Christian Couple Vows To Get Divorced If Gay Marriage Is Legalized

[treee]

(06-11-2015, 10:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I'm serious. If a same-sex rule is passed at any level; all it would be to those that believe in holy matrimony (as those referenced in the OP supposedly believe) is a "right".

Not sure how you found offense to this, unless you don't think folks should just let them have this right if passed by law.

Oh so basically you're downplaying the significance of "rights" because they church wouldn't condone it anyway. Now that I understand the priority of hierarchical power structures in your life, your response makes more sense. I believe in democratically elected bodies of government establishing rights more than what "the church" deems to be acceptable.

[*bfine32*]

(06-11-2015, 11:32 PM)treee Wrote: Oh so basically you're downplaying the significance of "rights" because they church wouldn't condone it anyway. Now that I understand the priority of hierarchical power structures in your life, your response makes more sense. I believe in democratically elected bodies of government establishing rights more than what "the church" deems to be acceptable.

Yeah, I thought I made that clear in my original post when I suggested that if the couple followed through with their plan then they would be admitting that they believe that the rule of man trumps the rule of God. Sorry it took a second post for you to fully understand the position.  But at least now we know what each other puts foremost in their lives. 

[treee]

(06-11-2015, 11:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, I thought I made that clear in my original post when I suggested that if the couple followed through with their plan then they would be admitting that they believe that the rule of man trumps the rule of God. Sorry it took a second post for you to fully understand the position.  But at least now we know what each other puts foremost in their lives. 

Admittedly I was just briefly scrolling through the thread without reading it in depth. Also, I don't like people who use the word sorry insincerely. 

[fredtoast]

(06-11-2015, 11:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, I thought I made that clear in my original post when I suggested that if the couple followed through with their plan then they would be admitting that they believe that the rule of man trumps the rule of God. Sorry it took a second post for you to fully understand the position.  But at least now we know what each other puts foremost in their lives. 

I am still confused.  I guess it is because I have never seen the term "rights" in the Bible or ever heard it used in regards to religious doctrine.  So help me out here.

Does the Bible give you the "right" to own slaves or the right to own slaves?

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2015, 03:38 AM)treee Wrote:  Also, I don't like people who use the word sorry insincerely. 

Just the way Jesus would do it, I guess.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-10-2015, 11:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This would actually go against the cause they look to defend. They are basically saying the rule of man trumps the rule of God. They could best support their cause by staying united, staying faithful, and letting the same-sex folks have their “rights”.

Is that why some Christians want a Constitutional Amendment legalizing their discrimination against others based upon their religious beliefs?  In other words, to secure your "right" to treat others unjustly?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-11-2015, 08:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Why do you assume he's gay?
He's religious yes, but he also has a point, that point being that marriage looses it's meaning if the Australian government allows same-sex marriage to be legal. To him marriage is about finding a mate and having children with them, same sex couples can not naturally have children together. I don't understand why so many of you can't seem to understand that there is a very big group of people out there that feel this way. You aren't going to change their feelings by getting the laws changed. And this does not mean that they are "gay", "bigots", or "insecure" in their sexuality. In fact they are doing the exact same thing that you are doing, and that is "standing up for what they believe in."

His vow is a response to people like Jolie-Pitt who said they won't get married until same-sex marriage is legal. (I think he's stupid for doing that, but whatever floats his boat).

In another thread you stated you weren't religious, therefore your marriage is as meaningless as a same sex marriage based upon religious beliefs.

[WhoDeyWho]

What sound logic and reasoning.

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2015, 05:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is that why some Christians want a Constitutional Amendment legalizing their discrimination against others based upon their religious beliefs?  In other words, to secure your "right" to treat others unjustly?

I am unaware of any legislation being pushed by religious factions looking to discriminate against anyone.

I have heard talk of asking for a clear definition of the term marriage.

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2015, 03:38 AM)treee Wrote: Admittedly I was just briefly scrolling through the thread without reading it in depth. Also, I don't like people who use the word sorry insincerely. 

..and I don't like when folks run their mouths without fully reading and understanding what they are replying to. But that doesn't mean I dislike the person; sorry you feel differently.

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2015, 03:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am still confused.  I guess it is because I have never seen the term "rights" in the Bible or ever heard it used in regards to religious doctrine.  So help me out here.

Does the Bible give you the "right" to own slaves or the right to own slaves?

This could have been exactly why I separated the "right" from the biblical context of the OP's supposed feeling about Holy Matrimony. I am not sure how much clearer I could have been. Perhaps your confusion is a byproduct of you trying to equate the situation to slavery.
 
 
But to answer your question: I am unsure of any passage that gives anyone the right to own slaves; however, it was a common practice and differed greatly from what many of us might consider slavery. It was mostly based on economic conditions, people often sold themselves into slavery because they could not pay their debts or they just needed someone else to provide for them and their family. There are also instructions provided that suggest the slave should be freed of this debt after 7 years.
 
 
The bible does condemn the type of slavery practiced early in the US and many types still in practice today.  Exodus 21:16 tells us: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death”

I hope this cleared up some of your confusion.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-12-2015, 12:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am unaware of any legislation being pushed by religious factions looking to discriminate against anyone.

I have heard talk of asking for a clear definition of the term marriage.

Your "perfect candidate," Rick Perry, would like to amend the U.S. Constitution banning same sex marriage based upon his Christian beliefs. In other words, he wants to legalize his discrimination against a specific group based upon the Bible.

What are your feelings towards amending the U.S. Constitution based upon the Quran or Scientology?

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2015, 02:05 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Your "perfect candidate," Rick Perry, would like to amend the U.S. Constitution banning same sex marriage based upon his Christian beliefs. In other words, he wants to legalize his discrimination against a specific group based upon the Bible.

What are your feelings towards amending the U.S. Constitution based upon the Quran or Scientology?

My understanding of Perry's position on legality of SSM is that he supports the 10th Amendment making it a state right. I've seen nowhere that he wants to change to US Constitution to dicriminate based on religious beliefs.

Why can't anybody ever stick to the topic at hand? Fred has introduced slavery and now you have introduced amending the U.S. Constitution based on the Quran or Scientlogy.

To answer your question I would need to know the nature of the proposed amendment.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-12-2015, 02:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My understanding of Perry's position on legality of SSM is that he supports the 10th Amendment making it a state right. I've seen nowhere that he wants to change to US Constitution to dicriminate based on religious beliefs.

Why can't anybody ever stick to the topic at hand? Fred has introduced slavery and now you have introduced amending the U.S. Constitution based on the Quran or Scientlogy.

To answer your question I would need to know the nature of the proposed amendment.

He believes in the 10th Amendment except when states legalize same sex marriage and abortion. Then he doesn't believe states can decide for themselves if he were President.

I introduced the Quran and Scientology as analogies to Christianity to help illustrate my point. If you are opposed to Constitutional amendments based upon the teachings of Islam or Scientology then you must also be opposed to amendments based upon all religions including your own.

I don't believe in any amendments which places one religious  belief above another.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 01:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This could have been exactly why I separated the "right" from the biblical context of the OP's supposed feeling about Holy Matrimony. I am not sure how much clearer I could have been. Perhaps your confusion is a byproduct of you trying to equate the situation to slavery.
 
 
But to answer your question: I am unsure of any passage that gives anyone the right to own slaves; however, it was a common practice and differed greatly from what many of us might consider slavery. It was mostly based on economic conditions, people often sold themselves into slavery because they could not pay their debts or they just needed someone else to provide for them and their family. There are also instructions provided that suggest the slave should be freed of this debt after 7 years.
 
 
The bible does condemn the type of slavery practiced early in the US and many types still in practice today.  Exodus 21:16 tells us: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death”

I hope this cleared up some of your confusion.

  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 God, 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.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 01:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This could have been exactly why I separated the "right" from the biblical context of the OP's supposed feeling about Holy Matrimony. I am not sure how much clearer I could have been. Perhaps your confusion is a byproduct of you trying to equate the situation to slavery.
 

But to answer your question: I am unsure of any passage that gives anyone the right to own slaves; however, it was a common practice and differed greatly from what many of us might consider slavery. It was mostly based on economic conditions, people often sold themselves into slavery because they could not pay their debts or they just needed someone else to provide for them and their family. There are also instructions provided that suggest the slave should be freed of this debt after 7 years.
 
 
The bible does condemn the type of slavery practiced early in the US and many types still in practice today.  Exodus 21:16 tells us: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death”

I hope this cleared up some of your confusion.

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.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-12-2015, 02:44 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 God, 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.

Well, hell, I'd just lay there bleeding until the third day because I'm vindictive like that.

[Bengalholic]

(06-12-2015, 02:44 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Man, that line has always been so damn disturbing to me. 

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-12-2015, 02:53 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Man, that line has always been so damn disturbing to me. 

It's the very reason I don't feel so bad when I let my Pimp Hand go in smack.  

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 02:53 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Man, that line has always been so damn disturbing to me. 

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.