NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, this makes sense. I totally endorse this proposal...:No seriously. I want to marry many girls and have many concubines.

1 Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
2 Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)
3 A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)
4 Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
5 Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6 If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
7 In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

hmmmmm

maybe i dont want to get married after all....

OMG! Larry Flynt wrote the Bible!!! :eek:

That sounds perfectly reasonable and ethical.

6 If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

Not the shoes!

OMG! Larry Flynt wrote the Bible!!! :eek:

wat? :eek2:

I was convinced that it was Ghengis Khan's autobiography! :(

*sets up popcorn and weenie roast stand.*

But marriage is between one man and one woman, it says so in........oh........

Yes, this makes sense. I totally endorse this proposal...:No seriously. I want to marry many girls and have many concubines.

1 Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
2 Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)
3 A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)
4 Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
5 Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6 If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
7 In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

yet God also says
"Man shal not serve more than one master." thus having multiple wives or even concubines or mistresses are out. :tongue:

and as a smarter woman once said...

"if you can't please one woman, why piss off two?"

"if you can't please one woman, why piss off two?"

Ah. There's wisdom in this one.

Please women?
Don't understand.
Why would you want to please them?
Aren't they meant to please me?

problem is that its open to so many different interpretations...

Its been used to justify "help your fellow man" to "kill all the infidels"...

Using it to justify a law is just crazy...

But, then again, the Constitutions been used that badly as well...

So, whatever, lol....

I'm annoyed now. I was all ready to go on a rant about Chri-Nazi's but it turns out the poster was being sarcastic. How iratating.

Please women?
Don't understand.
Why would you want to please them?
Aren't they meant to please me?

ah, but as a dog may bite the hand that feeds it,
I certainly want anyone with access to 'Mr Happy' to have no violent thoughts in their mind.

Yes, this makes sense. I totally endorse this proposal...:No seriously. I want to marry many girls and have many concubines.

1 Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
2 Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)
3 A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)
4 Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
5 Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6 If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
7 In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Let's keep #2 :tongue::D

I'm annoyed now. I was all ready to go on a rant about Chri-Nazi's but it turns out the poster was being sarcastic. How iratating.

*Hands Belschaft a weenie on a stick* :tongue:
I did too

*Hands Belschaft a weenie on a stick* :tongue:
I did too

Is it kosher?

Is it kosher?
*takes weenie back and hands kosher weenie on a stick*
it is now. :p

Yes, this makes sense. I totally endorse this proposal...:No seriously. I want to marry many girls and have many concubines.

1 Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
2 Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)
3 A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)
4 Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
5 Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6 If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
7 In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

I think you need to re-read (or read for the first time) the Bible. Point 7 illustrates nicely that you don't have a fucking clue.
Where did you copy/paste this from anyway? Why did you post it?

*takes weenie back and hands kosher weenie on a stick*
it is now.

Fuck. I hate kosher.

I think you need to re-read (or read for the first time) the Bible. Point 7 illustrates nicely that you don't have a fucking clue.
Where did you copy/paste this from anyway? Why did you post it?

shh, don't let facts get in the way of a good point.

Fuck. I hate kosher.

*gives back non kosher dog*
Happy now?

*gives back non kosher dog*
Happy now?

No not really.

*eats hot dog and sulks, while listening to crappy emo music*

Yes, this makes sense. I totally endorse this proposal...:No seriously. I want to marry many girls and have many concubines.

1 Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
2 Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)
3 A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)
4 Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
5 Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6 If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
7 In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Yeh know, some of these aren't bad ideas. The negative social effects of divorce are well documented. The marrying your brother's widow was originally a way to care for widows, instead of just abandoning them. The sex with the father was after the daughters believed they were the last people on Earth, and had to repopulate it. Concubines were fair game everywhere in the ancient world. A virgin bride sounds too harsh, but people also had a lot less time to wait. Furthermore, the benefits of being married a virgin are well documented. I say we take these ideas with a smile and a grain of salt, for they were written by imperfect men.

We know the bible was writen by men because if it had been writen by women, there wouldn't be any sex at all....

Yeh know, some of these aren't bad ideas. The negative social effects of divorce are well documented. <snip>

I was about to insert some rant here about how this was generally false, but I can't be asked. Let's just skip it, and say that I think you're wrong, and that's speaking as someone whose parents are currently going through the process of separating.

I'm annoyed now. I was all ready to go on a rant about Chri-Nazi's but it turns out the poster was being sarcastic. How iratating.

Doesnt stop me, lol...;)

We know the bible was writen by men because if it had been writen by women, there wouldn't be any sex at all....

I disagree. I actually believe there would be lots more sex....and lots less violence.

I think you need to re-read (or read for the first time) the Bible. Point 7 illustrates nicely that you don't have a fucking clue.
Where did you copy/paste this from anyway? Why did you post it?

I read the bible a couple of times. When I got to this part I almost puked.


----------------------o--------------------o-----------------------------

AC 2465. Verses 31-36. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is no man in the earth to come unto us according to the way of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, and let us quicken seed from our father. And they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father; let us make him drink wine this night also, and go thou in and lie with him, and let us quicken seed from our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And the two daughters of Lot conceived by their father.

But marriage is between one man and one woman, it says so in........oh........

yes ...oh ...it also says many other things ..should we follo all of them or be hypocrites and choose what we like to follow??? by definiton ...all christians are hypocrites ..coz they quote the bible to ban gay marriage but do not use the bible at all when it comes to other rules ..death penalty, stoning, other marital relations ..... they also ban polygamy ... most of the figures in the bibke had multiple wives ...

but of course ban gay marriage but only that nothing else ...

I'm annoyed now. I was all ready to go on a rant about Chri-Nazi's but it turns out the poster was being sarcastic. How iratating.

I know, thoughtless of him. I was getting ready for a good argument. Damn humorists.

The Chinese word for "argument" is the same as the symbol for three women. 'Nuff said. :rolleyes:

The Belschaftian word for 'great time' is three women and one guy. 'Nuff said. :rolleyes:

I think you need to re-read (or read for the first time) the Bible. Point 7 illustrates nicely that you don't have a fucking clue.
Where did you copy/paste this from anyway? Why did you post it?


AC 2465. Verses 31-36. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is no man in the earth to come unto us according to the way of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, and let us quicken seed from our father. And they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father; let us make him drink wine this night also, and go thou in and lie with him, and let us quicken seed from our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And the two daughters of Lot conceived by their father.

Maybe its you who need to reread the bible.

Gawds, I LOVE arguing with christians who dont know anything about what they're preaching. Especially the missionaries in real life, I always make them look like idiots in fornt of their friends.

And please for your own sake, dont get into 'spiritual' meanings. Christians do that when its convenient too, and it really is self-serving.

The Belschaftian word for 'great time' is three women and one guy. 'Nuff said. :rolleyes:

You're not married, are you? :p lol

I'm a bit young for that :tongue:

The Chinese word for "argument" is the same as the symbol for three women. 'Nuff said. :rolleyes:

The symbol with 3 women is rape, not argument.

The symbol with 3 women is rape, not argument.

Are you sure about that? I don't know Chinese - I saw it on tv, lol. Either way, the symbol is still not something good!

The symbol with 3 women is rape, not argument.

My joke seems less funny now.

I love it when people who are not even Christian, much less members of the only agency with the authority to interpret the Bible attempt to tell people what the Bible means.

We know the bible was writen by men because if it had been writen by women, there wouldn't be any sex at all....

Hence why God is a God and and not a Goddess.

And... you can't fucking spell: legally is spelled with 2(!) "l".

*gets married five times and has each wife scrub one of his five identical palaces*

I love it when people who are not even Christian, much less members of the only agency with the authority to interpret the Bible attempt to tell people what the Bible means.

Yeah! Screw everyone who is not a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church! We all know that everyone else is just making shit up, or following that crazy cult of the "I'm the best patriarch there is" nonsense!

I love it when people who are not even Christian, much less members of the only agency with the authority to interpret the Bible attempt to tell people what the Bible means.
He's just telling you what it SAYS. Your "agency" can pretend it doesn't mean what it says, but it no longer has any "authority" to make us pretend we think they're making sense.

after reading that first post made by santiago, im happy i dont follow that kind of religion

* Marriage is about 1 man and 1 woman, no same-sex marriages, and no affairs - stay loyal to your other half
* Divorce is an option, as not all couples get married out of love, and even if they do it could be just a marriage based on a crush with no long-term feelings
* Incest is forbidden
* marriage between the faithful and the atheists if okay as long as theres no cult religion like satanism or other in there
* its a good chance that when you die that your brother will bang your widow anyway, but marriage is optional

there is of course the slight problem of hypocracy of paying lip service to freedom of religeon on the one hand, while basing all law of one belief of one tribe, and that one from a completely forign place.

i'd also not go along with the gender bias built into biblical and koranic law, which in nature's reality, the same nature the same god supposedly gave us, is so utterly and completly absurd.

but of course it does make the point, in its own satyrical way, with actual references and quotations, and perhapse a BIT of editorial speculating, of the complete silliness of doing so.

i'm glad to see the point being made. not so glad that there ARE fanatics who would support the whole thing, even in the light in which most of the rest of us see it as having been intended.

while satire is all well and good for making such points, leave us not forget, that dante's inferno was INTENDED as satyre too! (and half the fanatics in the world STILL seem to think it actually came from, and is enshrined in, sacred writ!)

Hypocrites?

....Well, regardless of our beliefs, we are all hypocrites here, no matter if your a Christian or atheist, a liberal or a conservative. Why? Atheists always point out that Christians are hypocrites because of their inability to apply their preachings to their actions, but atheists claim that religion has caused holy wars, not knowing that many Christians were killed during the French Revolution, so that the "Cult of Reason" founded there will flourish more.....

Therefore, why should we hate somebody just because of their religion? We speak out against religion and call it "freedom of speech", yet when they speak against atheism, it is labeled as "bigotry". Heck, both are just becoming bigots then.....

6 If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
how would this work if there no brother as the man a only child
7 In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
ok just wrong, no wonder i say the book full of it

OMG! Larry Flynt wrote the Bible!!! :eek:

Larry Flynt shagged his sisters?

in the words of a great thinker, "Women are not people, they are devices built by our Lord Jesus Christ for our entertainment."

*takes weenie back and hands kosher weenie on a stick*
it is now. :p
Shame the stick isn't. He still goes to Hell!

how would this work if there no brother as the man a only child
The duty devolves to the nearest adult male relative ("adult" means "over 12").

Ah. There's wisdom in this one.

Bwhahah, why for the sheer fun of it of course!:D

after reading that first post made by santiago, im happy i dont follow that kind of religion

* Marriage is about 1 man and 1 woman, no same-sex marriages, and no affairs - stay loyal to your other half


Ummm or 1 man and 1 man, or 1 woman and 1 woman, or 3 woman and 1 man, or 3 men and 1 woman.

Naaa mariage is about love, get married when you like, to who you like, and have as many spouses as you like.

That's what I think anyway.

Isn't it strange? People I know (of course it is and will be anecdotal, I'm no sociologist), and I know many, have been preferring living together with their significant others to marrying them for the last couple of years, ever increasingly so. People I know start to realize that (we don't commonly have religious ceremonies for a wedding, marriage is approved and recorded by a government official who has no religious office or a position in the clergy - actually, even being a believer is optional :P) signing under your name on a piece of paper just means more complications if you ever break up.

Now, if I was gay or had 3 girlfriends who know each other and would like to live together as a commune of constant orgy or I had a girlfriend with 3 other boyfriends at least two of them I like hanging out with and the other I may consider switching sexual orientation for, I wouldn't be angry at the government for not letting me marry with my life mate/3 GF's/1 GF and 3 BF's - I'd have no problems with an outdated, slow and bureaucratic establishment not recognizing my union since the endorsement of that union is another way to increase bookkeeping anyway.

Of course, these are just my way of looking at these things; I understand that when there is a "norm" (marriage) the minority (gay/polygamist - although the latter can be said to be a minority because people can't speak up against the traditional view but... :P) should be included in that norm at least to prevent the society to condemn them for not being like them.

Anyways [/rant]

Cheerio!

I'm happy to finally see a voice of reason on these forums! Congrats!

Who? Yours truly or the OP?

Cheerio!

Who? Yours truly or the OP?

Cheerio!

Me of course, he is talking of me. The voice of reason.:D

Me of course, he is talking of me. The voice of reason.:D

:D That one made me laugh out loud at the daily office meeting mate, glad that I wasn't drinking tea at the time :)

Cheerio!

The Bible is nothing but a long and ridiculous book of horrible fables that turn into a Zombie Story.....

Could have easily been "Night of the Living Dead" that we hold so dearly...

Get the Government out of marriage and this debate goes away. It's about money, not love. Take the tax breaks out of the loop and leave marriage between the individuals.

We know the bible was writen by men because if it had been writen by women, there wouldn't be any sex at all....

What planet are you from?

http://www.shop-for-her.co.uk/General/Articles/Romance-Authors---Alphabetical.html

Get the Government out of marriage and this debate goes away. It's about money, not love. Take the tax breaks out of the loop and leave marriage between the individuals.

Nope I disagree 100%. It's about love, it has always been so as far s I'm concerned. Besides you get no tax breaks anymore.

Nope I disagree 100%. It's about love, it has always been so as far s I'm concerned.
Then I'd recommend a quick perusal of the history of marriage contracts; especially those prior to the twentieth century.

Besides you get no tax breaks anymore.
And visitation rights, inheritance or property rights, etc.?

Nope I disagree 100%. It's about love, it has always been so as far s I'm concerned. Besides you get no tax breaks anymore.How is it about love? "Now that we are married my unconditional and selfless love for you has some conditions - you can't go and sleep with another man/woman since even though I love you I will sue your ass, dump you and leech your hard earned money for the rest of your days." Hmmm - seems more like a business agreement to me...

Cheerio!

Then I'd recommend a quick perusal of the history of marriage contracts; especially those prior to the twentieth century.

Meh read what I write, specificly these words 'as far as I'm concerned'


And visitation rights, inheritance or property rights, etc.?


*shrug* dunno.

How is it about love? "Now that we are married my unconditional and selfless love for you has some conditions - you can't go and sleep with another man/woman since even though I love you I will sue your ass, dump you and leech your hard earned money for the rest of your days." Hmmm - seems more like a business agreement to me...

Cheerio!

Well if that is your mariage! *shrug*

Meh read what I write, specificly these words 'as far as I'm concerned'.
I did read them, then pointed out how they were wrong.

I did read them, then pointed out how they were wrong.

What! Since when are you able to tell me that my opinion of my marriage is wrong?

Well if that is your mariage! *shrug*Nah, I am not planning to marry unless the "family values" of the SO's parents requires it so - the marriage as defined by law is a business arrangement disguised in pink candy though ;) I understand you are not defending those things in a marriage and have a more sentimental view of it so I am sorry that I directly objected to your post.

The thing is, though, I don't think marriage has a place in a society where women are able to hold power at least as much as the men - a ceremony to let people know that you are together? I wouldn't (since it seems another impulse based on "ownership" issues inherent in marriage) but I'm OK with it. A get together to celebrate that you have decided to spend you life together? I'd first wait for another 20 years or so to see if you're actually capable of doing it than spend a fortune on an expensive suit to attend your reception a la I-own-this-nice-piece-of-ass-bragging, mate :) (notice that "you" is not "you" per se).

I have no objections whatsoever if people want to announce that they are going to have sex (or officially now) - but I have objections when;
- They expect me believe that they are going to commit for life (you have no way of knowing if this is possible; I'm not saying you can't),
- They expect me to cheer when they do so (and pay a month's salary while doing so),
- They expect me to do the same ("isn't it time that you two have married and settled mate?" even when it's been 5 years since me and the SO have been living together),
- They expect me to understand why marriage is good without giving any, I repeat any meaningful difference between what they do (live together and ask the permission of the State while doing so) and what I do (live together).

:)

Cheerio!

AC 2465. Verses 31-36. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is no man in the earth to come unto us according to the way of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, and let us quicken seed from our father. And they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father; let us make him drink wine this night also, and go thou in and lie with him, and let us quicken seed from our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And the two daughters of Lot conceived by their father.

Maybe its you who need to reread the bible.

Gawds, I LOVE arguing with christians who dont know anything about what they're preaching. Especially the missionaries in real life, I always make them look like idiots in fornt of their friends.

And please for your own sake, dont get into 'spiritual' meanings. Christians do that when its convenient too, and it really is self-serving.

I'm not a Christian. That doesn't say ANYWHERE that God "required" this of them, in fact he didn't, in fact they got into lots of shit for it (read on) and indeed it had NOTHING to do with marriage.

Maybe YOU need to learn to read.

What! Since when are you able to tell me that my opinion of my marriage is wrong?
Not of your marriage, of course, but you seem to be saying above that traditionally marriage in general was 'for love'.

If not, apologies.

Nah, I am not planning to marry unless the "family values" of the SO's parents requires it so - the marriage as defined by law is a business arrangement disguised in pink candy though ;) I understand you are not defending those things in a marriage and have a more sentimental view of it so I am sorry that I directly objected to your post.

The thing is, though, I don't think marriage has a place in a society where women are able to hold power at least as much as the men - a ceremony to let people know that you are together? I wouldn't (since it seems another impulse based on "ownership" issues inherent in marriage) but I'm OK with it. A get together to celebrate that you have decided to spend you life together? I'd first wait for another 20 years or so to see if you're actually capable of doing it than spend a fortune on an expensive suit to attend your reception a la I-own-this-nice-piece-of-ass-bragging, mate :) (notice that "you" is not "you" per se).

I have no objections whatsoever if people want to announce that they are going to have sex (or officially now) - but I have objections when;
- They expect me believe that they are going to commit for life (you have no way of knowing if this is possible; I'm not saying you can't),
- They expect me to cheer when they do so (and pay a month's salary while doing so),
- They expect me to do the same ("isn't it time that you two have married and settled mate?" even when it's been 5 years since me and the SO have been living together),
- They expect me to understand why marriage is good without giving any, I repeat any meaningful difference between what they do (live together and ask the permission of the State while doing so) and what I do (live together).

:)

Cheerio!


Fair doo's then. We all have our views on marriage, some of us will choose not to do, I done it while I was quite young.

I don't think there is any showingoff nor questions of ownership involved, but like I say we all have our own views.

Not of your marriage, of course, but you seem to be saying above that traditionally marriage in general was 'for love'.

If not, apologies.

Like I said, read what I actualy wrote, specificly these words 'as far as I'm concerned':D

Yes, this makes sense. I totally endorse this proposal...:No seriously. I want to marry many girls and have many concubines.

1 Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
2 Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)
3 A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)
4 Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
5 Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6 If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
7 In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Although I agree with some of your points as far as biblical interpretation goes I think you have come up with some really goofy interpretations espescially #7. I also do not recall that marriage was necessary for #6 only that the brother in law should impregnate the sister in law to create his own nephew who would be able to inherit from the deceased's estate. Marriage would undermine this system by causing the brother in law to rob his nephew of his estate.

I also see no reason why a woman who was honest about her lack of virginity could be married by a man who knowingly married a nonvirgin. Maybe I am a product of a modern age and bring a modern man's understanding to his biblical study.

Like I said, read what I actualy wrote, specificly these words 'as far as I'm concerned':D

"evolution is false and always has been, as far as i'm concerned"

Like I said, read what I actualy wrote, specificly these words 'as far as I'm concerned':D

So your life partner disagrees :p ?

I also see no reason why a woman who was honest about her lack of virginity could be married by a man who knowingly married a nonvirgin.

Because God says so. It is not up to us puny humans to question His immortal wisdom and morality, even though some of those silly heathens try to do just that.

Maybe I am a product of a modern age and bring a modern man's understanding to his biblical study.

Heathen !

Maybe I am a product of a modern age and bring a modern man's understanding to his biblical study.

oxymoron. I don't think you can bring "modern understanding" to an ancient document. If anything, you need to read it in the context of its time.

If we were still following the Old Testament, none of you would have survived childhood - you would have been taken to the gates of the city and stoned to death.

#6 only that the brother in law should impregnate the sister in law to create his own nephew who would be able to inherit from the deceased's estate. Marriage would undermine this system by causing the brother in law to rob his nephew of his estate.

Any One see what wrong with this ?

in the words of a great thinker, "Women are not people, they are devices built by our Lord Jesus Christ for our entertainment."

All hail Peter!

FDL...great quote, man.

As for the topic at hand, I must admit I'm a strong atheist. However, I think that point number 7 by the OP is being misconstrued somewhat. From my understanding of the story, it's just that: a biblical story. I don't think it's meant to suggest in the slightest that it is acceptable for one to 'bang her daddy', as someone put it. It's not like the divine edicts threatening death for a variety of things like working on the Sabbath or being homosexual. If anything, the story is a warning against getting drunk and turning to lust.

Then again, that's my interpretation. Furthermore, it's been awhile since I read that particular story, so I could be way off base.

Isn't it strange? People I know (of course it is and will be anecdotal, I'm no sociologist), and I know many, have been preferring living together with their significant others to marrying them for the last couple of years, ever increasingly so. People I know start to realize that (we don't commonly have religious ceremonies for a wedding, marriage is approved and recorded by a government official who has no religious office or a position in the clergy - actually, even being a believer is optional :P) signing under your name on a piece of paper just means more complications if you ever break up.

Now, if I was gay or had 3 girlfriends who know each other and would like to live together as a commune of constant orgy or I had a girlfriend with 3 other boyfriends at least two of them I like hanging out with and the other I may consider switching sexual orientation for, I wouldn't be angry at the government for not letting me marry with my life mate/3 GF's/1 GF and 3 BF's - I'd have no problems with an outdated, slow and bureaucratic establishment not recognizing my union since the endorsement of that union is another way to increase bookkeeping anyway.

Of course, these are just my way of looking at these things; I understand that when there is a "norm" (marriage) the minority (gay/polygamist - although the latter can be said to be a minority because people can't speak up against the traditional view but... :P) should be included in that norm at least to prevent the society to condemn them for not being like them.

Anyways [/rant]

Cheerio!

Being serious, the problem with the government not authorizing you to marry whomever you like is that for certain legal issues (like insurances inheritances, etc...) the legal espouse gets the benefits. For example if you have a life insurance at work and you die, depending on the terms of the insurance, only your legal espouse may benefit.

Yes, this makes sense. I totally endorse this proposal...:No seriously. I want to marry many girls and have many concubines.

1 Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
2 Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)
3 A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)
4 Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
5 Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6 If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
7 In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

This sounds like the regular definition from any nation during the period the Old Testament was written. Are you stooping so low as to say that something 3000 years old is laughably "un-modern"?

Any One see what wrong with this ?
The major problem is that Freedonia doesn't understand that "marriage" just MEANT a publicly acknowledged sexual relationship (as opposed to a furtive relationship, which was "whoredom").

The major problem is that Freedonia doesn't understand that "marriage" just MEANT a publicly acknowledged sexual relationship (as opposed to a furtive relationship, which was "whoredom").


no thats not it look again and you see

I think you need to re-read (or read for the first time) the Bible. Point 7 illustrates nicely that you don't have a fucking clue.
Where did you copy/paste this from anyway?

It's all over the internet but no-one claims it. This certainly wasn't the first time it was written.

Why did you post it?

Pretty obviously a joke. Maybe not worth a whole thread, but I found it funny.
Without point 7, it could be taken seriously ... so I think that was OK.

If we were still following the Old Testament, none of you would have survived childhood - you would have been taken to the gates of the city and stoned to death.

Speak for yourself. I would have been burned at the stake. :p

*sets up popcorn and weenie roast stand.*

"how much for a large popcorn extra butter?"

If we were still following the Old Testament, none of you would have survived childhood - you would have been taken to the gates of the city and stoned to death.

ad thats why I'm not religious.

Marriage... Overrated.

He's just telling you what it SAYS. Your "agency" can pretend it doesn't mean what it says, but it no longer has any "authority" to make us pretend we think they're making sense.

No, if he were simply telling you what it SAYS, it would be this:

1 Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.
2 II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21
3 Deut 22:13-21
4 Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30
5 Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9
6 Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10
7 Gen 19:31-36

Everything else was his interpretation, which he simply does not have the authority to do.

Not entirely why the Eastern Orthodox Church was referenced in the post prior to the quoted one, as I made no mention of that branch specifically, nor am I a member of it.

I think the government has no place in being involved with marriage at all. I hold that the issuance of marriage licenses is a violation of separation of church and state. The government stuck it's nose where it didn't belong when the King of England who was also head of the Anglican Church gave the governor of the colony of North Carolina the power to perform marriages because there weren't enough Anglican clergymen to do it.

Marriage is a religious rite, and as such, should only be performed in a religious manner by clergy. Legal statuses are the job of the government, and should only be able to affect contractual agreements between individuals. And, since divorce (or termination of said contract) requires a lawyer, people wanting a contract granting them special legal statuses with each other should also have to have a lawyer to gain it in the first place.

If we were still following the Old Testament, none of you would have survived childhood - you would have been taken to the gates of the city and stoned to death.

Not I.

"how much for a large popcorn extra butter?"

treefify

Being serious, the problem with the government not authorizing you to marry whomever you like is that for certain legal issues (like insurances inheritances, etc...) the legal espouse gets the benefits. For example if you have a life insurance at work and you die, depending on the terms of the insurance, only your legal espouse may benefit.So, government should decide these things? Hmmm... I'd like to be able to name the beneficiary for my own life insurance, mate.

The thing is, if the classical "to secure the finances of the women" approach that gives them the "housewife" role is pretty sucky in my humble opinion. My unofficial marriages usually involved a woman who made more money than I do and I earn enough to live comfortably so I would want my past SO's to name whomever they like as the beneficiary of their life insurance and Law can actually work out things like child support without the whole marriage mess - think about it, it is easy :)

So, still not getting the practical necessity for a license to marry.

Cheerio!

If we were still following the Old Testament, none of you would have survived childhood - you would have been taken to the gates of the city and stoned to death.

You know I've not seen any Jewish people do that for a while.

No, if he were simply telling you what it SAYS, it would be this:

1 Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.
2 II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21
3 Deut 22:13-21
4 Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30
5 Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9
6 Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10
7 Gen 19:31-36

I will grant that he was paraphrasing rather than directly quoting or merely citing. That is not much of a point.

Everything else was his interpretation, which he simply does not have the authority to do.
Not entirely why the Eastern Orthodox Church was referenced in the post prior to the quoted one, as I made no mention of that branch specifically, nor am I a member of it.
You're Roman Catholic, then, I suppose? Hardly matters: NO church has any "authority" over him or me, since we are American citizens; since the Middle Ages, the number of places where churches have "authority" anymore has shrunk drastically.

Everything else was his interpretation, which he simply does not have the authority to do.

Who has then ? How well or poorly does his (her?) interpretation fit how marriage was viewed throughout most of Christianities history ?

Because if 1950 years of Christians agree with him, and only the last half century has seen a shift in interpretation - I fear it is YOU who are the heretic ;)

For the people who don't believe in the Christian god, then this has no standing. No person should be forced to follow a law established by a belief system they don't follow.

Yeah! Screw everyone who is not a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church! We all know that everyone else is just making shit up, or following that crazy cult of the "I'm the best patriarch there is" nonsense!

I will grant that he was paraphrasing rather than directly quoting or merely citing. That is not much of a point.

He was not paraphrasing, he was deliberately interpreting the Bible based on his own beliefs in an attempt to score points against Christian conservatives.

You're Roman Catholic, then, I suppose? Hardly matters: NO church has any "authority" over him or me, since we are American citizens; since the Middle Ages, the number of places where churches have "authority" anymore has shrunk drastically.

Wrong again, I am not a Roman Catholic. Two branches down, only one left.
The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's authority is not over you, it is over the interpretation of the Bible. The Church wrote the Bible, and only it may legitimately interpret it. You have a legal right as an American citizen to espouse any beliefs you wish; however, American citizenship does not grant your views legitimacy, nor does it give your views any justification. Only the Church, as agreed upon throughout the consensus of the ages, can speak with authority as to what the Bible means. Since this authority comes not from men but from Jesus Christ Himself, its authority cannot shrink or diminish. The public perception of the Church's authority has diminished, certainly, but its actual authority has not suffered in the slightest. The authority of the Church does not depend on the number of people who recognize that authority, but on the divine mandate of Jesus Christ, who established the Church in the first place.

The Church wrote the Bible, and only it may legitimately interpret it. You have a legal right as an American citizen to espouse any beliefs you wish; however, American citizenship does not grant your views legitimacy, nor does it give your views any justification. Only the Church, as agreed upon throughout the consensus of the ages, can speak with authority as to what the Bible means. Since this authority comes not from men but from Jesus Christ Himself, its authority cannot shrink or diminish.

So let me see if I got this straight. The statements of Jesus Christ granting the church the sole legitimacy to interpret the bible are found in the very bible that the church wrote.

How very....convenient....

yet God also says
"Man shal not serve more than one master." thus having multiple wives or even concubines or mistresses are out. :tongue:
But it is the duty of the wives to serve their husbands. A woman's place is the bedroom when it isn't the kitchen. You see, marriage is a lot like rape, you can either kick and scream and make things difficult or you can lie back and take it. And before anyone here complains, keep in mind that Al Franken, a professional comedian, has told a rape joke or two. Now, I admit that I wasn't watching SNL when Al Franken was on but I'm dying to hear this rape joke of his. Anyone here know it?

So let me see if I got this straight. The statements of Jesus Christ granting the church the sole legitimacy to interpret the bible are found in the very bible that the church wrote.

How very....convenient....

And in addition:
Do I understand correctly that what the Church said and thought for a thousand years or so is completely irrelevant - what matters is what it says now ? As in - in a time far further removed from that Jesus guy than say... in 500 AD ?

*snip the scripture and the spurious commentary*

Yeh know, some of these aren't bad ideas. The negative social effects of divorce are well documented.

As are the negative social effects of growing up with two parents who can't stand one another. Next?

The marrying your brother's widow was originally a way to care for widows, instead of just abandoning them.

Not even close. If the widow was past the age of child-rearing, she'd be abandoned without compunction. This bit was about establishing heirs and providing for children to continue the family line.

The sex with the father was after the daughters believed they were the last people on Earth, and had to repopulate it. Concubines were fair game everywhere in the ancient world. A virgin bride sounds too harsh, but people also had a lot less time to wait. Furthermore, the benefits of being married a virgin are well documented.

Are they? Where? You gonna keep pulling this stuff out of your ass or back even a shred of it up?

I say we take these ideas with a smile and a grain of salt, for they were written by imperfect men.

First thing in your post that's made any sense. Change "grain" to "really big salt lick" and it'll be even better.

after reading that first post made by santiago, im happy i dont follow that kind of religion

No, just the kind that would post this dreck:

* Marriage is about 1 man and 1 woman, no same-sex marriages, and no affairs - stay loyal to your other half

I've not yet heard an argument in defense of this stance that makes a bit of sense.

* Divorce is an option, as not all couples get married out of love, and even if they do it could be just a marriage based on a crush with no long-term feelings
* Incest is forbidden

Fair enough.

* marriage between the faithful and the atheists if okay as long as theres no cult religion like satanism or other in there

Please define "cult religions" more fully please. I have to wonder what you consider the Coptics, the Mormons, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehova's Witnesses, the Faith Healers, the Gnostics, the Snake Handlers or other Christian sects to be.

* its a good chance that when you die that your brother will bang your widow anyway, but marriage is optional

See, you were going along fairly well until this little piece of tripe. I'd have a hard time hearing things were I in your mind if this is how it works.

No, if he were simply telling you what it SAYS, it would be this:

1 Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.
2 II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21
3 Deut 22:13-21
4 Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30
5 Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9
6 Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10
7 Gen 19:31-36

Everything else was his interpretation, which he simply does not have the authority to do.

Then who does? 'Cause if it's one person or sect, they've got their work cut out for them with everyone from Presbyterians to Televangelists interpreting the living hell outta that book. Will you please tell Those With The Authority to get off their Authoritative asses and straighten these other pretenders out?

Wrong again, I am not a Roman Catholic. Two branches down, only one left.
The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's authority is not over you, it is over the interpretation of the Bible. The Church wrote the Bible, and only it may legitimately interpret it. You have a legal right as an American citizen to espouse any beliefs you wish; however, American citizenship does not grant your views legitimacy, nor does it give your views any justification. Only the Church, as agreed upon throughout the consensus of the ages, can speak with authority as to what the Bible means. Since this authority comes not from men but from Jesus Christ Himself, its authority cannot shrink or diminish. The public perception of the Church's authority has diminished, certainly, but its actual authority has not suffered in the slightest. The authority of the Church does not depend on the number of people who recognize that authority, but on the divine mandate of Jesus Christ, who established the Church in the first place.

You mean a Jesus that nobody is really sure existed in the first place? The guy whose documented adulthood and death is completely botched by three of the gospels and only tacked on by St. John (the other Gospels assert that Jesus was hanged, not crucified)? The guy who was being talked up by St. Paul (believed by most to be the greatest apostle of Christianity, composer of most of the New Testament) in epistle after epistle -- admitted generally to be the oldest apostolical writings, older than the Gospels -- despite the fact that there was no written biography of Jesus in existence? The guy who was mysteriously never chronicled by two of the era's noted historians, Philo and Josephus (who lived in the same time and location as Jesus is claimed to have lived)?

Come on. The Bible is an excellent source for parables and myths to live one's life by, but as a historical document, it falls short by any acceptable standard. To brandish such "authority" with anything resembling seriousness is to demand respect for inaccuracy, deceit and deliberate manipulation. The church historian, Mosheim, wrote that "The Christian Fathers deemed it a pious act to employ deception and fraud." He also said, "The greatest and most pious teachers were nearly all of them infected with this leprosy." Some believer is going to have to tell me why forgery and fraud were necessary to prove the historicity of Jesus.

Another historian, Milman, wrote that, "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed" by the early missionaries of Jesus. "It was an age of literary frauds," wrote Bishop Ellicott, speaking of the times immediately following the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. Dr. Giles declares that, "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were written with no other purpose than to deceive." And it is the opinion of Dr. Robertson Smith that, "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views."

Books now rejected as apocryphal were once received as inspired, and vice versa. It puzzles me that there should be a whole literature of fraud and forgery in the name of an historical person.

Please, let the Bible be what it is -- a guide for behavior written in and for its times. Its lessons are certainly there for us to learn, but to take any whole section of it as literal truth is to deny reality and history.

Then who does? 'Cause if it's one person or sect, they've got their work cut out for them with everyone from Presbyterians to Televangelists interpreting the living hell outta that book. Will you please tell Those With The Authority to get off their Authoritative asses and straighten these other pretenders out?

You mean a Jesus that nobody is really sure existed in the first place? The guy whose documented adulthood and death is completely botched by three of the gospels and only tacked on by St. John (the other Gospels assert that Jesus was hanged, not crucified)? The guy who was being talked up by St. Paul (believed by most to be the greatest apostle of Christianity, composer of most of the New Testament) in epistle after epistle -- admitted generally to be the oldest apostolical writings, older than the Gospels -- despite the fact that there was no written biography of Jesus in existence? The guy who was mysteriously never chronicled by two of the era's noted historians, Philo and Josephus (who lived in the same time and location as Jesus is claimed to have lived)?

Come on. The Bible is an excellent source for parables and myths to live one's life by, but as a historical document, it falls short by any acceptable standard. To brandish such "authority" with anything resembling seriousness is to demand respect for inaccuracy, deceit and deliberate manipulation. The church historian, Mosheim, wrote that "The Christian Fathers deemed it a pious act to employ deception and fraud." He also said, "The greatest and most pious teachers were nearly all of them infected with this leprosy." Some believer is going to have to tell me why forgery and fraud were necessary to prove the historicity of Jesus.

Another historian, Milman, wrote that, "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed" by the early missionaries of Jesus. "It was an age of literary frauds," wrote Bishop Ellicott, speaking of the times immediately following the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. Dr. Giles declares that, "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were written with no other purpose than to deceive." And it is the opinion of Dr. Robertson Smith that, "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views."

Books now rejected as apocryphal were once received as inspired, and vice versa. It puzzles me that there should be a whole literature of fraud and forgery in the name of an historical person.

Please, let the Bible be what it is -- a guide for behavior written in and for its times. Its lessons are certainly there for us to learn, but to take any whole section of it as literal truth is to deny reality and history.

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has the sole authority to interpret the Bible.

As far as your doubts that Jesus actually existed in the first place, every mainstream historian agrees that He did in fact exist. The contrary view is the fringe minority, and you certainly lack any credibility which would trump the body of experts who have dedicated their lives to studying the matter.

Again, you do not have the authority to decide or declare what the Bible is or should be, not even with your bevy of amazingly-uncited quoted experts. The fact remains: unless you are trained and instructed in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and speak in accordance with its orthodox views throughout history, your opinion is irrelevant, the equivalent of a geologist's theories about particle physics.

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's authority is not over you, it is over the interpretation of the Bible. The Church wrote the Bible, and only it may legitimately interpret it.

Actually, a variety of Jews wrote the Bible.

I'm not a Christian.

!?

That doesn't say ANYWHERE that God "required" this of them, in fact he didn't, in fact they got into lots of shit for it (read on) and indeed it had NOTHING to do with marriage.

Maybe YOU need to learn to read.

:hail:

Actually, a variety of Jews wrote the Bible.

Quite true, the Old Testament was written by the Jewish Church, which, through the supernatural progression of the Divine plan, was replaced with the Catholic Church. The New Testament eludicates and clarifies the Old, and spells out the details of the new covenant between God and creation.

This is Christian Interpretation for you. Genesis One, One:

1 First God made heaven & earth

Clean, straightforward, nothing to argue with.

But lets look at the original hebrew it was written in:

א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

I know, I know. You don't read Hebrew. But the word used for god in this context is Elohim, not Elohei. Whats the difference you wonder?

Elohei means "God" Elohim means "Gods." No, thats not a mistake. Not a 5000 year old typo, Elohim is constantly used in the Old Testament. Why? Because the old testament is the Talmud and the Torah from Judaism. And yes, the original Hebrew tribes were polytheists. They had seven gods, dedicated to seven different aspects, that were honored on seven consecutive days. God created the earth in seven days too....what a coincidence!! oh, and that tradition of naming the days after gods was inherited by the Romans from the christians who inherited it from the.....Hebrews!

So everytime you read the bible. You are reading an 'interpretation'. Because on the one hand, every text of the bible is sacred, and there is noone ballsy enough to change it. On the other hand, have faith that you're not being lied to. Because God is testing your faith, and all this hard facts and historical evidence are clearly there as tests! Just like Job! Whom god tortured for a bet with the Devil!

Yeah, theres more to the story then that, and its more about the moral of the story, but hey, everyone else is interpreting the bible, why not me, I'm allowed to! it even says so in it, well, thats what I interpreted anyways.

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has the sole authority to interpret the Bible.

Does this Church have a name, or are you just making it up?

As far as your doubts that Jesus actually existed in the first place, every mainstream historian agrees that He did in fact exist. The contrary view is the fringe minority, and you certainly lack any credibility which would trump the body of experts who have dedicated their lives to studying the matter.

That's nice. How about refuting my actual points, though? I mentioned names of actual people in antiquity and recent history who've cast doubt on the provenance of Apostolic accounts of the historical aspects of Jesus. You just keep saying the word "authority" over and over again, as if that somehow means anything, impresses anyone, or keeps anyone from reading Philo or Josephus.

Again, you do not have the authority to decide or declare what the Bible is or should be, not even with your bevy of amazingly-uncited quoted experts. The fact remains: unless you are trained and instructed in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and speak in accordance with its orthodox views throughout history, your opinion is irrelevant, the equivalent of a geologist's theories about particle physics.

"Authority" again. Sonny, it doesn't matter who you believe has the authority to so much as use the restroom, okay? Do you get that? Some folks are being asked to swallow a whole lot of attempted legislation based on this book that so few people can agree on that some people have been killed over those disagreements. So unless you're going to say something else besides this boilerplate Catholic dogma horseshit you seem incapable of posting without re-typing, I suggest you drop it. We're debating here, and what you're basically doing is saying "no debate 'cause I said so". Contribute something besides fallible, man-made dogma or be considered little more than a parrot. Your choice.

My opinion is relevant because I've mentioned several sources who've researched JUST AS HARD as your so-called "mainstream historians". Refute me with names, not dogmatic muzzle-speak. Show me someone who can say that manipulation and sincere fraud were not part of the selection process for books of the Bible and try to show me who can refute the fact that Paul's Epistles were NOT written BEFORE the Gospels. Also, please explain how crucifixion doesn't enter the scene until St. John's gospel, whereas in Sts. Matthew, Mark and Luke, the intimation is that the Savior was hanged.

C'mon, junior, show us something besides Catholic doubt-repellant tropes for once.

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has the sole authority to interpret the Bible.

You conveniently forgot to answer the question why. If I would recompose the Bible and add the little bit that *I* am the only one who can interpret it that is not proof that God agrees.
You need an independent source *outside* the Bible the Catholic Church rewrote.

As far as your doubts that Jesus actually existed in the first place, every mainstream historian agrees that He did in fact exist.

Depends on how you define Jesus.
A man called Jesus living around 1 AD who was executed ? Sure, quite possible. That is like saying there could have been a man called Harry in 1850 London who drank tea sometimes.

The Jesus from the Bible, actual miracle performing son of God ? Hell no - accepting that without additional evidence would be a horrible "sin" to commit for any serious historian who follows the scientific method.

The contrary view is the fringe minority, and you certainly lack any credibility which would trump the body of experts who have dedicated their lives to studying the matter.

Right back at you ;)

Again, you do not have the authority to decide or declare what the Bible is or should be, not even with your bevy of amazingly-uncited quoted experts.

Like you quoted that "overwhelming majority of historians that accept the Biblical Jesus as historically accurate" ? ;)

Remember: in your faith lying is equivalent to serving Satan. So don't do it so much.

The Biblical rules about sex and marriage were written by profoundly insecure patriarch-wannabes many centuries ago.

In other words, if you're going to decide to follow a code of rules written by losers, you might at least want to go with modern losers. They might not encourage you to have multiple wives, but they'll make sure to tell you that it's your God-given right to never pay child support. Much more useful in these complicated times of ours.

That's nice. How about refuting my actual points, though? I mentioned names of actual people in antiquity and recent history who've cast doubt on the provenance of Apostolic accounts of the historical aspects of Jesus. You just keep saying the word "authority" over and over again, as if that somehow means anything, impresses anyone, or keeps anyone from reading Philo or Josephus.


Tacitus mentions Christ with disdain, and how Pontius Pilate had him killed to cow a dreadful "Christian cult".

The Biblical rules about sex and marriage were written by profoundly insecure patriarch-wannabes many centuries ago.

In other words, if you're going to decide to follow a code of rules written by losers, you might at least want to go with modern losers. They might not encourage you to have multiple wives, but they'll make sure to tell you that it's your God-given right to never pay child support. Much more useful in these complicated times of ours.

Indeed...It is also my God-given right to stone queers and women who have sex before marriage, preferablly on their father's doorstep.

Furthermore, the benefits of being married a virgin are well documented.

Indeed? Where? I havent seen any such thing.

The Biblical rules about sex and marriage were written by profoundly insecure patriarch-wannabes many centuries ago.

In other words, if you're going to decide to follow a code of rules written by losers, you might at least want to go with modern losers. They might not encourage you to have multiple wives, but they'll make sure to tell you that it's your God-given right to never pay child support. Much more useful in these complicated times of ours.

mmmm....I remember reading somewhere that all the judeo-christian-islamic stance on sexual behavior is an attempt from males to exert control over female sexuality. For this marriage was defined, since the times of Hammurabi as a property contract, where the man acquired from the girls father the property of the girl.

WE SHOULD RETUNR TO THOSE GOLDEN YEARS!!!! :hail::hail::hail:

WE SHOULD RETUNR TO THOSE GOLDEN YEARS!!!! :hail::hail::hail:

The memories are to painful; I propose we abolish marriage altogether.

"That's nice. How about refuting my actual points, though? I mentioned names of actual people in antiquity and recent history who've cast doubt on the provenance of Apostolic accounts of the historical aspects of Jesus. You just keep saying the word "authority" over and over again, as if that somehow means anything, impresses anyone, or keeps anyone from reading Philo or Josephus."

I will not debate with you whether or not Jesus actually existed any more than I will debate with you whether or not the Earth is the centre of the universe. Both matters are settled in the minds of the experts, and all scholarly opinions to the contrary are the province of the fringe, where you yourself reside. Furthermore, you have proved yourself unworthy of debate, regardless, by providing no citations.

"So everytime you read the bible. You are reading an 'interpretation'. Because on the one hand, every text of the bible is sacred, and there is noone ballsy enough to change it."

We are reading the interpretation by the proper authority, the Catholic Church. Only the Church may interpret the Bible. Your assertion here that Elohim must necessarily refer to a plurality of beings is an interpretation itself, and not a legitimate one.

"If I would recompose the Bible and add the little bit that *I* am the only one who can interpret it that is not proof that God agrees."

You cannot rewrite the Bible legitimately, as all Scripture is God-breathed, and therefore inviolate. Any interpretation of that Scripture made outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's orthodox teaching throughout the ages is invalid.

"You need an independent source *outside* the Bible the Catholic Church rewrote."

The Church did not rewrite the Bible, it wrote it. The written accounts of the Bible are secondary to the Faith and Tradition the early Apostles taught Christians to receive; it is a codification of that Faith and Tradition. The Faith and Tradition were primary, and they give credence to the Bible; no external source is necessary.

"A man called Jesus living around 1 AD who was executed ? Sure, quite possible. That is like saying there could have been a man called Harry in 1850 London who drank tea sometimes.
The Jesus from the Bible, actual miracle performing son of God ? Hell no - accepting that without additional evidence would be a horrible "sin" to commit for any serious historian who follows the scientific method."

A Jewish man hailing from Galilee born in Bethlehem who led a small religious movement, was claimed by contemporaries to have performed miracles, challenged the religious authority, was tried by Pilate and executed via crucifixion, whose body later disappeared from its tomb, and who His followers claimed to have seen resurrected and ascended into Heaven.

"Remember: in your faith lying is equivalent to serving Satan. So don't do it so much."

You appear to know so little about the true Faith that I have little worry about your interpretation of it, much less your ability to judge my adherence to it or separate truth from fabrication.

"I remember reading somewhere that all the judeo-christian-islamic stance on sexual behavior is an attempt from males to exert control over female sexuality."

I read somewhere that cabbages have the ability to love.

I will not debate with you whether or not Jesus actually existed any more than I will debate with you whether or not the Earth is the centre of the universe. Both matters are settled in the minds of the experts,

Are you on crack?

Are you on crack?

You seriously couldn't come up with a better rebuttal than that? I thought you were a lawyer. :p

"That's nice. How about refuting my actual points, though? I mentioned names of actual people in antiquity and recent history who've cast doubt on the provenance of Apostolic accounts of the historical aspects of Jesus. You just keep saying the word "authority" over and over again, as if that somehow means anything, impresses anyone, or keeps anyone from reading Philo or Josephus."

I will not debate with you whether or not Jesus actually existed any more than I will debate with you whether or not the Earth is the centre of the universe. Both matters are settled in the minds of the experts, and all scholarly opinions to the contrary are the province of the fringe, where you yourself reside. Furthermore, you have proved yourself unworthy of debate, regardless, by providing no citations.

"So everytime you read the bible. You are reading an 'interpretation'. Because on the one hand, every text of the bible is sacred, and there is noone ballsy enough to change it."

We are reading the interpretation by the proper authority, the Catholic Church. Only the Church may interpret the Bible. Your assertion here that Elohim must necessarily refer to a plurality of beings is an interpretation itself, and not a legitimate one.

"If I would recompose the Bible and add the little bit that *I* am the only one who can interpret it that is not proof that God agrees."

You cannot rewrite the Bible legitimately, as all Scripture is God-breathed, and therefore inviolate. Any interpretation of that Scripture made outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's orthodox teaching throughout the ages is invalid.

"You need an independent source *outside* the Bible the Catholic Church rewrote."

The Church did not rewrite the Bible, it wrote it. The written accounts of the Bible are secondary to the Faith and Tradition the early Apostles taught Christians to receive; it is a codification of that Faith and Tradition. The Faith and Tradition were primary, and they give credence to the Bible; no external source is necessary.

"A man called Jesus living around 1 AD who was executed ? Sure, quite possible. That is like saying there could have been a man called Harry in 1850 London who drank tea sometimes.
The Jesus from the Bible, actual miracle performing son of God ? Hell no - accepting that without additional evidence would be a horrible "sin" to commit for any serious historian who follows the scientific method."

A Jewish man hailing from Galilee born in Bethlehem who led a small religious movement, was claimed by contemporaries to have performed miracles, challenged the religious authority, was tried by Pilate and executed via crucifixion, whose body later disappeared from its tomb, and who His followers claimed to have seen resurrected and ascended into Heaven.

"Remember: in your faith lying is equivalent to serving Satan. So don't do it so much."

You appear to know so little about the true Faith that I have little worry about your interpretation of it, much less your ability to judge my adherence to it or separate truth from fabrication.

"I remember reading somewhere that all the judeo-christian-islamic stance on sexual behavior is an attempt from males to exert control over female sexuality."

I read somewhere that cabbages have the ability to love.

That is most reasonable argument I have ever seen fanatic make; well done!

You seriously couldn't come up with a better rebuttal than that? I thought you were a lawyer. :p

I'm sure NeoArt just wanted Nicea to share his crack.

You seriously couldn't come up with a better rebuttal than that? I thought you were a lawyer. :p

that wasn't a rebuttal I just...really wanted some crack. Figured he was holding.

The church never 'wrote' the bible. It was pieced together at the Council of Nicea in 323 a.d. The early church fathers NEVER thought of Jesus as the Son of God. He was a prophet, much like Moses or Muhammed. the writings that never made it into the new testament, are called the "Apocryphya" literally, the hidden writings.

The church dare not destroy, nor reveal what these writings entail, but what they conceal, is the light and the truth of Jesus, and how he intended for his church to truly work.

Jesus was a social revolutionary. He embraced the peoples that were shunned by a large corrupt religious organization that desired money and power over saving souls.

What do you think he would say to his 'followers' today, as they exit a gold plated church, wearing their finest clothes, and turning up their noses at a homeless, hungry, unwashed man?

"Depart from me, for I know you not."

I certainly dont claim to be a pious christian, but I dont claim to know any either. I think that a true christian is an admirable thing to be, but I have never met, nor heard of one.

I wonder how much money you spent on that computer, to tell us heathens, that that group of hypocrites, telling you that an all-powerful god, needs your money, are the only ones with the authority to interpret the bible?

Sell that thing, donate it to a charity that actually helps people, go volunteer at a homeless shelter, give of yourself to your fellow man.

Because I tell you this now, I know God cares whether you believe in it, as much as I care whether an ant believes in me, but if an ant does good works in its life, I can see that.

That is most reasonable argument I have ever seen fanatic make; well done!

Clearly one of the better arguments I've seen yes, although still fairly flawed in many ways. He strikes from a hypocritical standpoint, outing others for lack of sources and citation while providing none himself. Also:

"Any interpretation of that Scripture made outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's orthodox teaching throughout the ages is invalid."

This line in particular irks me. I've seen a similar stance taken by certain Jews concerning criticism of Israel. That unless one is Jewish, a citizen of Israel and has served in the military, one cannot criticize the state. The flaw in this form of argument is that it leaves no room for debate on any subject. If one has to be indoctrinated to be able to understand, all other points of view become moot as one comes to accept the point of view of the larger entity.

Sorry if my words are a little garbled, it's quite late and my mind is running on fumes.

The church never 'wrote' the bible. It was pieced together at the Council of Nicea in 323 a.d. The early church fathers NEVER thought of Jesus as the Son of God. He was a prophet, much like Moses or Muhammed. the writings that never made it into the new testament, are called the "Apocryphya" literally, the hidden writings.
The church dare not destroy, nor reveal what these writings entail, but what they conceal, is the light and the truth of Jesus, and how he intended for his church to truly work.
Jesus was a social revolutionary. He embraced the peoples that were shunned by a large corrupt religious organization that desired money and power over saving souls.
What do you think he would say to his 'followers' today, as they exit a gold plated church, wearing their finest clothes, and turning up their noses at a homeless, hungry, unwashed man?
"Depart from me, for I know you not."
I certainly dont claim to be a pious christian, but I dont claim to know any either. I think that a true christian is an admirable thing to be, but I have never met, nor heard of one.
I wonder how much money you spent on that computer, to tell us heathens, that that group of hypocrites, telling you that an all-powerful god, needs your money, are the only ones with the authority to interpret the bible?
Sell that thing, donate it to a charity that actually helps people, go volunteer at a homeless shelter, give of yourself to your fellow man.
Because I tell you this now, I know God cares whether you believe in it, as much as I care whether an ant believes in me, but if an ant does good works in its life, I can see that.

Of all the people to explain the Tradition of the Church, you are not the foremost authority. I do not turn to outside sources to explain the motives of an organization: I turn to the organization itself to explain its own motives. Believe what you will about the Church's beliefs and motivations: they are as irrelevant as the Scriptural interpretations of those outside the Catholic orthodoxy.
The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church accepts the Apocryphal writings as legitimate, albeit not God-breathed, inclusions into the Bible, being generally valuable for instruction and correction, although it pertains to them to establish no doctrine.
Jesus was not primarily a social revolutionary; if he were, he would have joined the Jewish revolt against Rome. He was, primarily, a spiritual revolutionary, concerned foremost with the souls of people enslaved, not to Rome, but to sin.
Read the Old Testament description of the Temple the next time you doubt God approves of splendour in one of His churches.
Your assumption that splendour in a church necessarily entails pitilessness to homeless is unfounded and unworthy of discussion.
It is not for you, nor for me, to judge who is pious and who is not. There is a divinely ordained body which is primarily concerned with spiritual matters, piety among them: the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. When you have a question of piety, seek your answer there.
Your assumption of bad faith is unseeming in intelligent debate. It also happens to be unfounded, which you would understand could you see the POS hand-me-down box I'm typing on. I'm pretty sure they had better systems on the Apollo missions.
I never claimed to say God needs money. He does not. This is the definition of omnipotence, the ability to carry out His will immediately, without external aid. The money given to the Church is voluntary, as a portional sacrifice in acceptance of the fact that all we have belongs to God, and is rightly His.
You have no grounds for presumption on what God cares for or believes.

I do not turn to outside sources to explain the motives of an organization: I turn to the organization itself to explain its own motives.

Because that's always trustworthy. You sound like those people who get sucked into a Ponzi scheme

Because that's always trustworthy. You sound like those people who get sucked into a Ponzi scheme

Well turning to the organization can work, although you pretty much have to look at their actions rather than listen to their words. Otherwise you end up with a lot of "Do as I say not as I do."

Wrong again, I am not a Roman Catholic. Two branches down, only one left.
Wrong again. There are a bewilderingly large number of branches of Christianity, and I have no particular interest in playing a guessing game about which petty fringe sect you personally decide to call the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church".
The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's authority is not over you, it is over the interpretation of the Bible.
No Church has any authority over any interpreters of the Bible.
The public perception of the Church's authority has diminished, certainly, but its actual authority has not suffered in the slightest. The authority of the Church does not depend on the number of people who recognize that authority, but on the divine mandate of Jesus Christ, who established the Church in the first place.
You are using the word "authority" in an utterly meaningless sense. A body which has no authority over anyone has no authority.

I read somewhere that cabbages have the ability to love.

Citation?

No...?

you are not worthy of debate

:p

Wrong again. There are a bewilderingly large number of branches of Christianity, and I have no particular interest in playing a guessing game about which petty fringe sect you personally decide to call the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church".

No Church has any authority over any interpreters of the Bible.

You are using the word "authority" in an utterly meaningless sense. A body which has no authority over anyone has no authority.

There are only 3 branches of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican.

The Church has sole authority to interpret the Bible. Interpreters who act outside the orthodoxy of the Church have no authority. The authority of the Church is not over people, but over the legitimacy of interpretation of Scripture. Whether or not others accept that authority is irrelevant; only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, and this authority cannot pass away, because it was given by Jesus Christ Himself at the founding of the Church.

There are only 3 branches of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican.

The Church has sole authority to interpret the Bible. Interpreters who act outside the orthodoxy of the Church have no authority. The authority of the Church is not over people, but over the legitimacy of interpretation of Scripture. Whether or not others accept that authority is irrelevant; only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, and this authority cannot pass away, because it was given by Jesus Christ Himself at the founding of the Church.

So, basically, if you're not a Christian you're not bound by these "interpretation authorities" (which is the silliest thing I've ever heard, if there's something to interpret, anyone can give it a shot - whether you agree with them or not is entirely another kind of animal) - since well, you probably don't believe that Jesus Christ had any authority to give authority (although this is not true for some of the religions out there, Muslims know Jesus Christ as a prophet of the same God for instance) so you can;


Interpret the Bible to your heart's content,
Don't care if it has any divine meaning or not,
Understand that it has great social effect on the society,
Analyze its contents to understand the people's way of thinking during the time it was written or just to have some comparison fun at the NSG General boards.


Seems like a no brainer to me but of course, your mileage may vary.

Cheerio!

Whether or not others accept that authority is irrelevant; only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, and this authority cannot pass away, because it was given by Jesus Christ Himself at the founding of the Church.

According to the church. ;)

There are only 3 branches of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican.There are plenty of other sects which claim to be the true heirs of the primitive Christian church, and regard all three of the branches you like as corrupted and paganistic. Anybody can claim anything they like about themselves. Of the three you list, the Anglicans have the weakest claim to represent the original.
Whether or not others accept that authority is irrelevant
Your usage of "authority" is just meaningless then. Authority is something that is exercised over other people.
only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, and this authority cannot pass away, because it was given by Jesus Christ Himself at the founding of the Church.
Quite aside from the question of whether your favorite sect has anything in common with the followers of Jesus, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in any text that I have ever heard of about Jesus granting exclusive "authority" (whatever you think that means) to interpret scripture to any particular group.

There are plenty of other sects which claim to be the true heirs of the primitive Christian church, and regard all three of the branches you like as corrupted and paganistic. Anybody can claim anything they like about themselves. Of the three you list, the Anglicans have the weakest claim to represent the original.

Your usage of "authority" is just meaningless then. Authority is something that is exercised over other people.

Quite aside from the question of whether your favorite sect has anything in common with the followers of Jesus, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in any text that I have ever heard of about Jesus granting exclusive "authority" (whatever you think that means) to interpret scripture to any particular group.

Regardless of what sects claim to be the true heirs to the Christian church, there are, demonstrably, only three branches of the Church which can claim membership in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Anglicans have maintained the Apostolic Succession, the Creeds and the Sacraments, as have the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches. These three combined form the only legitimate authority in Christianity.
The Church's authority is exercised over other people, in the sense that she holds the exclusive right of legitimate interpretation of Scripture, such that no other, outside the orthodoxy of the Church, may legitimately do so. Taken in this sense, the Church does have authority over others, in that, by her mandate, she prevents any other from legitimately interpreting Scripture. She does not, however, prevent others from attempting to do so; only making their attempts perforce illegitimate.
It is unsurprising that one outside the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church has no recognition of the Catholic Church's sole authority to interpret Scripture. I suggest you seek out your local Catholic priest, of any of the three branches, and ask him any questions you might have. An orthodox Catholic would be happy to clarify your confusion on the matter.

Any One see what wrong with this ?

what was wrong with my post?

Regardless of what sects claim to be the true heirs to the Christian church, there are, demonstrably, only three branches of the Church which can claim membership in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Anglicans have maintained the Apostolic Succession, the Creeds and the Sacraments, as have the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches. These three combined form the only legitimate authority in Christianity.
You have not "demonstrated" that those factors are of any importance. There is nothing "demonstrable" about the claims of these particular factions.
It is unsurprising that one outside the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church has no recognition of the Catholic Church's sole authority to interpret Scripture.
Exactly.
An "authority" which is not recognized by anyone is not authority. It is merely preening self-importance.
I suggest you seek out your local Catholic priest, of any of the three branches, and ask him any questions you might have. An orthodox Catholic would be happy to clarify your confusion on the matter.
I have no questions or confusion whatsoever. My utter rejection of your position should not in any way be mistaken for an incomprehension of it.

The authority and leadership of the Church was given to the Apostles themselves, who transmit their authority through the laying on of hands, thus consecrating bishops. These bishops in turn consecrate bishops, and further pass along the authority of the Apostles. No sect which cannot trace the lineage of its bishops back to the Apostles and Jesus Christ Himself can be rightly said to be a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is governed by the spiritual descendants of the Apostles who exercise their authoirty. The Creeds (Apostles', Nicean and Athanasian) are statements of the core doctrines of the faith as outlined by the early councils of the still-undivided Church. No sect which does not share in the confession of the Creeds can be rightly said to be a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The core of the worship of the early Church was participation in the Sacraments. The Church has revealed additional Sacraments over time, but Christ Himself gave two Sacraments to be carried out by His Church: Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. No sect which does not celebrate these Sacraments can rightly be said to be a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The authority of the Church need be recognized by no human in order to be legitimate; her authority comes directly from Jesus Christ.
You must have at least some confusion, as you yourself admitted you know of nothing in any text which grants exclusive authority to the Catholic Church for interpretation of Scripture and doctrine. Since such does exist, you should seek edification.

The authority and leadership of the Church was given to the Apostles themselves, who transmit their authority through the laying on of hands, thus consecrating bishops. These bishops in turn consecrate bishops, and further pass along the authority of the Apostles. No sect which cannot trace the lineage of its bishops back to the Apostles and Jesus Christ Himself can be rightly said to be a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is governed by the spiritual descendants of the Apostles who exercise their authoirty.

According to the church. :)

I love it when people who are not even Christian, much less members of the only agency with the authority to interpret the Bible attempt to tell people what the Bible means.

Yes the problem is in the quoting. I mean if it doesnt fit neatly into the cozy paradigm you have pretended it to be it requires 'interpretation' by some agency to satisfy any issues that may arise.

Those of us smart enough to ask questions see the holes in the utopia you claim within your dogma. We simply hand you the facts. So go run to a priest and have them interpret it for you. I am sure getting knocked up by your father while he is drunk could be re-interpreted as some kind of love and adoration. Heil jesus.

Yes, this makes sense. I totally endorse this proposal...:No seriously. I want to marry many girls and have many concubines.

1 Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
2 Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)
3 A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)
4 Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
5 Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6 If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
7 In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)


Santiago, I must thank both you and the Bible for making me laugh so hard just now. :D

There are only 3 branches of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican.

The Church has sole authority to interpret the Bible. Interpreters who act outside the orthodoxy of the Church have no authority. The authority of the Church is not over people, but over the legitimacy of interpretation of Scripture. Whether or not others accept that authority is irrelevant; only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, and this authority cannot pass away, because it was given by Jesus Christ Himself at the founding of the Church.

Clinton: Your Honor, you do not have the authority to interpret the laws. You see only the apostles of the constitution were entitled to do this. I am a direct descendant of one of the apostles ex mother in law's illigitamate daughter that my father screwed once on break at the plantation house where he worked as a butler. So in my mind the definition of the word 'is' is and shall be irrefutable. Therefore I am not guitly.

The only biblical description of Marriage that a Christian needs to care about is the one Jesus mentioned when he was talking about divorce...

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

The authority and leadership of the Church was given to the Apostles themselves, who transmit their authority through the laying on of hands, thus consecrating bishops.
I do not believe for a second that Jesus had any intention of setting up some of his followers as rulers over the others. Neither do a lot of Christians. The self-serving claims of these "authorities" no longer command much respect, and why should they?

The only biblical description of Marriage that a Christian needs to care about is the one Jesus mentioned when he was talking about divorce...

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

I'm so glad that there's some sort of official pronouncement on which parts of the Bible I can ignore.

The only biblical description of Marriage that a Christian needs to care about is the one Jesus mentioned when he was talking about divorce...

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

So when are you going to have the operation to make you and your partner a single fleshy being ?

The only biblical description of Marriage that a Christian needs to care about is the one Jesus mentioned when he was talking about divorce...

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Curiously the anti-gay-marriage campaigners never seem to be so opposed to divorce.

So when are you going to have the operation to make you and your partner a single fleshy being ?

When God gets a free slot in his busy consultant-surgeon schedule, obviously!

The only biblical description of Marriage that a Christian needs to care about is the one Jesus mentioned when he was talking about divorce...

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Yes...this also serves to ban homosexuality

When two guy's have sex they can only penetrate each other through the crack which I think is disgusting because of all the crap that's in there. They both must face the same direction and thus one guy's twig and berries will be projecting from the two. Because no man has a vagina they can't become one flesh when having normal sex.

Women don't have Jimmy and his two buddies hanging around so they can't naturally penetrate each other and become one flesh.

Oral with dudes can't be natural because the legs will be poking out from different directions as will the ladies if they participate in oral sex.

Oral with the opposite sex still isn't natural because you still have the leg issue and often someone is further down if they are not on top of each other.

Anal with opposites is still excluded from natural sex because once again your are sticking your think in a crap hole and a woman's tits are usually projecting outward.

When the Bible is speaking of becoming one flesh it literally means that there is nothing sticking out in the clear and that the man and woman are facing each other. Face to Face.

So when are you going to have the operation to make you and your partner a single fleshy being ?

You don't have to have surgery to create a baby, which is a genetic single fleshy being that is both Mom and Dad. Clearly you think too much and miss the obvious.

Curiously the anti-gay-marriage campaigners never seem to be so opposed to divorce.

Curiously you seem to know very little about Christian churches teachings and classes and seminars and sermons and counseling services and general offerings of help for and to the pre-married and the married with the goal of making more happy marriages and less divorce in the Christian community. Or were you just stereotyping and throwing out a mini strawman, because clearly the Christian churches of almost every denomination in the US have been actively pursing education for its members about marriage and how to have happy marriages etc. Try going to the Christian book store and looking at the section for marriage and couples. Your accusation is baseless.

Yes...this also serves to ban homosexuality

When two guy's have sex they can only penetrate each other through the crack which I think is disgusting because of all the crap that's in there. They both must face the same direction and thus one guy's twig and berries will be projecting from the two. Because no man has a vagina they can't become one flesh when having normal sex.

Women don't have Jimmy and his two buddies hanging around so they can't naturally penetrate each other and become one flesh.

Oral with dudes can't be natural because the legs will be poking out from different directions as will the ladies if they participate in oral sex.

Oral with the opposite sex still isn't natural because you still have the leg issue and often someone is further down if they are not on top of each other.

Anal with opposites is still excluded from natural sex because once again your are sticking your think in a crap hole and a woman's tits are usually projecting outward.

When the Bible is speaking of becoming one flesh it literally means that there is nothing sticking out in the clear and that the man and woman are facing each other. Face to Face.

What a pile of crap. From end to end. Who told you that men can only penetrate one another from the rear? Even just in the case of anal, that's not (even close to being) true. Similarly, it is entirely possible to have anal intercourse between a male and a female, in the same position one has vaginal sex.

When the bible speaks of becoming one flesh, that's what it says. A nice, nebulous void, which you can throw all kinds of interpretations at, but you can't make a thing stick.

And anyone that thinks oral sex is non-biblical clearly hasn't read their "Song of Solomon".

If you don't want to have homosexual sex, or anal sex, or oral sex... don't. If you think it's icky. Okay - you're welcome to. But don't make the mistake of thinking that your narrow interpretation of the scripture is right, and don't assume that the bible supports your view.

You don't have to have surgery to create a baby, which is a genetic single fleshy being that is both Mom and Dad. Clearly you think too much and miss the obvious.

Clearly you like looking for semantic excuses, rather than actual honest biblical interpretation.

"'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

This can't be talking about a baby, as well you know, because the "what god has joined together, let no man separate" comment would be nonsensical.

The only biblical description of Marriage that a Christian needs to care about is the one Jesus mentioned when he was talking about divorce...

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

And Jesus was quoting someone else....

Your argument is that we should take our law, not from Jesus himself, but from some scriptural reference he happens to recall?

And, shall we be really honest, here? What was the context in which this comment was made?

Clearly you like looking for semantic excuses, rather than actual honest biblical interpretation.

"'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

This can't be talking about a baby, as well you know, because the "what god has joined together, let no man separate" comment would be nonsensical.

Dismemberment? :D

Dismemberment? :D

It would have to be at a genetic level - somewhere in the ballpark of Solomon with a baby-chopping sword that can split DNA...

ok just wrong, no wonder i say the book full of it

Let's be fair, the Bible isn't saying that this is what should happen. It's just saying that it happened.

As are the negative social effects of growing up with two parents who can't stand one another. Next?


Just a quick question. Are you claiming his point to be false, or are you simply proving that the opposite is also true?

...
This can't be talking about a baby, as well you know, because the "what god has joined together, let no man separate" comment would be nonsensical.

Twist as hard as you can to complicate the scenario, but the simplicity of the situation overrides your objection. Two parents staying together to raise their child(ren) is not nonsensical.

What a pile of crap. From end to end. Who told you that men can only penetrate one another from the rear? Even just in the case of anal, that's not (even close to being) true. Similarly, it is entirely possible to have anal intercourse between a male and a female, in the same position one has vaginal sex.

When the bible speaks of becoming one flesh, that's what it says. A nice, nebulous void, which you can throw all kinds of interpretations at, but you can't make a thing stick.

And anyone that thinks oral sex is non-biblical clearly hasn't read their "Song of Solomon".

If you don't want to have homosexual sex, or anal sex, or oral sex... don't. If you think it's icky. Okay - you're welcome to. But don't make the mistake of thinking that your narrow interpretation of the scripture is right, and don't assume that the bible supports your view.

Me thinks you stepped in it again. I suggest your read 'parody' more carefully before you jump all over someone that is clearly on your side next time, perhaps I should just enjoy your tirade and not mention your mistake. But as usual your interpretation of an author's intent leaves something to be desired.

Twist as hard as you can to complicate the scenario, but the simplicity of the situation overrides your objection. Two parents staying together to raise their child(ren) is not nonsensical.

And neither is it what you, or the book you reference, said.

Twist? Physician, heal thyself.

Me thinks you stepped in it again. I suggest your read 'parody' more carefully before you jump all over someone that is clearly on your side next time, perhaps I should just enjoy your tirade and not mention your mistake. But as usual your interpretation of an author's intent leaves something to be desired.

Perhaps so. But that's because I think CONtent, is more important than INtent.

I don't care if you WANT to save the world, your arguments are horseshit, and should be treated as such.

If I fell over on someone's parody... well, more fool me, but it serves an educational purpose anyway - by showing that the arguments made in parody, are only really functional as jest. I've seen teh same arguments made with every appearance of being serious. I'd rather overkill, than let it stand.

Curiously you seem to know very little about Christian churches teachings and classes and seminars and sermons and counseling services and general offerings of help for and to the pre-married and the married with the goal of making more happy marriages and less divorce in the Christian community. Or were you just stereotyping and throwing out a mini strawman, because clearly the Christian churches of almost every denomination in the US have been actively pursing education for its members about marriage and how to have happy marriages etc. Try going to the Christian book store and looking at the section for marriage and couples. Your accusation is baseless.

You're completely misunderstanding my point: Christian groups which scream the house down at the idea of a loving homosexual relationship being recognised by the state rarely object to the legality of divorce. They may discourage it, and provide counselling to avert it, but most of them would accept that the decision to leave one's partner is a personal one which the state has no right to overule. This is clearly hypocritical if they're citing the Bible to defend a 'straights-only' definition of marriage.

I can think of a few mainstream groups and organisations who've complained that divorce is too easily obtainable, but none that want to ban it completely.

The only biblical description of Marriage that a Christian needs to care about is the one Jesus mentioned when he was talking about divorce...

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

What about the other parts of the Bible that speak of marriage, like Exodus 21:10, or 1 Corinthians 7, or even Deuteronomy 22:13? Why do we no longer need to look at those?

Perhaps so. But that's because I think CONtent, is more important than INtent.

I don't care if you WANT to save the world, your arguments are horseshit, and should be treated as such.

If I fell over on someone's parody... well, more fool me, but it serves an educational purpose anyway - by showing that the arguments made in parody, are only really functional as jest. I've seen teh same arguments made with every appearance of being serious. I'd rather overkill, than let it stand.

FYI

that was a translation of something a Catholic Priest actually said.

fooled you!!! :p

Just a quick question. Are you claiming his point to be false, or are you simply proving that the opposite is also true?

Using the latter to imply the former...I think. It's been a while (out of the loop for a week while I moved).

The guy just pulled the "it's better for a child to have two parents and not one" right out of his ass, so I figured I'd rebut with an observation that one parent is preferable to two that hate each other irreconcilably and who stay together for the sake of the children.

Also, Nicea?

I quoted Josephus and Philo, and mentioned several other Biblical historians, and even a bishop in my post. So the sources are there. Yours are not. You keep using the word "authority" like it means something it doesn't mean. But I'm through arguing with you, for all you can do is squawk dogma like some cloistered budgie.

OMG! Larry Flynt wrote the Bible!!! :eek:

I always suspected that, if there has to be some kind of deity, Larry Flynt would make a good candidate.

FYI

that was a translation of something a Catholic Priest actually said.

fooled you!!! :p

I'd say "Oh boy, is my face red"... except it's not.

I'll happily jump to the wrong conclusion every so often if it means I hit every one of these kinds of comments that are genuine and sincere.

I'd say "Oh boy, is my face red"... except it's not.

I'll happily jump to the wrong conclusion every so often if it means I hit every one of these kinds of comments that are genuine and sincere.

The scary thing is that it is actually difficult to tell which ones are jokes and which ones are not. :confused:

The scary thing is that it is actually difficult to tell which ones are jokes and which ones are not. :confused:

Absolutely. I can't remember the number of times I've written off some obvious parody, and then found the same person still banging the same drum a few days later....

I, sir, beat dead horses for kicks.

Using the latter to imply the former...I think. It's been a while (out of the loop for a week while I moved).

The guy just pulled the "it's better for a child to have two parents and not one" right out of his ass, so I figured I'd rebut with an observation that one parent is preferable to two that hate each other irreconcilably and who stay together for the sake of the children.

I know it's mostly anecdotal, but from knowing a shitload of people who've had their parents go through divorce, I wouldn't be so quick to deny that it does often have a large negative impact on the children involved.

I know it's mostly anecdotal, but from knowing a shitload of people who've had their parents go through divorce, I wouldn't be so quick to deny that it does often have a large negative impact on the children involved.

You appear to be missing the point. I'm not sure if that is deliberate or not.

Regardless, you'd have to compare the alleged "large negative impact" of people divorcing with the negative impact of having parents that would otherwise be divorced ('cuz, for instance, they hate each other) but stay together.

EDIT: You may also want to set aside anecdotal evidence and consider the results of studies like this one (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=briefingPapers&ext=LiBriefingPaper).

I, sir, beat dead horses for kicks.

*completely misses point of post and calls ASPCA on Santiago I* :p

*completely misses point of post and calls ASPCA on Santiago I* :p

American Society for the Punching of Cute Animals?

American Society for the Punching of Cute Animals?

Sure, that works, too!:D

Sure, that works, too!:D

Yay! *kicks nearest puppy*

Yay! *kicks nearest puppy*

*Takes the puppy DM just kicked and rapes it*

nobody overdoes me in my own thread