So ? Marriage is Now Legal In NYC!!!
Options
Comments
-
only if what i said is misinterpreted
Since the Bible itself can't endorse anything....let me give you this list of questions that first popped in my head after I read your post...
Who makes the decisions on what is endorsed or not endorsed?
If ? endorses a person (Solomon, the wisest of all Kings), why would his actions not be endorsed?
And if Solomon's actions are not endorsed, why put him in a position of power and influence and have his story shared with billions of people who read the Bible
And wouldn't that message say that whether your actions are correct or not, ? will still bless you?
And again, how's one supposed to know what actions are right or wrong and whether they will be blessed or not because of them?
And shouldn't we dead that talking point of one man and one woman when the Bible tells of story of one man and multiple wives/concubines. And not just any old people, but GREAT leaders you can hear a message on at any church on any given Sunday. (i.e. Abraham, Solomon, David, Jacob, etc.)
In In 2 Samuel 12:8, ? , speaking through the prophet Nathan, speaks directly of the many wives of David, and if he didn't have enough he would have given him more wives and more riches. Isn't that an endorsement - from ? himself no less?
If ? endorses those who do things that are "incorrect" or "Sins" than what makes any one person less because of their "sins"?
.....
We can go on if need be...
-
Since the Bible itself can't endorse anything....l
let's start there. why can't things be endorsed in the Bible? I certainly didn't say that. Rules for divorce, how to treat the poor, church structure, acting as missionairies are all endorsed in the Bible. -
.....
We can go on if need be...
please do because I'm waiting for an avowed christians answers
2 differents answer to one question....religion strikes againlordhonka2 wrote: »nope jesus said that it is not what a man takes in that make him ? or bad it is what he puts out ( his wrong actions) also most of the stuff your talking about is in the torah whic is the the old testament and the old covenant with ? . there are some thing mentioned by paul in his letter to the galations and corinthians but he plainly state that sin is sin and no one sin is greater than the other.
in fact the 7 deadly sins are never mentioned as a list in the bible. they come from interpertationit condemns them all -
lordhonka2 wrote: »your refering to the curse of ham and that has been one of the more libeal translations it only says that he saw his fathers nakedness. what the does that mean who knows.
in the end it was a justification for a bunch of racist ? by racist jew and christians.
A liberal translation to fit a group of people's mission
lol No fuckn way. Where have I seen that one before...... -
please do because I'm waiting for an avowed christians answers
2 differents answer to one question....religion strikes again
my point was that all sin is condemned in the bible. some are considered 'abominations' but all sin is listed as evil. i wasn't putting emphasis on the particular sins that person listed. -
let's start there. why can't things be endorsed in the Bible? I certainly didn't say that. Rules for divorce, how to treat the poor, church structure, acting as missionairies are all endorsed in the Bible.
Because the Bible is not a living breathing thing with the cognitive ability to make decisions about right or wrong...it's a book....a FINISHED book, written thousands of years ago.
I'm sorry I had to explain that to you -
Because the Bible is not a living breathing thing with the cognitive ability to make decisions about right or wrong...it's a book....a FINISHED book, written thousands of years ago.
I'm sorry I had to explain that to you
if this is where you have to take it then you've got nothing -
That's not quite defining marriage as a "heterosexual union", is it? Seeing as heterosexuality was much more common than homosexuality back then, one could expect that references to relationships would focus on heterosexual relationships.true, nowhere does it specify what marriage HAS to be. but there are instructions on how to carry out a Biblical marriage and the roles of both the male and the female. from that, i think its same to believe that a biblical marriage must involve a member of each sex
A definition would be something to the effect of "'? ' said, marriage is a heterosexual union." or "Marriage must only be between a man and a woman."; not "When a man marries a woman, they should...". -
my point was that all sin is condemned in the bible. some are considered 'abominations' but all sin is listed as evil. i wasn't putting emphasis on the particular sins that person listed.
I lol'd when you said abominations...just cause I don't know the difference between an abominable sin and a sin
Doesn't the word sin in itself excuse the use of abominable...but i get your point -
Is the bible against homosexual relationships, yes or no?
*is ? , I should say.. -
if this is where you have to take it then you've got nothing
Am I stuck in the twilight zone or something? Why do you ask a question, get a direct answer, then tell me I'VE got nothing....
Your logic is the Bible validates itself except for the things it doesn't validate....
-
I knew edeee would be up to her usual antics. Of course it must be the time for your yearly crusade for sodomite equality that goes against the laws of the Al-Mighty.
Marriage is between 1 man and 1 women. Point blank end of story. The first chapter of Genesis establishes this fact.
When you go against the laws of ? , such as practicing things which are against nature, of which sodomites do with pride and joy, you open yourself up for judgment. The ultimate example being the destruction of ? and Gomorrah.
The same destruction will happen again to all who go against the laws of ? because the thing which hath been shall be again because there is nothing new done under the sun.
So in the mean time in between time ? has sent the pestilence to wreck havoc on a world that has gone in the same way that ? and Gomorrah has. Of which, people who go both ways have subjected those who fornicate to the awful pestilence of AIDS.
Sodomities have no shame and they have and will continue to receive the just recompense for their deeds. ? will not be mocked for whatever a man sows that shall he also reap.
And yes edee, Solomon had multiple wives and they were the root cause for the kingdom of Israel to be divided into 2. ? tells the bitter with the sweet. He doesn't hide anything. The word of ? tells us about the exceedingly sinfulness of sin and the devastating effects that it causes. Hence why ? tells the truth about everybody in the Bible. In order to inform us that we are sinners and we are in desperate need of a Savior.
Do you ever read the whole counsel of ? or do you just pick and chose what you want to digest and than filter it down into what you want to project onto others in order to try to put the word of ? into disrepute?
Your antics are juvenile and I see right through them. You can fool those who are not born again but you can't fool those who know the Lord. But again, I guess you are fulfilling the will of the enemy by beguiling unstable and lost souls with foolish words and doctrines of demons. Tragic.
But we all have a day that has been appointed by ? where we will all stand before Him and give an account. And there will be no sugar coating from the Al-Mighty for anybody that has refused to accept His free gift of salvation.
So my prayer for you is that when this day comes you will not be found naked, but rather clothed with the righteousness of Christ. May ? bring light to your eyes in order to diffuse the darkness that has blinded you. In Jesus name I pray. Amen. -
So ? is against homosexuals but dude is good in picking Noah to start the "population over" knowing his daughters were gonna ? him. He's also good in telling people to do his ? work by murdering un-pure women, unbelievers, sinners etc but it's cool to keep the ? women? LOL Sounds like to me it's nothing but a MAN'S book. Sounds a lot like things that happen today. Men with men, bad. Multiple women with one man, cool. ? women with men, *daps*. Lesbians, we can let slide a bit.
LMAO. Come on now, REALLY? REALLY? REALLY? -
So ? is against homosexuals but dude is good in picking Noah to start the "population over" knowing his daughters were gonna ? him. He's also good in telling people to do his ? work by murdering un-pure women, unbelievers, sinners etc but it's cool to keep the ? women? LOL Sounds like to me it's nothing but a MAN'S book. Sounds a lot like things that happen today. Men with men, bad. Multiple women with one man, cool. ? women with men, *daps*. Lesbians, we can let slide a bit.
LMAO. Come on now, REALLY? REALLY? REALLY?
Websters Dictionary
Ignorance- Vibe86
-
Really? I made it to Websters, finally! I'm telling mom she can be proud....
Really though DoU, it says that in your bible. Do you realize it talks about lesbians ONCE in the bible? In Romans I think, where it states women became unnatural in their ways (being with other women). Now regardless of it being, "unnatural" (which it isn't) it only brings it up ONCE. But repeatedly it brings up men with men over and over being an abomination. Why not talk about lesbians in the same way?
Why keep the ? women for themselves? ? didn't say, and let them be free. ? said, "keep them FOR YOURSELVES". Wait WHAAAT? What did that mean, and WHY? LOL ? is ridiculous. -
Really? I made it to Websters, finally! I'm telling mom she can be proud....
Really though DoU, it says that in your bible. Do you realize it talks about lesbians ONCE in the bible? In Romans I think, where it states women became unnatural in their ways (being with other women). Now regardless of it being, "unnatural" (which it isn't) it only brings it up ONCE. But repeatedly it brings up men with men over and over being an abomination. Why not talk about lesbians in the same way?
Why keep the ? women for themselves? ? didn't say, and let them be free. ? said, "keep them FOR YOURSELVES". Wait WHAAAT? What did that mean, and WHY? LOL ? is ridiculous.
"For ? speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not." Job 33:14 -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Job
not really a book Christians should be citing if they want to have people respect them
Job is hilarious -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »"For ? speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not." Job 33:14
So ? explained why virgins should be kept? -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »I knew edeee would be up to her usual antics. Of course it must be the time for your yearly crusade for sodomite equality that goes against the laws of the Al-Mighty.
LOL @ your buttsex alarm going off and you running to this thread, Bible in tow....Marriage is between 1 man and 1 women. Point blank end of story. The first chapter of Genesis establishes this fact.
So ALLLLLL these men of ? (including Abraham who spoke directly with ? when it came to killing his Son Isaac) couldn't get a heads up about marriage being 1 man and 1 woman but somehow you can. Is this the special DoUWantToGoToHeaven Translation of the Bible you have where you're getting this info from?When you go against the laws of ? , such as practicing things which are against nature, of which sodomites do with pride and joy, you open yourself up for judgment. The ultimate example being the destruction of ? and Gomorrah.
The same destruction will happen again to all who go against the laws of ? because the thing which hath been shall be again because there is nothing new done under the sun.
Your ? seems to be quite angry and envious.....So in the mean time in between time ? has sent the pestilence to wreck havoc on a world that has gone in the same way that ? and Gomorrah has. Of which, people who go both ways have subjected those who fornicate to the awful pestilence of AIDS.
...link...?And yes edee, Solomon had multiple wives and they were the root cause for the kingdom of Israel to be divided into 2. ? tells the bitter with the sweet. He doesn't hide anything. The word of ? tells us about the exceedingly sinfulness of sin and the devastating effects that it causes. Hence why ? tells the truth about everybody in the Bible. In order to inform us that we are sinners and we are in desperate need of a Savior.
And yet Solomon was deemed the wisest of all, and blessed with the most....
And yet sinful David's lineage bore the same Christ you serve....
And yet Abraham had a direct line with ?
And yet Jacob was one of the most mightest men of ? ....
Seems like your ? is sending mixed signals.....Do you ever read the whole counsel of ? or do you just pick and chose what you want to digest and than filter it down into what you want to project onto others in order to try to put the word of ? into disrepute?
Your antics are juvenile and I see right through them. You can fool those who are not born again but you can't fool those who know the Lord. But again, I guess you are fulfilling the will of the enemy by beguiling unstable and lost souls with foolish words and doctrines of demons. Tragic.
IF my goal was to deceive many, I would not proudly proclaim that I am a CHRISTIAN....I'm just the type of Christian that believes in inclusiveness, and not be a modern day pharisee like you're trying to be....
**Ooooohhhhh NO SHE DIDN'T** -
Your logic is the Bible validates itself except for the things it doesn't validate....
nowhere did I say that. -
nowhere did I say that.
You're right...you didn't use those words, but you are definitely using circular logic.
Because how can you say....because something happens in the Bible, doesn't always mean its endorsed by the Bible.
Then I say...Since the Bible itself can't endorse anything....let me give you this list of questions that first popped in my head after I read your post...
Who makes the decisions on what is endorsed or not endorsed?
The second question you have yet to answer...to focus on this comment....let's start there. why can't things be endorsed in the Bible? I certainly didn't say that. Rules for divorce, how to treat the poor, church structure, acting as missionairies are all endorsed in the Bible.
To which I replied....Because the Bible is not a living breathing thing with the cognitive ability to make decisions about right or wrong...it's a book....a FINISHED book, written thousands of years ago.
From which you think up this witty comeback....(that makes no sense)if this is where you have to take it then you've got nothing
Now if you can explain your original comment, without using circular logic OR...
Answer the first question I asked you....it would help me understand what the hell you're trying to say here... -
actually, that refers to LotI think that was his daughters. They apparently "? " him -
Yet Solomon had multiple wives. Several Biblical kings had multiple wives. And yet they were blessed beyond belief.
So I guess parts of the Bible are applicable today, parts have changed do to "the times", parts of the Bible need to be looked at in "context" (eye roll) and other parts are literal. Do you not see how someone who is NOT a Christian would look at christians with disdain and disbelief because they can change their Holy book conveniently.
Today, ? people are going to be ? .
Heterosexuals are still heterosexual.
Married people are still married.
? married people will get married
Children will still be drinking lemonade and playing in the sprinklers.
Life goes on....unless you're a rightwing nut job who believes its the end of the world.
I agree 100%. The Bible is too contradictory to be taken seriously. -
if this is where you have to take it then you've got nothing
She ethered you pretty bad actually. The Bible is a badly written form of fiction. ? makes all kinds of rules in the Bible but than breaks those rules with certain prophets and kings. The Bible makes no sense -
Ok, seems like the original thread topic has been derailed. Though its not a complete deviation so meh.actually, that refers to Lot
Gotcha. Good looking out.lordhonka2 wrote: »your refering to the curse of ham and that has been one of the more libeal translations it only says that he saw his fathers nakedness. what the does that mean who knows.
in the end it was a justification for a bunch of racist ? by racist jew and christians.
No, it was Lot. Or maybe you quoted the wrong person? But I still agree with you. Though I would say that these racists whom you speak of were/are not very good christians in the first place.
