Christian Couple Vows To Get Divorced If Gay Marriage Is Legalized

[BmorePat87]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/19/martin-frost/did-gov-rick-perry-change-position-same-sex-marria/

Rick Perry has been consistent in his support of a federal Constitutional amendment to restrict marriage, but he also has held that he believes it's up to the states currently as the 10th amendment gives them jurisdiction over marriage. He fears activist judges will force it on states due to them correctly interpreting the 14th amendment...

So, yes, Rick Perry supports using the government to enforce a definition of marriage consistent with his religious beliefs.

[Belsnickel]

(06-12-2015, 02:59 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Apparently they didn't mean "property" the way they mean it now or something.

Humans as "property" seems like it would always be immoral, but that's just me.  I mean I understand the need to work for a living, but that sort of arrangement seems a bit extreme.  

That line should be "disturbing" to all people, but it is amazing the things some people are able to rationalize in order to make sense of their beliefs.  

Didn't you know that with the coming of Jesus there was a new covenant crafted with the followers of Yahweh? And besides, those rules only applied to the people of Israel. That's why we see so much emphasis on the Ten Commandments and other parts of the Mitzvot by Christianity today. Oh, wait...

I say this as someone that believes in the teachings of Jesus. I just can't handle the molestation of those teachings by man within organized religion.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-12-2015, 02:59 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Apparently they didn't mean "property" the way they mean it now or something.

Humans as "property" seems like it would always be immoral, but that's just me.  I mean I understand the need to work for a living, but that sort of arrangement seems a bit extreme.  

That line should be "disturbing" to all people, but it is amazing the things some people are able to rationalize in order to make sense of their beliefs.  

Are you down with OPP?

[Bengalholic]

(06-12-2015, 02:59 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Apparently they didn't mean "property" the way they mean it now or something.

Humans as "property" seems like it would always be immoral, but that's just me.  I mean I understand the need to work for a living, but that sort of arrangement seems a bit extreme.  

That line should be "disturbing" to all people, but it is amazing the things some people are able to rationalize in order to make sense of their beliefs.  

Yeah, I've never understood when people try so hard to place caveats on "owning people". I mean WTF? In what situation is having ownership rights over another human being...a moral thing? 


I'm all for people believing in whatever they choose. But, those people, in the year 2015, who still think it was OK to ever own other human beings, in any context...creep me the f--k out! 

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-12-2015, 03:51 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Yeah, I've never understood when people try so hard to place caveats on "owning people". I mean WTF? In what situation is having ownership rights over another human being...a moral thing? 

I'm all for people believing in whatever they choose. But, those people, in the year 2014, who still think it was OK to ever own other human beings, in any context...creep me the f--k out! 

(06-12-2015, 03:53 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Yeah, I've never understood when people try so hard to place caveats on "owning people". I mean WTF? In what situation is having ownership rights over another human being...a moral thing? 


I'm all for people believing in whatever they choose. But, those people, in the year 2014, who still think it was OK to ever own other human beings, in any context...creep me the f--k out! 

It was a good post.  But I don't think it was so good that it needed to be posted twice.

You must be a noob.

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2015, 02:47 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:

Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.


Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.



Yeah.  This sounds nothing like the slavery that was practiced in the states.  They weren't the "property" of their masters.  

(06-12-2015, 02:59 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Apparently they didn't mean "property" the way they mean it now or something.

Humans as "property" seems like it would always be immoral, but that's just me.  I mean I understand the need to work for a living, but that sort of arrangement seems a bit extreme.  

That line should be "disturbing" to all people, but it is amazing the things some people are able to rationalize in order to make sense of their beliefs.  

Not sure you are adding anything new to what I stated; many sold themselves into slavery in historical times (This is a historical fact, not a biblical one, and certainly not a Christian one). Do you think it was wrong to establish rules for such actions?

It amazes me the things people try to suggest in order to comdemn someone else's religion.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 04:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure you are adding anything new to what I stated; many sold themselves into slavery in historical times (This is a historical fact, not a biblical one, and certainly not a Christian one). Do you think it was wrong to establish rules for such actions?

It amazes me the things people try to suggest in order to comdemn someone else's religion.

Yeah.  I like the rule that outlawed the practice.  

[Bengalholic]

(06-12-2015, 03:57 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: It was a good post.  But I don't think it was so good that it needed to be posted twice.

You must be a noob.

Yeah, it's a wonder it didn't post 5 or 6 times.  My wifi is being a pain in the ass and I have to keep reloading pages. To make matters worse, I even got the year wrong!  

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2015, 04:09 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Yeah.  I like the rule that outlawed the practice.  

So you like a rule that outlaws folks doing what they want?

I like the rule that abolished making slaves of men and women that did not want to do so freely.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 04:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you like a rule that outlaws folks doing what they want?

I like the rule that abolished making slaves of men and women that did not want to do so freely.

Yeah.  I'm sure people "freely" decided to put themselves in situations to be beaten (as long as they got up after a couple days).

Makes perfect sense.  

[Bengalholic]

(06-12-2015, 04:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure you are adding anything new to what I stated; many sold themselves into slavery in historical times (This is a historical fact, not a biblical one, and certainly not a Christian one). Do you think it was wrong to establish rules for such actions?

It amazes me the things people try to suggest in order to comdemn someone else's religion.

It's been awhile since my Sunday school days, but didn't God give specific permission/instruction on owning foreign slaves? You know, like how and where to buy them from, that you can pass them down to your kids, and that they can be your property for life. I can't remember the specific passage, but someone else probably knows.


That seems pretty "biblical"...with the whole God telling people how to own other people and all. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2015, 04:38 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Yeah.  I'm sure people "freely" decided to put themselves in situations to be beaten (as long as they got up after a couple days).

Makes perfect sense.  

(06-12-2015, 04:45 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: It's been awhile since my Sunday school days, but didn't God give specific permission/instruction on owning foreign slaves? You know, like how and where to buy them from, that you can pass them down to your kids, and that they can be your property for life. I can't remember the specific passage, but someone else probably knows.


That seems pretty "biblical"...with the whole God telling people how to own other people and all. 

I think the issue is taking thing that happened 4,000-6,000 years ago and applying them to today's society. There are a number of practices that can be found throughout history that are today considered barbaric or worse.

Who knows 6,000 years from now there will be a couple folks pointing finger at a Christian and stating "see what your god allowed back then, folks actually had to perform manual labor while their owner determined how much their service was worth."

Not sure how practices that happened in historic times can be used as ammunition to slight modern day Christianity; but it never stops folks from trying.
 

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 04:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the issue is taking thing that happened 4,000-6,000 years ago and applying them to today's society. There are a number of practices that can be found throughout history that are today considered barbaric or worse.

Who knows 6,000 years from now there will be a couple folks pointing finger at a Christian and stating "see what your god allowed back then, folks actually had to perform manual labor while their owner determined how much their service was worth."

Not sure how practices that happened in historic times can be used as ammunition to slight modern day Christianity; but it never stops folks from trying.
 

Ironically, you seem to be arguing for subjective morality.  

Christians tend to believe in an "objective morality" handed down to them by God himself.  Consequently, unless God changed his minds regarding the issue of slavery, it is irrelevant the time period.  He is supposedly timeless.  

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 04:45 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: It's been awhile since my Sunday school days, but didn't God give specific permission/instruction on owning foreign slaves? You know, like how and where to buy them from, that you can pass them down to your kids, and that they can be your property for life. I can't remember the specific passage, but someone else probably knows.


That seems pretty "biblical"...with the whole God telling people how to own other people and all. 

Quote:Leviticus 25:44-46King James Version (KJV)

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

So in those days, children were able to enter into lifetime servitude contracts "freely".  And even the families they "begat" that weren't born yet?

Interesting.  

[WhoDeyWho]

Quote:but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

It appears God himself put restrictions on who could "freely" sale themselves into slavery and who couldn't.

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2015, 05:06 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Ironically, you seem to be arguing for subjective morality.  

Christians tend to believe in an "objective morality" handed down to them by God himself.  Consequently, unless God changed his minds regarding the issue of slavery, it is irrelevant the time period.  He is supposedly timeless.  

Perhaps you are confusing Jews with Christians. As a Baptist I believe in the resurrection and we are not bound by the law of Moses. But please feel free to continue to tell what I believe. 

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 05:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps you are confusing Jews with Christians. As a Baptist I believe in the resurrection and we are not bound by the law of Moses. But please feel free to continue to tell what I believe. 

Jesus himself was a Jew.  Besides, he is supposedly quoted as saying the following:

Quote:Matthew 5:17-18King James Version (KJV)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2015, 06:10 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Jesus himself was a Jew.  Besides, he is supposedly quoted as saying the following:

Exactly. Now read your quote again and focus on the fulfillment parts.

Jesus fulfilled the prophecy. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-12-2015, 04:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the issue is taking thing that happened 4,000-6,000 years ago and applying them to today's society. There are a number of practices that can be found throughout history that are today considered barbaric or worse.

Who knows 6,000 years from now there will be a couple folks pointing finger at a Christian and stating "see what your god allowed back then, folks actually had to perform manual labor while their owner determined how much their service was worth."

Not sure how practices that happened in historic times can be used as ammunition to slight modern day Christianity; but it never stops folks from trying.
 

If you throw a sack full of kittens into the ocean you can go to jail. God threw the whole planet into the ocean except for one arc. Could have just snapped His fingers and poof...everyone would cease to exist, but He thought drowning everyone and everything was the better option. He let Satan murder Job's children among other things over a wager. He commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac to prove his obedience.  Even though as an omniscient God he knew Abrahamwould obey thus obviating any need to test Abraham and said, "Do not do anything to him. Now I know. . ."

"Now"?

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 06:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Exactly. Now read your quote again and focus on the fulfillment parts.

Jesus fulfilled the prophecy. 

Heaven and earth haven't passed and he hasn't come back yet so all doesn't seem to have been fulfilled.  Why be that dramatic if he only meant literally less than a year?