11 things the Bible bans, but you do anyway

[logical4u]

Not sure how Christians can spin away a divorce. It is pretty obvious what God's opinion is.

FTA:

Divorce. The Bible is very clear on this one: No divorcing. You can't do it. Because when you marry someone, according to Mark 10:8, you "are no longer two, but one flesh." And, Mark 10:9 reads, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

I'm still waiting to see an answer to this, rather than deflection.

But it's Monday, and I'll be here all week. Surely someone will say "Well, I've been married to the same person all along, and I should only be addressing my own issues."

Then I can point out that if nothing else, go with that. If you honestly believe you shouldn't be eating shellfish or a human of the same gender, AND you honor all the rest of it, that's a different discussion. But if you're cherry-picking Bible verses to foment bigotry, then you don't have a Biblical leg to stand on.

Biblical comprehension seems to be a problem here. Divorce is not trivial. Only infidelity, is given by Yeshua as a legitimate reason to divorce. Once you divorce, as a Christian, you are supposed to examine your soul, and repent of your mistakes. If the grace of the Lord is with you, and as a person, you are cleansed from your "sin(s)", you become a "new" person, eligible to marry again.

Many do not do this, and are examples of people repeating sinful behavior without repenting and without receiving (not saying it was not offered) the grace of the Lord. They are destined to repeat their mistakes again, without the help of the Lord.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The Bible bans eleven silly things listed in the OP. And people do them anyway.

 

[logical4u]

Who says there is no sense of humor in the Bible?

Proverbs 21:19 (New Living Translation)
It is better to live alone in the desert than with a crabby, complaining wife.
Funny and Unusual Bible Verses

Read Jonah, he reminds me a lot of liberals!

 

[logical4u]

Both of which does no harm.

Unless you count paper cuts.

Neither does owning a bible and a gun, two rights which are protected by the US Constitution and two rights this President finds objectionable. How about you?

Well I beg to differ..

There are some good Christians mowing down unarmed protestors in the 70s..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhUwizH-so4]Greensboro Massacre Video (French News Report) - YouTube[/ame]


The President hasn't done a thing against gun ownership or bibles.

However..you guys hold that people of other religions do not have the right to worship.

And I completely disagree with the President..and Conservatives..about gun rights.

"Fast and Furious" scandal that was reportedly started to manipulate stricter gun laws.
"Obamacare" goes directly against religious faiths that have been in place for hundreds of years.

 

[logical4u]

I'm still waiting to see an answer to this, rather than deflection.

But it's Monday, and I'll be here all week. Surely someone will say "Well, I've been married to the same person all along, and I should only be addressing my own issues."

Then I can point out that if nothing else, go with that. If you honestly believe you shouldn't be eating shellfish or a human of the same gender, AND you honor all the rest of it, that's a different discussion. But if you're cherry-picking Bible verses to foment bigotry, then you don't have a Biblical leg to stand on.

Been married for 32 years, have gone through thick and thin with my spouse, I believe that God is real and hates a divorcing, but I understand that some divorces are justified. I don't know if I am or am not a good Christian, I try but I, like everyone, have shortcomings. I think their are Bible principles that should never be broken and others that show the spirit of God's laws.
I don't believe God approves of homosexuality, yet, I leave it in God's hands in judging them. I have had very good friends that talked openly about my views and although I don't agree with their point of view, it is between them and their God, just as my actions are between myself and my God.

August 1st I will have been married 17 years.

He's been living with another woman for the last four of them. I didn't divorce because a) I didn't scramble these eggs, b) it costs money *see a* and c) it's against my religion.

Four years later, I'm hearing Pastor Dave in my head. "You think God doesn't know you're divorced? You think he needs to see that little piece of paper before he says 'Oh yeah; that is one dead marriage.'"

I am sorry that happened to you, I hope peace will come soon, with a resolution.

 

[logical4u]

The place I was born.

NYC.

You see..the Constitution of the United States protects citizens against theocracy.

That's the way I like it.

You might have a point if there was anyone on here who wanted a theocracy.. oh the drama...

He has a point to the extent that a significant number of Christians are indeed seeking to codify Christian dogma into secular law. That was the raison d'être of the Santorum candidacy, for example, a campaign that realized millions of votes in support of such goals as re-criminalizing homosexuality.

Consequently, Christian fundamentalism indeed poses a threat to our civil liberties, not in a desire to establish a ‘theocracy’, but in the desire of many Christians to further blend church and State – call it ‘creeping theism.’

evidence/link/proof

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I haven't fought anything.. ive stated that the church wont sanctify it because they see it as a sin. No more, no less. You can legalize anything you want, you can reconstruct society in any way you want, teach future generations that its all 'feel good', and go all out. None of that will change God's word.

And people like you will continue to bash Christians and churches and call them bigots regardless, its just who you are.

You'd rather die than check yourself? Understandable.

Have a good one.

Put your money where your mouth is and show a post where ive fought ssm.. you wont find one... I'm actually on record being for legalizing a gay civil union. Idiot...

‘Gay civil unions’ is not marriage, it’s insulting, demeaning segregation. Same-sex couples seek only what they have a right to, as with all citizens: marriage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You might have a point if there was anyone on here who wanted a theocracy.. oh the drama...

He has a point to the extent that a significant number of Christians are indeed seeking to codify Christian dogma into secular law. That was the raison d'être of the Santorum candidacy, for example, a campaign that realized millions of votes in support of such goals as re-criminalizing homosexuality.

Consequently, Christian fundamentalism indeed poses a threat to our civil liberties, not in a desire to establish a ‘theocracy’, but in the desire of many Christians to further blend church and State – call it ‘creeping theism.’

evidence/link/proof

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family…I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution…

USATODAY.com - Excerpt from Santorum interview

Or this gem of social engineering from the religious right:

Worley told his congregation the Bible and God opposed homosexuality and that gay and lesbian people should be fenced in.

"Build a great big large fence 50 or 100 miles long," Worley said in a video of the sermon posted on YouTube by the Catawba Valley Citizens Against Hate.

"Put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals. Have that fence electrified so they can't get out. You know what, in a few years, they'll die out. You know why? They can't reproduce."

Thousand Protest Pastor Charles Worley Who Preached Putting Gays And Lesbians In Electrified Pen (VIDEO)

The typical response from Christians, of course, is that the above is not ‘representative’ of Christians as a whole, and it’s ‘unfair’ to judge all Christians by the actions of a few.

But that’s not the point or the issue.

At issue is the many religious-inspired efforts to undermine our civil liberties, such as the ‘personhood’ legislation proposed in Oklahoma:

The personhood approach has the backing of such abortion opponents as Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, and it has been an issue in the Republican presidential primary to select a candidate to run against President Barack Obama in the November 6 election.

Oklahoma, weighing 'personhood' law, may be next US abortion flashpoint | Reuters

 

[koshergrl]

You'd rather die than check yourself? Understandable.

Have a good one.

Put your money where your mouth is and show a post where ive fought ssm.. you wont find one... I'm actually on record being for legalizing a gay civil union. Idiot...

‘Gay civil unions’ is not marriage, it’s insulting, demeaning segregation. Same-sex couples seek only what they have a right to, as with all citizens: marriage.

No, they have rejected marriage, which they do have a right to...and have chosen not to participate in.

They chose not to participate in it. Nobody told them they couldn't. They just don't want to. But they want to force everybody else to give them the same benefits as those who DO chose to participate in. So they are expecting *special* rights that are not afforded to single people or people who live with their close relatives, who have also chosen not to participate.

They want extra rights.

 

[logical4u]

You'd rather die than check yourself? Understandable.

Have a good one.

Put your money where your mouth is and show a post where ive fought ssm.. you wont find one... I'm actually on record being for legalizing a gay civil union. Idiot...

‘Gay civil unions’ is not marriage, it’s insulting, demeaning segregation. Same-sex couples seek only what they have a right to, as with all citizens: marriage.

What's next? Will men demand the right to be a "horse", so we re-define "horse" so that men can run around a track, neighing?

Please show where it says that "anyone" has a "right" to be married in the Constitution. It is not a right. It is an earned contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining it is insulting to those that are "married", traditionally.

 

[logical4u]

He has a point to the extent that a significant number of Christians are indeed seeking to codify Christian dogma into secular law. That was the raison d'être of the Santorum candidacy, for example, a campaign that realized millions of votes in support of such goals as re-criminalizing homosexuality.

Consequently, Christian fundamentalism indeed poses a threat to our civil liberties, not in a desire to establish a ‘theocracy’, but in the desire of many Christians to further blend church and State – call it ‘creeping theism.’

evidence/link/proof

Or this gem of social engineering from the religious right:

Worley told his congregation the Bible and God opposed homosexuality and that gay and lesbian people should be fenced in.

"Build a great big large fence 50 or 100 miles long," Worley said in a video of the sermon posted on YouTube by the Catawba Valley Citizens Against Hate.

"Put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals. Have that fence electrified so they can't get out. You know what, in a few years, they'll die out. You know why? They can't reproduce."

Thousand Protest Pastor Charles Worley Who Preached Putting Gays And Lesbians In Electrified Pen (VIDEO)

The typical response from Christians, of course, is that the above is not ‘representative’ of Christians as a whole, and it’s ‘unfair’ to judge all Christians by the actions of a few.

But that’s not the point or the issue.

At issue is the many religious-inspired efforts to undermine our civil liberties, such as the ‘personhood’ legislation proposed in Oklahoma:

The personhood approach has the backing of such abortion opponents as Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, and it has been an issue in the Republican presidential primary to select a candidate to run against President Barack Obama in the November 6 election.

Oklahoma, weighing 'personhood' law, may be next US abortion flashpoint | Reuters

Where does he say he wants to "re-criminalize" homosexuality (BTW, sodomy laws are used in rape cases)?

 

[Mr Natural]

More crazy shit from the Big Book of Myths and Fables.

 

[Toro]

If you read and understood the bible then you wouldn't need an answer, but I think someone has already addressed your question anyway.

Circular logic is not your friend. You can either defend your position or you can't. "If you read it, you'd understand," is not an argument. Marxists would say the same thing. "I don't need to explain it to you. If you just read it, you'd understand Marxism, and why we should junk capitalism and all religion. End of discussion."

Fail.

Not sure where you see circular logic? There is nothing to defend, Christ was pretty clear on the topic and if you read the Bible you would know this.

How Christ Fulfilled and Ended the Old Testament*Regime - Desiring God

So we can ignore the Ten Commandments then? Cool!

Why do you think religious politicians want to post them in public buildings then?

 

[Newby]

You'd rather die than check yourself? Understandable.

Have a good one.

Put your money where your mouth is and show a post where ive fought ssm.. you wont find one... I'm actually on record being for legalizing a gay civil union. Idiot...

‘Gay civil unions’ is not marriage, it’s insulting, demeaning segregation. Same-sex couples seek only what they have a right to, as with all citizens: marriage.

Marriage is a sacred act before God.. the day you start to force that on religious institutions against their will is the day you will see how far you can push people... what the government gives you is a legal license, I.e.civil.. whether you're a hetero or homo couple. You can call it what you want, it still wont force people who don't believe in it to accept it.

 

[Newby]

Circular logic is not your friend. You can either defend your position or you can't. "If you read it, you'd understand," is not an argument. Marxists would say the same thing. "I don't need to explain it to you. If you just read it, you'd understand Marxism, and why we should junk capitalism and all religion. End of discussion."

Fail.

Not sure where you see circular logic? There is nothing to defend, Christ was pretty clear on the topic and if you read the Bible you would know this.

How Christ Fulfilled and Ended the Old Testament*Regime - Desiring God

So we can ignore the Ten Commandments then? Cool!

Why do you think religious politicians want to post them in public buildings then?

Really dude, just read the. Bible you're embarrassing yourself..

 

[BDBoop]

Put your money where your mouth is and show a post where ive fought ssm.. you wont find one... I'm actually on record being for legalizing a gay civil union. Idiot...

‘Gay civil unions’ is not marriage, it’s insulting, demeaning segregation. Same-sex couples seek only what they have a right to, as with all citizens: marriage.

Marriage is a sacred act before God.. the day you start to force that on religious institutions against their will is the day you will see how far you can push people... what the government gives you is a legal license, I.e.civil.. whether you're a hetero or homo couple. You can call it what you want, it still wont force people who don't believe in it to accept it.

We don't care if people accept it. We care if it's legal.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Put your money where your mouth is and show a post where ive fought ssm.. you wont find one... I'm actually on record being for legalizing a gay civil union. Idiot...

‘Gay civil unions’ is not marriage, it’s insulting, demeaning segregation. Same-sex couples seek only what they have a right to, as with all citizens: marriage.

Marriage is a sacred act before God.. the day you start to force that on religious institutions against their will is the day you will see how far you can push people... what the government gives you is a legal license, I.e.civil.. whether you're a hetero or homo couple. You can call it what you want, it still wont force people who don't believe in it to accept it.

No one is interested in making Churches marry people they don't want to marry. Civil marriage equality means being able to apply for a civil marriage license and have the same benefits of marriage that heteros enjoy.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Even atheists have the right to marry, so that does not make marriage for them a "sacred act before God."

 

[Newby]

‘Gay civil unions’ is not marriage, it’s insulting, demeaning segregation. Same-sex couples seek only what they have a right to, as with all citizens: marriage.

Marriage is a sacred act before God.. the day you start to force that on religious institutions against their will is the day you will see how far you can push people... what the government gives you is a legal license, I.e.civil.. whether you're a hetero or homo couple. You can call it what you want, it still wont force people who don't believe in it to accept it.

We don't care if people accept it. We care if it's legal.

Good leave religion and
churches out of it. And if all you wanted was 'legal' thenyou wouldn't care if it was called marriage or. Civil union.

 

[BDBoop]

Marriage is a sacred act before God.. the day you start to force that on religious institutions against their will is the day you will see how far you can push people... what the government gives you is a legal license, I.e.civil.. whether you're a hetero or homo couple. You can call it what you want, it still wont force people who don't believe in it to accept it.

We don't care if people accept it. We care if it's legal.

Good leave religion and
churches out of it. And if all you wanted was 'legal' thenyou wouldn't care if it was called marriage or. Civil union.

It will be called a marriage.

 

[Sky Dancer]

We don't care if people accept it. We care if it's legal.

Good leave religion and
churches out of it. And if all you wanted was 'legal' thenyou wouldn't care if it was called marriage or. Civil union.

It will be called a marriage.

That's right because non-religious people are still free to marry. Marriage isn't all about Church.

It's about making a couple family.


"Marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children they may produce or adopt.

Marriage is an essentially private, intimate, emotional relationship created by two people for their own personal reasons to enhance their own personal well-being. Marriage is created by the couple,
for the couple. It is wrong, discriminatory, as well as counterproductive, therefore, for the state to favor certain kinds of intimate relations over others. Marriage has a legal form but no specific content."
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/What is Marriage For.pdf