Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Bringer wrote:

xole wrote:Whatever the bible says, this is still a secular state and marriage is not of christian origin.

Actually, if the Bible is true, then it is very well possible that marriage was an institution directly formed by God in the beginning of time.

Yes, but that argument won't hold up in court. Most cultures and religions have some form of marriage.

If the bible is true there are things I would be much more afraid of than what God thinks of gay people, most notably what would happen if two of the bible's contradictions were both true at the same time.

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:

A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."

I.... I need to lay down now.

Before I murder someone.

Don't attack A Beka Book, attack Pensacola Christian College.

Can't I like... attack... both?

Whilst I'm sure those threats are idle, I think Melissia just landed herself on one of Homeland Security's lists.

The Bringer wrote:

xole wrote:Whatever the bible says, this is still a secular state and marriage is not of christian origin.

Actually, if the Bible is true, then it is very well possible that marriage was an institution directly formed by God in the beginning of time.

Well, then it's a good thing IT IS NOT.

The Bringer wrote:

xole wrote:Whatever the bible says, this is still a secular state and marriage is not of christian origin.

Actually, if the Bible is true, then it is very well possible that marriage was an institution directly formed by God in the beginning of time.

Of course if the Vedas and Upanishads are true instead...

Melissia wrote:And yet, it also doesn't indicate that the marriage should be between a man and a woman.

The bible doesn't really contain family values. I mean, Adam's sons killed eachother. then Abraham's wife makes him get a servant pregnant, then mistreats the servant afterwards. Then there's Jacob, who stole his brother's birthright, and Jephthah, who had to sacrifice his only child to god for victory in war. David's... hell, he kills his general, takes the generla's wife, then his son rapes his daughter. Jesus himself said he has come to set father against son and mother against daughter-- to create family discord.

It's not about the family, but about love. Love between god, between people, and between lovers, but in the end, love.

I'd like to do your argument justice, but I'm at work right now... when I get home I will challenge your view on the Old and New Covenant, as well as this post.

I think we need a new thread titled "what does Bible say/mean?".

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I think we need a new thread titled "what does Bible say/mean?".

Lets have a more interesting thread, something like "The gripping world of tile grouting" or something.

mattyrm wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I think we need a new thread titled "what does Bible say/mean?".

Lets have a more interesting thread, something like "The gripping world of tile grouting" or something.

Oh, I'd subscribe to that!

The Bringer wrote:

Melissia wrote:And yet, it also doesn't indicate that the marriage should be between a man and a woman.

The bible doesn't really contain family values. I mean, Adam's sons killed eachother. then Abraham's wife makes him get a servant pregnant, then mistreats the servant afterwards. Then there's Jacob, who stole his brother's birthright, and Jephthah, who had to sacrifice his only child to god for victory in war. David's... hell, he kills his general, takes the generla's wife, then his son rapes his daughter. Jesus himself said he has come to set father against son and mother against daughter-- to create family discord.

It's not about the family, but about love. Love between god, between people, and between lovers, but in the end, love.

I'd like to do your argument justice, but I'm at work right now... when I get home I will challenge your view on the Old and New Covenant, as well as this post.

Bringer..While I applaud you for trying.... you are going to soon find out that some people are not capable of being reasoned with...Mel is one of those people.

For example she makes this statement "And yet, it also doesn't indicate that the marriage should be between a man and a woman" The fact is that the first two people that the Bible says were created were Adam and Eve...not Adam and Steve. God said be fruitful and multiply to Adam and Eve.

Adam and Steve would not be able to be fruitful(reproductively speaking) and would not be able to multiply(reproductively speaking).

As far as the bible not "really contain family values" as she states..is yet another attack from her towards the Bible. It would have been more accurate of her to state that the Bible shows people being real, people behaving badly doesn't mean that the Bible condones the behavior. In fact there are consequences for Cain and Able, Abraham-Sarah-Hagar, Jacob-Esau,Jepthah and his daughter, David-Batsheebah-Uriah. All of these stories illustrate what happens when you behave badly.

Now the context, which is to help people understand family values, by seeing how NOT to act.

As far as her additional out of context mention of Christ' in Matthew 10:34(NKJV) “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’

Jesus is making a statement of fact..the fact that family members will have disagreements over Jesus(whether he is the Christ, Messiah etc.etc.). Melissia presents her argument as though Jesus was purposely setting out to breakup families.

Bringer this is what she does all the time....

GG

generalgrog wrote:[
Bringer..While I applaud you for trying.... you are going to soon find out that some people are not capable of being reasoned with...Mel is one of those people.

Coming from Dakkas resident Creationist fundamentalist, this is every single pot in the cosmos calling every Kettle ever created black.

Staggering hypocrisy from Religious people?!

Well I never!

Whatever next? Bernard Francis Law lecturing me for sleeping with a 19 year old girl? Or Kent Hovind telling us all about the evils of rock music while he snorts cocaine off a rent boys dick?

Y'know, threads like this are really good for Dakka: they help contain the hatred and nastiness in one area.

Just a thought.

_Tim?

Ahtman wrote:

The Bringer wrote:

xole wrote:Whatever the bible says, this is still a secular state and marriage is not of christian origin.

Actually, if the Bible is true, then it is very well possible that marriage was an institution directly formed by God in the beginning of time.

Of course if the Vedas and Upanishads are true instead...

This.

Neither Christianity nor Judaism invented marriage. They have never had exclusive claim on it, and never will have exclusive claim on it, unless their more misguided followers kill the rest if us.

Neither Christianity nor Judaism invented marriage. They have never had exclusive claim on it, and never will have exclusive claim on it, unless their more misguided followers kill the rest if us.

I'm going to be suprise how many posters will try to prove they do.

Jihadin wrote:

Neither Christianity nor Judaism invented marriage. They have never had exclusive claim on it, and never will have exclusive claim on it, unless their more misguided followers kill the rest if us.

I'm going to be suprise how many posters will try to prove they do.

I won't be.



Also, I'm still waiting for GeneralGrog to come up with a counterargument to my post about cherrypicking select parts of the Bible, while ignoring others.

I hope it's in the single digits.

azazel the cat wrote:Also, I'm still waiting for GeneralGrog to come up with a counterargument to my post about cherrypicking select parts of the Bible, while ignoring others.

Good luck arguing with him. Apparently, as a scientist who finds herself fascinated by the philosophical and historical context behind modern religions, I'm too unreasonable for my posts to be worthy of attention, no matter how eloquently worded my points are, and meanwhile, GeneralGrog is by far more reasonable and logical, the epitome of intellectual thought.

I think my brain is trying to escape from my head after posting that. I need to take some aspirin and lie down...

Melissia wrote:
It's not about the family, but about love. Love between god, between people, and between lovers, but in the end, love.

We don't need an institution to celebrate love. The roman government (I think it was Octavius who instituted those laws) had the habit of giving honours to parents of large families, since they were 'giving' a most essential ressource to the state. The honours were stuff like precedence in religious affairs, order of entrance in the Senate, etc, and the most honours were given to those who raised the most children in an acceptable manner.

I'd expect that a lot of the current christian obsession with the 'sanctity of marriage' comes down from the early adaptation of ancient roman laws into canonical laws and practices.

Since modern marriage is no longer about creating large families, or even about creating families, it no longer has a purpose as an institution. I'm all about gay marriage since it seems to be the fight they've chosen to get complete emancipation, but regardless, gays complaining about not being able to marry today is about as sensical as an atheist women complaining that the Church won't let her be a priest.

Do you raise a kid? Then the government should cut you a certain slack in terms of taxes and such. Do you want to celebrate your love? Then do a garden party (alternatively an orgy). Marriage no longer has any purpose other than providing another fething con vs libs argument clusterfeth.

generalgrog wrote:For example she makes this statement "And yet, it also doesn't indicate that the marriage should be between a man and a woman" The fact is that the first two people that the Bible says were created were Adam and Eve...not Adam and Steve. God said be fruitful and multiply to Adam and Eve.

What? So we've got the story of Adam and Even, in which God creates Adam, a word meaning man or mankind, places him into a Garden containing the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge, and then creates from Man the woman Eve, a word meaning living.

You read that story and it didn't occur to you at all that we were looking at an origin story steeped heavily in metaphor and symbolism, but an actual retelling of what really happened? That's ridiculous.

Adam and Steve would not be able to be fruitful(reproductively speaking) and would not be able to multiply(reproductively speaking).

So we better stop allowing infertile people to marry, then?

It would have been more accurate of her to state that the Bible shows people being real, people behaving badly doesn't mean that the Bible condones the behavior. In fact there are consequences for Cain and Able, Abraham-Sarah-Hagar, Jacob-Esau,Jepthah and his daughter, David-Batsheebah-Uriah. All of these stories illustrate what happens when you behave badly.

That only works if every person that behaves badly gets their penalty, but that isn't even slightly close to what happens.

generalgrog wrote:
Adam and Steve would not be able to be fruitful(reproductively speaking) and would not be able to multiply(reproductively speaking).

Neither would Adam and Eve. That much incestuous relations would have meant the human race would have gone slow inside 4-5 generations. Given those premises, it's about as miraculous a story as would Adam and Steve birthing humanity.

mattyrm wrote:
Coming from Dakkas resident Creationist fundamentalist, this is every single pot in the cosmos calling every Kettle ever created black.

Staggering hypocrisy from Religious people?!

Will it comfort you to say that I admit my first argument concerning the importance of Leviticus is total bs, and I completely disagree with it now?

Here is why Leviticus, and the Old Covenant in general, is important:

“You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ But I say, if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the high council. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.” Matthew 5:21-22

Why would Jesus restate the old covenant law this way? Was Jesus changing the law? No. Jesus was explaining what the law in the new covenant would look like. The law went from being external to internal:

“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord. “I will put my laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their family, saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will already know me,” says the Lord. “And I will forgive their wickedness and will never again remember their sins.” Hebrews 8:8-13

In other words, the law of Moses forbade you from murdering someone. This same law internalized not only forbids the physical act of murder, but also forbids you from hating someone. According to the old covenant, you were not guilty if you hated someone, but if you murdered them, the law declared you guilty. In the new covenant of Jesus Christ this law declares a person guilty who hates someone in their heart.

Melissia wrote:The bible doesn't really contain family values. I mean, Adam's sons killed eachother. then Abraham's wife makes him get a servant pregnant, then mistreats the servant afterwards. Then there's Jacob, who stole his brother's birthright, and Jephthah, who had to sacrifice his only child to god for victory in war. David's... hell, he kills his general, takes the generla's wife, then his son rapes his daughter.

So? What does that have to do with anything. I don't know how you define "family values" - but in the Bible, God commands us to honor our father and mother, and to love our neighbor as ourself (ie, siblings). Just because the Bible uses those people as examples doesn't mean it condones their actions.

Melissia wrote:Jesus himself said he has come to set father against son and mother against daughter-- to create family discord.

You like understanding things the wrong way. He both did and did not come "to create family discord." He knew it would be a direct result of what he did, but obviously it was not his primary goal. If he had not created this "family discord", we would still be under the imperfect old covenant.

Melissia wrote:It's not about the family, but about love. Love between god, between people, and between lovers, but in the end, love.

The Bible isn't just about love, it is about our relationship with God. Love is the greatest of the commandments, but it is not the central idea of the Gospel. We are to love God, but we are also to fear him.

Lol. Fear God. Why, is he going to make a move on my girlfriend?

And love is the central idea of 'the Gospel'. The hermeneutical point of view of the scripture is that of God's love for his creatures. Even the Catholic Church agrees (and has agreed for a long time) that it's the only way to interpret the works of the Bible. An historical interpretation of christian history as the revelation of the love of God for his children.

Now why would he not simply appear as a flaming bush (lol) and say 'I so fething love you, guys' like any drunken best bro would, I don't know.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Lol. Fear God. Why, is he going to make a move on my girlfriend?

Why fear the one who created the world from dust and could tear it down instantly? Why fear the one we have rebelled against?

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

The Bringer wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Coming from Dakkas resident Creationist fundamentalist, this is every single pot in the cosmos calling every Kettle ever created black.

Staggering hypocrisy from Religious people?!

Will it comfort you to say that I admit my first argument concerning the importance of Leviticus is total bs, and I completely disagree with it now?

Here is why Leviticus, and the Old Covenant in general, is important:

“You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ But I say, if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the high council. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.” Matthew 5:21-22

Why would Jesus restate the old covenant law this way? Was Jesus changing the law? No. Jesus was explaining what the law in the new covenant would look like. The law went from being external to internal:

“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord. “I will put my laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their family, saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will already know me,” says the Lord. “And I will forgive their wickedness and will never again remember their sins.” Hebrews 8:8-13

In other words, the law of Moses forbade you from murdering someone. This same law internalized not only forbids the physical act of murder, but also forbids you from hating someone. According to the old covenant, you were not guilty if you hated someone, but if you murdered them, the law declared you guilty. In the new covenant of Jesus Christ this law declares a person guilty who hates someone in their heart.

You'll forgive me if I'm not terribly familiar with modern theological teachings on the christian thought of free will, but in Judaism your actions are the single most important thing for determining how 'good' you are. There is obviously feeling involved for things like repentance on yom kippur or when reciting prayer but ultimately it is your actions that are most important. Because of this free will is a quintessential part of Judaic spirituality, anything you are forced to do absent of your own free will cannot be good nor bad, perhaps that is why in the old covenant it is the action of murder that is a crime. While the idea the that thought itself is a sin does certainly fit into the determinism philosophies of some christian sects, I don't see how that could mesh with the idea of free will. So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.

youbedead wrote:So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.

I believe that all men are inherently sinful, and that is what separates us from God. We deserve eternal condemnation to hell because of our sinful nature.

We can choose to act on our sinful tendencies or to not to, but resisting temptation cannot save man, only by faith in Jesus Christ can we be saved.

There are many "Christians" that preach that one can be "a basically good person" by doing "good deeds", but it is quite clear in the New Testament that we are saved through faith alone, not by works... and that we will always fall short of the glory of God.

Humans are the only creatures capable of defining good and evil. Why should we chastise ourselves because one part of that duality is to be avoided?

We are much more saints then sinners.

Edit ; also, if I wanted to adopt such a mysoginist, homophobic, depressing outlook on life, I'd ''beleive" in Schopenhauer. He did write the first manual on how to troll (The Art of Being Right)

The Bringer wrote:

youbedead wrote:So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.

I believe that all men are inherently sinful, and that is what separates us from God. We deserve eternal condemnation to hell because of our sinful nature.

We can choose to act on our sinful tendencies or to not to, but resisting temptation cannot save man, only by faith in Jesus Christ can we be saved.

There are many "Christians" that preach that one can be "a basically good person" by doing "good deeds", but it is quite clear in the New Testament that we are saved through faith alone, not by works... and that we will always fall short of the glory of God.

Ah, see that kind of thought is just entirely foreign to me. That does kind of explain the major differences between the instructions in the old vs new testament. So according to your beliefs, a man is sinful and it expected that he have sinful thoughts, but he is able to redeem himself through faith in christ/god rather then through actions. If so are sinful thoughts seen as equally bad as sinful actions.

youbedead wrote:

The Bringer wrote:

youbedead wrote:So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.

I believe that all men are inherently sinful, and that is what separates us from God. We deserve eternal condemnation to hell because of our sinful nature.

We can choose to act on our sinful tendencies or to not to, but resisting temptation cannot save man, only by faith in Jesus Christ can we be saved.

There are many "Christians" that preach that one can be "a basically good person" by doing "good deeds", but it is quite clear in the New Testament that we are saved through faith alone, not by works... and that we will always fall short of the glory of God.

Ah, see that kind of thought is just entirely foreign to me. That does kind of explain the major differences between the instructions in the old vs new testament. So according to your beliefs, a man is sinful and it expected that he have sinful thoughts, but he is able to redeem himself through faith in christ/god rather then through actions. If so are sinful thoughts seen as equally bad as sinful actions.

Faith is important, but James 2:19-26 also talks of works being needed. Various people acting on their faith are outlined and the faith is described as being made perfect by work.

Verse 26 states:

As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

You need to have faith, but you need to act on that faith. People in dire circumstance don't get fed and clothed by those who can help them sitting around thinking good thoughts. Those thoughts of what is right need to be acted on.

Yeah, but the thought that 'it's bad to freeze in winter, so I should give clothes to the poor' isn't enough, while the thought 'it's bad to freeze in winter, so God wants me to give clothes to the poor' will gives you eternal salvation.

...

Kovnik Obama wrote:Yeah, but the thought that 'it's bad to freeze in winter, so I should give clothes to the poor' isn't enough, while the thought 'it's bad to freeze in winter, so God wants me to give clothes to the poor' will gives you eternal salvation.

...

You would be giving clothes out of concern for someone and not your personal glorification, correct? I'd say you had a good start on salvation if you did that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matthew 25: 34-46 gives a good example of the rewards of faith with works and faith without works.

But I do not need salvation. My nature isn't 'sinful', and any redemption I need I'll get through the forgiveness of those I have hurt.

Kovnik Obama wrote:But I do not need salvation. My nature isn't 'sinful', and any redemption I need I'll get through the forgiveness of those I have hurt.

Not much more I can say to you on that one because I believe differently. I don't believe we are condemned because of Adam's transgression, because a just God does not condemn one man for the actions of another. I have done enough in my own life to be condemned for. If someone forgives me, that elevates them, but they themselves, as a fellow sinner do not have the purity needed to pay my debt before God if I repent. Only Jesus has that ability.