best utter ignorance but most likely just plain dishonesty.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 9:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 6:24 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 293 of 313 (751819)
03-06-2015 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
03-06-2015 6:24 AM


Re: the errors are yours jar
Faith writes:
You continue to confuse incidentals with the essence. The point was that marriage itself has not changed over the last 2000 years, but only very recently, it's been one man with one woman for 2000 years, and it's been enforced by most societies as the rule. The objection to interracial marriage was very shortlived and very very local and its defense on the basis of the Bible bogus in the extreme, besides which that too has nothing to do with what I'm saying about the essence of marriage itself. Multiple spouses during that period is an aberration, the examples you have in mind precede Christ, meaning precede the last 2000 years.
What's changed in the west in the last few decades is that divorce has become easy, many people live together without bothering to get married and now we have the absurd idea that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Those are real changes and they are new.
The New Testament also provides for divorce and even Jesus agrees that divorce is allowed.
Have you ever read the Bible Faith?
Infidelity of any kind was grounds for divorce or even one partner being a non-believer.
So not only has marriage changed a lot over the last 2000 years divorce really hasn't changed all that much.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 6:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 8:33 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 295 of 313 (751823)
03-06-2015 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
03-06-2015 8:33 AM


Re: the errors are yours jar
Faith writes:
Jesus condemned divorce as hated by God, allowing only the circumstance of sexual infidelity as a justification for it. And divorce was allowed in the marriage of a believer to an unbeliever if the unbeliever didn't want to stay married but that wasn't often the case. Then the believer was counseled to let the unbeliever go but then remarriage is not approved in any of those cases. None of this made divorce common and easy, as it is now. Since apostolic times divorce didn't become casual and common in the west until the last few decades.
Sheesh Faith.
People who get divorced hate that divorce was necessary too.
Also, it was marital infidelity that the Bible talks about and that is never defined.
And if someone wanted to get a divorce all that was needed was for that spouse to claim they did not believe. How is that different than today's no fault divorce? The unbeliever was of course free to remarry, it was only the member of that chapter of Club Christian that might not be able to remarry.
And when it comes to remarriage the Roman Catholic church decided that was not allowed. The Bible (as with most everything) is unclear about that. As Henry showed us though in Protestant Christianity divorce and remarriage is certainly possible.
And finally, there have been far more non-Christian marriages during the last 2000 years than Christian ones and rules have changed even there.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 8:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 304 of 313 (751855)
03-06-2015 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Faith
03-06-2015 2:37 PM


Fzaith makes jokes yet again
Faith writes:
Marriage is NOT just ANY contract.
Too funny. Yes Faith, marriage is just another contract unless you can provide evidence that it is not just another contract.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 2:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024