3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Do you have the entire quote of a certain version?
Because regardless if it's slave or not a slave, for it to be legal to beat a "servant" to near death and be legal implies a lack of freedom. It's totally immoral.
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
ee: As stated in the remainder of my quote, no, I do not see it as a sin.
M: So then homosexual sex is not sin, as I have said.
---------------------
ee: Do you somehow think that the principles that exist here do not exist in heaven also? I mean, how loving would it be of God to give some people the ability to have children and deny others? If they can't have the children on earth, where else would they have them if not in heaven?
I somehow think that heaven bares a striking resemblance to earth but as to the rest I haven't the faintest idea.
----------------------------
ee: Who are you to say they have no faith? Did you know them? If some of it is all just brainwashing, how do you know the rest isn't all just brainwashing too? And just because everything is true doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to question anything. The Bible leaves many questions. And chances are, we won't find all the answers here. Some answers will have to wait till heaven.
M: I am a nobody. I know a somebody when I see um.And I told you how to know, by being sincere. It's pretty hard to have illusions when you demolish everything.
---------------------
ee: I don't recall having ever called homosexuals evil. As I stated in my very first post, my best friend from high school is homosexual. My beliefs didn't bother him and his didn't bother me. And we remain friends even today. I will never, ever, hate him or think evil of him for what he does. That doesn't mean that I'll like or approve of what he does though.
M: I really get tired of typing homosexual sex every time I refer to the subject defined more generally as homosexuality. You don't think he is evil but you think what he does is. Not exactly what I would want in a friend.
So if the Bible is wrong then there is no God? Is that what you think?
Yep, here's the entire verse. "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
That would be the entire quote. And if you read the two verses previous, which I'll leave to you, it is talking about what a master has permission to do if his servants fights against him. In which case, I think he'd be pretty well justified. Though notice, he's not allowed to kill him, regardless. After all, becoming a servant was typically a voluntary thing. Men would enter into the service of individuals to receive something, such as a wife or a certain number of animals. They knew and agreed to the terms set forth by their master, so even if a master did punish them, it was only because the punishment was agreed upon and understood by both parties. This is why the master would be punished if he were to kill the servant, because that was never allowed to be a condition of the deals made between the two individuals.
The version YOU quoted is the one that has corrupted translation, so you are correct. How can you take anything seriously from it?
Marriage is a really old tradition, and with such tradition, reform doesn't come easy and may never come at all. It's defined as being between a man and woman. Civil unions tend to give a lot of the same recognition as marriage but without altering the marriage definition. That is probably a more reasonable approach. A lot of religious people will never accept gay marriage and the politicians they elect will never either, given that it will threaten their political livelihood. I would assume that marriage and divorce are not linked in any way since people will always marry someone and later find out that it wasn't necessarily the right person. Does this make marriage less meaningful? Personally, I don't think so.
I find the whole argument surrounding the religious motiviations against homosexuality to be a waste of breath.
There is nothing wrong with a faith that is anti-gay. Just like there is nothing wrong with a faith that worships satan. Why ? 1) Because members are free to come and go as they please, and 2) because being anti-gay, or worshipping satan, doesn't affect the lives of those opposed to these faiths.
The whole idea that one's faith can be the foundation for legislation that infringes on the rights of a group of people is absolutely disgusting, and IMHO, completely Un-American.
I am all ears to any arguments against allowing gay people to marry, as long as they have nothing to do with religion. Otherwise, you're just telling me, more or less, that you feel your religious choise should become law for me, even if I don't beleive in your religion.
There is nothing wrong with a faith that is anti-gay. Just like there is nothing wrong with a faith that worships satan. Why ? 1) Because members are free to come and go as they please, and 2) because being anti-gay, or worshipping satan, doesn't affect the lives of those opposed to these faiths.
The whole idea that one's faith can be the foundation for legislation that infringes on the rights of a group of people is absolutely disgusting, and IMHO, completely Un-American.
I am all ears to any arguments against allowing gay people to marry, as long as they have nothing to do with religion. Otherwise, you're just telling me, more or less, that you feel your religious choise should become law for me, even if I don't beleive in your religion.
What I stated is exactly this. If a couple has some physical ailment, such as infertility, they are not sinning because the ability to have children will eventually be granted to them after their bodies are resurrected and make perfect. Exactly what would you expect God to fix in a homosexuals body to make them capable of having children? There's nothing wrong with their body. So pre-resurrection or post-resurrection, they still can't reproduce. So yes, I would consider it a sin for that reason.
If the principle and doctrines taught in the Bible are incorrect, then yes, that would probably mean that God does not exist. If they weren't, that would make God a lier, and therefore not God.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Ahh... so despite the fact that the Bible isn't the first 'holy book' or the last one, it's the only one with any bearing on the existence of God.
I find the whole argument surrounding the religious motiviations against homosexuality to be a waste of breath.
I find the argument that the argument is a waste of breath a waste of breath so welcome to the club of breath wasters assuming, of course, this is all a waste of breath, or that you don't enjoy wasting your breath as much as the next guy.
I find the argument that the argument is a waste of breath a waste of breath so welcome to the club of breath wasters assuming, of course, this is all a waste of breath, or that you don't enjoy wasting your breath as much as the next guy.
I would have to disagree with that. The Bible contains a record from the beginning of time and of the 12 tribes of Israel up until approximately 720 bc. After that time, the record is composed mainly of the writings of the tribe of Judah and Levi. There were still 10 other tribes at that time that were scattered across the face of the earth. There is no reason to believe that there are not also records which detail their experiences and dealings with God. I personally believe the Book of Mormon to be one of these records and believe that it too, along with the Bible, bears testimony of God and his son, Jesus Christ.
Therefore, I would never presume that it is the only book with any bearing on the existence of God. However, it still must be true if God does truly exist.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Well, based on your second sentence, I might as well quit. See you in the next 'young earth' thread.
No, it would only mean that you do not really understand the true nature of the doctrines and principles and or neither did the people who screwed them up when they wrote them down or translated them. You cannot destroy God because you have little faith. Our connection to God is through the heart and you do not trust in that because you do not own your own heart. You are a Believer, not a person of faith. I hope that you grow.
I appreciate your feelings on the matter. I think you feel the same way towards me that I feel towards you, so it's nice to have your insight. Just as you, I hope I continue to grow. I hope the same for you. To stop growing would be a great sin indeed. You are a great advocate of your beliefs. Hopefully one day we can find ourselves on the same team, because you would be a great teammate.
Actually I was the one who quoted it from the link he provided. The reason I quoted it was because I remember being shocked by it when I read it in my copy of the bible some time ago.
How can anybody think either version could be correct? It spells out the punishment (beating up to the edge of death) clearly, but for what? Disobedience? What's that, telling him to wipe his own ass??
Get real, if that's the case, the guys a slave.
My apologies. Legend has the link in one of his comments, so I assumed he was the one who originated it.
Actually, if you read my previous comments, I explained exactly why this was acceptable. Just to make it easier though, here it is again
Hi y'all,
Interesting conversation thus far. Forgive me if it has already been asked, but I've seen people mention that all consenting adults should be able to enter into marriage.
Would that mean that incestous marriages between an adult son and an adult mother be ok then?
Interesting conversation thus far. Forgive me if it has already been asked, but I've seen people mention that all consenting adults should be able to enter into marriage.
Would that mean that incestous marriages between an adult son and an adult mother be ok then?
The laws prohibiting such marriage would probably not be ruled unconstitutional as they relate to protecting the genetic health of children and don't really discriminate.
So if either the man or the woman was sterile, would that therefore make it ok? The couple couldn't have children, so there would be no health risk to any children.
If yout argument were to hold, it would bring up two other very interesting question. If it was soley for the health of the child, why is there no law against abortion? Not that I think there should be, but does abortion not affect the health of a child? And second, if we're taking away the "right" of homosexual couple to marry, we'd be doing the same to incestuous couples. Health problems are not guaranteed, there only increased significantly. You'd be taking away their "right" based on a risk factor and nothing else.
Going along with what I said previously, what about smoking? Smoking causes a huge health concern to the child. Would it be constitutional then for us to prohibit pregnant women from smoking?
Within our Constitutional framework people can make any laws they like as long as they are Constitutional. Abortion was decided on a balance of rights. Who knows how the courts would come down on a ban on mothers smoking.
If what you're claiming is true, that incest is unconstitutional because it endanger the health of the child, then smoking while pregnant would also be unconstitutional. As would abortion, regardless of balance of rights.
What about a man who is slightly, or even completely, mentally handicapped. Is it unconstitutional for him to marry because he might pass on his genetic problems to the child? It just doesn't work.
There is absolutely no difference in the reasoning between why incestual and homosexual marriages are not allowed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter