|
Post by maryhig on May 25, 2015 15:09:50 GMT -5
How can you interpret it differently when is says clearly man should not sleep with man, and marriage is between a man and woman? It says it loud and clear! In Leviticus 18 and 20, and Romans 1. How much clearer do you need it? It's saying it word for word how is that wrong? Does it say a man shall not marry another man? Or is this still a sexual issue?I have presented some verses clearly written in the bible and your response was that they didn't really mean what they said but had a different meaning. It has to do with the killing of people and stacking their bodies. Clearly talking about the actual killing of other humans and then stacking the bodies, much the same way that it was carried out in the camps in Poland. Yet you came up with another meaning because, I guess, the text given did not agree with your vision of god. You also said that when god commanded the death of every living thing that it rfeally didn't mean killing the women and children. The text there was also clear. If you just consider marriage - where does the bible stand on same sex marriages - ignoring, if you can, what goes on in the bedroom. If that's what you prefer to believe about the bible, then ok! That's up to you. I have every right to believe what my heart tells me is right. And I believe the word of God! And God said though shalt not kill, and I believe he means just that! Tell you what, you show me where it does say in the bible same sex marriage is ok, if its not in there, then I don't believe it's right. It's does say a marriage between a man and a woman is right though. So I believe that is what is Gods will!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 18:03:48 GMT -5
Christians don't have an exclusive entitlement on marriage. And the Jews didn't invent marriage. Forget atheists for a minute. How about aboriginal peoples world-wide? They formed marriages for millennia -- long before any of the Bible was even written. Why would they do that? They tried to pass a law in South Africa once making all non-Christian marriages void -- that was the racist Apartheid idea. The Hindus and everyone else resented having their "wives called wh-res and their children called bastards." (That's a direct quote from Gandhi) Unless you think marriage is a burden, why do you think atheists wouldn't want it too? PS Try writing "who-es" and see what comes up. I have found a Bible word that is unspeakably obscene. Yes but wouldn't all those different people be getting married before their God? No. They didn't have the Catholic church around to tell them it was a sacrament. Anyway, which of their gods would you be talking about. And I hate anchovies -- doesn't mean I have no need of pizza. Of course, but not everyone is in your box. People in other houses are every bit as human as the ones in your house. Why did you get married -- I'm just assuming you are married. All marriages are civil ceremonies -- the fact that some of them are solemnized by clergy doesn't change that. The proof rests in the fact that all divorces are granted by civil authorities. No one is asking for a marriage under the blessing of a god. But if the state requires that kind of marriage, what difference does the blessing make anyway -- take the marriage certificate and ignore the blessing, the state cares nothing about the blessing, just the marriage certificate. That doesn't apply only to atheists. It happens all the time in states which mandate that only clergymen perform marriages. I know thousands of people who were married by clergymen in whom they had absolutely no faith whatsoever -- my parents and one of my daughters being two of them. The word "god" was never mentioned at our marriage (48 years ago), and neither was our other daughter's. How can you call those people hypocritical? How can you denigrate a marriage that is legal and moral? If that kind of marriage is hypocritical, then it's legal fraud for a clergyman to take money for blessing people he knows have no use for his blessing.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 18:08:15 GMT -5
Why do you think that the concept of marriage comes only from the bible? The concept of marriage has nothing to do with the bible!
People of all religions and beliefs get married!
Atheists get married!
The sun doesn't rise & set with the bible!
But the sun sets and rises at Gods will! And actually there is one son that rises with the bible and that's Gods son! That's a pun that only works in English. Something like "'I' is the middle letter in 'sin'." Problem is, "I" is also the middle letter in Jim, and Tim, Fortunately they only work in English.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 18:11:16 GMT -5
Where is your respect for all the other people in the world & their beliefs ?
I respect God over man. Including myself! My feelings come last to his! I put God first! But with that comes my love for my fellow man, including atheists, anyone who's gay, Christians all religions any colour skin, all the people in the world. I care for everyone! When I was working, I used to speak to people in work about God. I spoke to a woman who was straight and has 3 children, she dismissed me and told me I was mad. I also spoke to someone who was gay. He listened and asked me quite a few different things. I spoke to him many times. And my heart melted for him! He had a soft gentle heart, and God looks at the heart! But I also believe in the living God of the bible, and the God I believe in says marriage is between a man and a woman. So that's what I believe is right! I'm a sinner, and I'm nothing, I'm only stating what my God says is right by him. And I believe in him with all my heart! What is your sin?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 18:12:26 GMT -5
Does it say a woman shouldn't sleep with a woman? But the bible does say: Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve. And we know how Adam and Eve loved from the history of the children they had. A suppose that you could twist this into 'spiritual love' but after the arrival of Cain, Abel and Seth, plus a minimum of two other sons and two daughters it would seem that there was an exchange of bodily fluids as well as that spiritual love! Rational the Bible does not say anything about Ruth loving Naomi as Adam loved Eve. You're making this up. Ah! You missed the euphemism too.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 18:15:39 GMT -5
So what about the homosexual workers that are preaching ? ( By the way I have nothing against homosexuals ) I haven't seen any more than unsupported allegations that there are such. However, as long as they are resisting temptation and remaining celibate, keeping pure in thought and deed, it's no different to anyone else. Fornication is a sin no matter who does it. Not according to the Bible. Occasionally God has ordered it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 18:21:10 GMT -5
So what about the homosexual workers that are preaching ? ( By the way I have nothing against homosexuals ) are there? where? and who? I know of homosexual workers in NS, NL, PE, NB, QC, ON, AB, BC, CA, WA, MA, NY, .... Except for the ones who have propositioned me, or been prosecuted, I learned about the rest from the workers themselves.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 25, 2015 18:22:00 GMT -5
I haven't seen any more than unsupported allegations that there are such. However, as long as they are resisting temptation and remaining celibate, keeping pure in thought and deed, it's no different to anyone else. Fornication is a sin no matter who does it. Not according to the Bible. Occasionally God has ordered it. You could say the same about genocide, but that doesn't make it right or moral.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 18:23:57 GMT -5
How many workers do you think are really celibate? In the country where I live - all of them are celibate, without a shadow of a doubt. Wait until the sun starts going down, and the shadow will appear.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 25, 2015 18:24:30 GMT -5
Does it say a woman shouldn't sleep with a woman? But the bible does say: Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve. And we know how Adam and Eve loved from the history of the children they had. A suppose that you could twist this into 'spiritual love' but after the arrival of Cain, Abel and Seth, plus a minimum of two other sons and two daughters it would seem that there was an exchange of bodily fluids as well as that spiritual love! Rational the Bible does not say anything about Ruth loving Naomi as Adam loved Eve. You're making this up. No, not exactly but I know how people who believe the bible like to draw on other parts to support the part they are presenting so I thought I would as well. The same Hebrew word is used to describe the love between Ruth and Naomi as is used to describe the love between Adam and Eve. In addition the same word cleave was also used and, in Genesis, explained as the man and woman becoming as one. In everyday language that points to intercourse. The problem is, as maryhig demonstrated, even though the text of the bible states that god said to kill the women and children she does not believe that is what it means. So the actual text of the bible really doesn't matter. What the believer thinks it means is the determining factor.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 25, 2015 18:26:06 GMT -5
Not according to the Bible. Occasionally God has ordered it. You could say the same about genocide, but that doesn't make it right or moral. There are acts of god that are immoral?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 18:27:22 GMT -5
Not according to the Bible. Occasionally God has ordered it. You could say the same about genocide, but that doesn't make it right or moral. Notice, I said "occasionally". But you have to have god's permission ahead of time.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 18:30:20 GMT -5
The comparison of the feelings between the two women was compared to the feelings between Adam and Eve. Same homosexual feelings being compared to heterosexual feelings. The feelings between two women being equated to the feeling between a married couple. clave - To unite or be united closely in interest or affection; to adhere with strong attachment. You do not think that homosexuals enter into heterosexual marriages? Wasn't the marriage to Boaz one of convenience? This has been debated for centuries. I doubt there is a lesbian slant that could be supported. There is no lesbian slant to this verse at all! How have you judged maternal love to be the same as sexual love? And how does cleave mean having intercourse with each other? Definition cleave to adhere closely; stick; cling (usually followed by to). How is this gay? You can see clearly that Ruth loves Naomi like a mother, you've completely twisted that in the wrong way, you and by the sound of it, many others through the centuries! You're not up to date on 1600's English euphemism.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 25, 2015 18:38:37 GMT -5
This has been debated for centuries. I doubt there is a lesbian slant that could be supported. There is no lesbian slant to this verse at all! How have you judged maternal love to be the same as sexual love? And how does cleave mean having intercourse with each other? Definition cleave to adhere closely; stick; cling (usually followed by to). How is this gay? You can see clearly that Ruth loves Naomi like a mother, you've completely twisted that in the wrong way, you and by the sound of it, many others through the centuries! Did you even notice that I have stated that I do not believe there is a lesbian slant that could be supported? You seemed to want to continue discussing it though so I decided to go along. Consider it practice!
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 25, 2015 18:45:56 GMT -5
No, I'm quoting the bible, and God is more accurate than any man! But the holy spirit in the heart does help Gods people understand the bible with more accuracy! maryhig, in all fairness, you are quoting the bible and also providing your own twist on what you read there. You say god said not to kill but looking even a little deeper you would find that the word used in the 10 commandments was more in line with murder than homicide. The easy out of the discussion is that when god ordered the destruction of all living things it immediately became justifiable homicide and not murder (kill) as in the commandments. But without even trying hard there are many things that could be pointed to in the bible that are simply false.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 18:46:13 GMT -5
If you think producing children is the reason to get "married", why do they give marriage licenses to (1) virgins, (2) 70-year olds, and (3) couples who intend not to have children. Maybe couples shouldn't have their marriage certificate finalized until they can produce a child, just so they can be found worthy of marriage. Married heterosexual couples who either can't or won't produce children - does that make them of a different class? That's your criterion for refusing to call same-sex couples married. Wasn't there something about that in the Hebrew ritual of marriage. There was a first marriage where the woman gets pregnant and the second marriage which was the binding one was after she produced a child/heir? Seems I read about that somewhere and you would like be the one that knows about it if it's true. Yes, there was something like that. But I think we have a problem translating that into the morality of a modern Christian concept of marriage. Married women were legally chattel, not necessarily a woman of his own choosing, and could be disposed of for a variety of failings -- none of them related to their interpersonal relationship. Of course, if she produced a child in a reasonable period of time, he wouldn't have that reason to divorce her -- but he still wasn't that much in love with her he could find another wife and keep her too. Of course, God apparently found it appropriate to include the product of an adulterous affair in Jesus' genealogy. Perhaps God should have commissioned only one person to write the whole Bible -- in modern English, preferably.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 18:52:10 GMT -5
Bob, I believe in God, therefore I believe in the bible. And marriage is from the bible! Marriage isn't biblical in the "modern sense" because man has twisted it to suit themselves! And if modern marriage is civil anyway, why not just update modern civil laws for atheists? Then they don't have to do something that is required by God! I would have thought this would be a good idea to all the atheists on here? Then that's one more thing that they don't have to do, that it says to do in the bible! And I'm not advocating that the government so something that's required by God, I'm saying they should make a law that is required by man, and update civil laws to match marriage laws, so that people who don't believe in God don't have to go through the trauma of anything biblical. Like marriage! Because from what I've read on here, many people don't marry for love, but for financial security! So updating civil laws would cover that! I think what you are advocating interesting. The 2x2's have civil marriages. They get married before a judge. They aren't married before God or a church wedding. They get all the rights of a wedding even though it wasn't performed in a church, in Canada at least. But they are not married before God, but a Judge in a court house usually. In some jurisdictions any normal person can be licensed by the state to perform marriages. My niece was married in BC, and one of the friends officiated. Apparently he has been called upon to perform a lot of marriages among the friends there. I learned a couple of years ago that in the state of New Jersey the law doesn't permit anyone but an ordained clergyman to perform marriages, and there was a movement to have that law changed.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 18:54:57 GMT -5
Emy,
What do you know about NAMBLA?
Where did you hear about it?
It stands for North American Man Boy Love Association. It's a group seeking acceptance for men who are attracted to boys. Why do you ask? Is it some dark secret I shouldn't know about? Members don't normally acknowledge that they know about it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 19:05:34 GMT -5
Does it say a man shall not marry another man? Or is this still a sexual issue?I have presented some verses clearly written in the bible and your response was that they didn't really mean what they said but had a different meaning. It has to do with the killing of people and stacking their bodies. Clearly talking about the actual killing of other humans and then stacking the bodies, much the same way that it was carried out in the camps in Poland. Yet you came up with another meaning because, I guess, the text given did not agree with your vision of god. You also said that when god commanded the death of every living thing that it rfeally didn't mean killing the women and children. The text there was also clear. If you just consider marriage - where does the bible stand on same sex marriages - ignoring, if you can, what goes on in the bedroom. If that's what you prefer to believe about the bible, then ok! That's up to you. I have every right to believe what my heart tells me is right. And I believe the word of God! And God said though shalt not kill, and I believe he means just that! Tell you what, you show me where it does say in the bible same sex marriage is ok, if its not in there, then I don't believe it's right. It's does say a marriage between a man and a woman is right though. So I believe that is what is Gods will! You aren't going to find same-sex marriage in in the OT because marriage in that society were equivalent to acquiring property, and upright Hebrew men were not considered property to be transferred from one to another. Furthermore, people normally didn't get to choose their marriage partner on their own -- their parents made deals not unlike the purchase of livestock.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 25, 2015 22:03:54 GMT -5
How are you non-sequitur-Bob?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 22:08:41 GMT -5
How are you non-sequitur-Bob? Usually while I'm awake.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 25, 2015 22:39:47 GMT -5
I am agreeing to the first 2 Felicity ! That doesn't make sense, unless you're talking about two different people. I said: 1. Are you saying that you could name someone currently in the work in Australia who is a practising homosexual? 2. Or someone whose inclination would be for a same-sex relationship but who is practising celibacy? 3. Or is this just a whisper-campaign? So the same person could not be a practising homosexual and yet be practising celibacy. I find it difficult to believe in statement 1. If there was any proof of wrong-doing by a worker it seems to me that there would be many people who would be quick to report it, so it wouldn't be an on-going situation. Yes Felicity 2 or more different people. Yes to number 1. Yes to number 2. Do you know how many years it has taken for the truth to come out about workers that have committed CSA in Australia, Noel Harvey for example: It was in the 70's that he abused girls it didn't come out until 1999/2000 so the idea that people would be quick to report these things is wrong. Just because you want to think something doesn't happen doesn't mean it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 25, 2015 22:41:33 GMT -5
How are you non-sequitur-Bob? Usually while I'm awake. That's what I thought!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 25, 2015 23:39:15 GMT -5
Stating your beliefs over and over again is fine but it doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion. I'm not sure if you realise that you haven't responded to any of the questions. I'll try again as the questions remain as relevant to this post as they did to your last one. Clearly there are different views as to what God thinks. Is there any reason why the laws of the state should be influenced more by what your God says than what anyone else's God says? Is there any reason why your interpretation of the bible is any more valid than those who interpret it differently? Is there any reason why you should be deemed to have a more accurate understanding of what God thinks than anyone else? Matt10 Matt 10, One of you're questions was. Is there any reason why your interpretation of the bible is any more valid than those who interpret it differently? And I answered, How can you interpret it differently when is says clearly man should not sleep with man, and marriage is between a man and woman? It says it loud and clear! In Leviticus 18 and 20, and Romans 1. I don't remember writing that on this board before matt10? Are we talking about the same bible?
Yes, Maryhig, you did write that before. Here is the copy of that post. maryhig Royal Member ***** Ireland 1 God 0 How can you interpret it differently when is says clearly man should not sleep with man, and marriage is between a man and woman? It says it loud and clear! In Leviticus 18 and 20, and Romans 1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 1:29:28 GMT -5
are there? where? and who? Do some research Virgo ! why should I? you are the one who opened your writing gob [ So what about the homosexual workers that are preaching ? ( By the way I have nothing against homosexuals ) and then you can't substantiate what you print, only one conclusion can be made from it, it was a complete lie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 1:31:44 GMT -5
I agree rational, also as I have said I personally have nothing against gay people, but I do have a problem with people saying gay people shouldn't have equal rights etc, yet they are not aware of what happens in their own church ! more lie's
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 1:36:59 GMT -5
are there? where? and who? I know of homosexual workers in NS, NL, PE, NB, QC, ON, AB, BC, CA, WA, MA, NY, .... Except for the ones who have propositioned me, or been prosecuted, I learned about the rest from the workers themselves. are there? where? and who?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 26, 2015 1:45:12 GMT -5
I know of homosexual workers in NS, NL, PE, NB, QC, ON, AB, BC, CA, WA, MA, NY, .... Except for the ones who have propositioned me, or been prosecuted, I learned about the rest from the workers themselves. are there? where? and who? Yes, there are. I listed 12 of the places I know. I know some more places too, if you're interested. But I'm not going to tell you their names. I have -- though I once named Harold C. publicly. He's the guy who provided "special favors".
|
|