Nonstopdrivel
12 years ago
It's difficult to imagine that passage being taken more out of context. The whole point of that passage is that the husband doesn't know that the wife is not a virgin -- that is, she has lied to him. Under the legal system of the day, she was committing the most serious sort of fraud, since she was bringing to the marriage the possibility that she was carrying another man's child, which meant that the whole of her husband's property would be inherited by someone else's offspring. It's not like the Bible was unique in this regard. Death was the standard penalty for this kind of fraud in all the Mesopotamian legal systems of the time. (Interestingly, I took a class on this once: many of the oft-derided biblical laws are found almost word-for-word in the Code of Hammurabi and other similar codexes.)

Those signs ignore the verses of the Bible which rule that if a man and woman get caught having premarital sex, the "penalty" is that they must marry and cannot thereafter divorce. Again, this is not some moral proscription. It is designed to ensure that the child is taken care of and property inheritance is ensured. If the girl got pregnant from the fling, there weren't many institutions in place for protecting the child if the man moved on.

I put the word "penalty" in quotes because in Mesopotamian culture of the time, the average age of marriage for women was 14 and the average age of marriage for men was 17. In an era of poor sanitation, no contraception, and no prospects (besides prostitution) for single mothers, if a couple of teenagers were taking the risk of having sex, they were probably planning to marry anyway. The law simply formalized the arrangement.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago

UserPostedImage

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Sigh. Some days I identify with my fundie-conservative friends more than others.

Even though I disagree with my religious conservative friends on their willingness to quote the Old Testament when they get all moralistic, as in, I imagine, whatever this placard-carrier was responding to, I also want to say something to said placard carrier.

Namely that he's completely missing the real point. Which isn't that homosexuality is against the Law of the Old Testament at all. Which isn't even an Old Testament point.

The real point is that if you're spending your time whining about your rights to put your dangly bit in particular places with particular people, you're ignoring the Great Commandment.

That said fundie conservatives might be mistaking the demands of the Great Commission doesn't change that kind of self-idolatry and self-absorption. At least they are striving to put God at the center of their lives and get others to do the same.

The real point is that the fundie's quotation of the Bible is different in kind from the placard-carrier's quotation. The real point is that the consequences are different if the placard carrier is wrong than if the fundie is wrong. If the fundie is wrong, as I think he is, my gut tells me that God'll be okay with it -- since the fundie is acting from a stance of faith and trust and love for his Lord. But if the placard carrier is wrong, as I think he is, he's also failed in failing to put God first. And the consequences of that, in my opinion, are catastrophic.

The real point is not being able to quote Bible verse for one's position. It's about what you're quoting the Bible for. If you're quoting the Bible because you're trying to follow God's will, you're using it correctly. If you're quoting the Bible to affirm the importance of your choices and your rights, you're not.

Because that's not what its for.



And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Formo
12 years ago

It's difficult to imagine that passage being taken more out of context. The whole point of that passage is that the husband doesn't know that the wife is not a virgin -- that is, she has lied to him. Under the legal system of the day, she was committing the most serious sort of fraud, since she was bringing to the marriage the possibility that she was carrying another man's child, which meant that the whole of her husband's property would be inherited by someone else's offspring. It's not like the Bible was unique in this regard. Death was the standard penalty for this kind of fraud in all the Mesopotamian legal systems of the time. (Interestingly, I took a class on this once: many of the oft-derided biblical laws are found almost word-for-word in the Code of Hammurabi and other similar codexes.)

Those signs ignore the verses of the Bible which rule that if a man and woman get caught having premarital sex, the "penalty" is that they must marry and cannot thereafter divorce. Again, this is not some moral proscription. It is designed to ensure that the child is taken care of and property inheritance is ensured. If the girl got pregnant from the fling, there weren't many institutions in place for protecting the child if the man moved on.

I put the word "penalty" in quotes because in Mesopotamian culture of the time, the average age of marriage for women was 14 and the average age of marriage for men was 17. In an era of poor sanitation, no contraception, and no prospects (besides prostitution) for single mothers, if a couple of teenagers were taking the risk of having sex, they were probably planning to marry anyway. The law simply formalized the arrangement.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 



I didn't know this. Very interesting.

As far as quoting the Bible to make a point, there's a reason I don't do it much and context is the major reason. I've debunked many non-Christians using a passage or two from the Bible to attempt to proof their points to me or to other Christians. Of course, doing as such didn't help my point because the people doing the quoting of the Bible only knew the passages they quoted and were completely ignorant to what I had to say.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Formo
12 years ago

Sigh. Some days I identify with my fundie-conservative friends more than others.

Even though I disagree with my religious conservative friends on their willingness to quote the Old Testament when they get all moralistic, as in, I imagine, whatever this placard-carrier was responding to, I also want to say something to said placard carrier.

Namely that he's completely missing the real point. Which isn't that homosexuality is against the Law of the Old Testament at all. Which isn't even an Old Testament point.

The real point is that if you're spending your time whining about your rights to put your dangly bit in particular places with particular people, you're ignoring the Great Commandment.

That said fundie conservatives might be mistaking the demands of the Great Commission doesn't change that kind of self-idolatry and self-absorption. At least they are striving to put God at the center of their lives and get others to do the same.

The real point is that the fundie's quotation of the Bible is different in kind from the placard-carrier's quotation. The real point is that the consequences are different if the placard carrier is wrong than if the fundie is wrong. If the fundie is wrong, as I think he is, my gut tells me that God'll be okay with it -- since the fundie is acting from a stance of faith and trust and love for his Lord. But if the placard carrier is wrong, as I think he is, he's also failed in failing to put God first. And the consequences of that, in my opinion, are catastrophic.

The real point is not being able to quote Bible verse for one's position. It's about what you're quoting the Bible for. If you're quoting the Bible because you're trying to follow God's will, you're using it correctly. If you're quoting the Bible to affirm the importance of your choices and your rights, you're not.

Because that's not what its for.


Originally Posted by: Wade 



HA! Great point, and I actually implied something like what you just said in the instance I lined out in my previous post. Of course, I was the bad guy for saying such things.. =P

UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Nonstopdrivel
12 years ago
UserPostedImage
UserPostedImage
dfosterf
12 years ago
"The real point is not being able to quote Bible verse for one's position. It's about what you're quoting the Bible for. If you're quoting the Bible because you're trying to follow God's will, you're using it correctly. If you're quoting the Bible to affirm the importance of your choices and your rights, you're not.

Because that's not what its for."


That is profoundly wise. I liked Non's post too, but I suspect it was a "criminal history" conviction on the perp. I don't know, just a guess, still seems harsh.


The white-collar-crime dude lives in Oakton, Va. That's a high-rent district. A swap in sentences is good with me.

Zero2Cool
10 years ago
I still don't understand.
UserPostedImage
Laser Gunns
10 years ago

I still don't understand.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



The problem is that there are still a bunch of close-minded bigots out there. Or people's religion demonizes homosexuality, and because they feel the need to press their beliefs onto the world they will fight and vote down the right to marry.

No matter how you feel about it, a LARGE amount of political campaigns cater to religious voters, who are obviously against it.

Mostly Christian candidates it seems to me at least.

I hate my generation as much as old folks hate that rap music, but I do think that we will be a lot closer to equality once we start shuffling some of the "blue hairs" out.

Then again, I'm up in Washington, where we are just more progressive that all you Neanderthals. (Unless you reside in Colorado)

Sonics, Weed and gay rights! Woot! Hemp fest 2013!!

MintBaconDrivel
Dec, 11, 2012 - FOREVER!
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
9 years ago

The gay guys should definitely get full marriage rights, imo. After all, at least one of them is allowing some other dude to stick his dick square up his ass. Hell, they ought to give the poor fucker a medal for that, lol

Originally Posted by: dfosterf 



The "Our Lady of Perpetual Sorrow" Medal?
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
9 years ago

To me.. the concept of not allowing them to join in the legal definition of marriage is absurd.

The church and afterlife can have there say independently from the legalities of this country..

The hypocrisy of any government that will label "Under God" from the pledge of Allegiance as nothing more than "ceremonial and patriotic nature", cannot justifiably cite any religious connotations to gay marriage. You can't have it both ways.

We have wasted probably billions of dollars in this country on this topic, that has really no reason to be an issue for the government to rule upon.

It is not our fight as a union to decide.. two adults should be able to form a marriage freely if both consent.. regardless of sex, race or religion.

But pressure from religious voters sways the self serving politician in seeking re-election.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 



Still stand with this opinion..
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (2h) : Chase Young to sign $13M contract with Saints
    Zero2Cool (2h) : Yosh to Panthers what noooo. Wait he didn't do crap
    wpr (23h) : I say that he is technically HER BIL as he married her sister. I checked it out, he's considered my BIL as well. Sad.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : wpr, I assume its your BIL via marriage to your wife? If so, I can figure out where the smarts in the family went ;)
    wpr (18-Mar) : Mucky my B-I-L is Bare Stupid. I could write a book.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : As a teenager in Rockford IL I would get heckled by adults in public for wearing GB gear
    Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : if you think the online ones are bad, try *living amongst* them
    Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : Never doubt wprs loyalty. Poor guy is surrounded by Bears fans in Northern IL
    wpr (17-Mar) : pass Martha. Thanks for the invite though.
    Martha Careful (17-Mar) : blog * as the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Baer
    Martha Careful (17-Mar) : WPR, perhaps you should be joining the Bears fans blog has the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Bears
    Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : Ah a fellow U of Illinois hater. I can respect that though I imagine it's for different reasons
    Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : BTW. I didn't catch the game. I just hate Illinois.
    Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : They're your Big Ten Chumps and you will like it!
    Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not for the record. Referee's handled that BS. Orange team was trash ass
    Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : *Your* Big Ten Chumps for the record
    Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not Big Ten Champs. IL is big ten CHUMPS
    wpr (17-Mar) : Big Ten Champs
    wpr (17-Mar) : !!!
    wpr (17-Mar) : INI
    wpr (17-Mar) : ILL
    Martha Careful (17-Mar) : Wisconsin with an outstanding on in the men’s Big Ten basketball tournament. Let’s hope it continues in the NCAAs
    Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : Almost like taking QB in 2020 even if you don't need one is good move.
    Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : 2021 QB Draft class looking like a real clunker
    Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : A conditional 6th rounder? I remember Bears fans arguing they'd get a day 2 pick at worst lol
    dfosterf (16-Mar) : So I got the no extension part right and the have to wait on the CW physical wrong
    Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Bears are trading Justin Fields for a 2025 6th-round pick that goes to a 4th-round pick based on playtime, per sources.
    Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Former Packer Jarrett Bush opens Wisconsin’s first blow dry bar in Green Bay
    dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are not doing a deal with Washington, they also cannot trade Fields until Williams physical with them. All hail Caleb Williams!
    dfosterf (16-Mar) : The talent is undeniable, but the (advertised) haul is obscene.
    dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are cutting a deal with the Commanders, in either scenario, cannot happen until williams passes a Commanders physical
    dfosterf (16-Mar) : My guess is no to the Fields extension, but yes to the trade back with the Commanders.
    dhazer (15-Mar) : I think the Bears do a Love extension and they will trade out of the 1st pick and take the haul
    Martha Careful (15-Mar) : that might make sense
    Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Justin Fields to Steelers?
    Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Kenny Pickett. Eagles. Done.
    Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : They can claim best two WR tandem.
    Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : Aaron Donald retiring
    dhazer (15-Mar) : Campbell signing with 49ers
    dhazer (15-Mar) : I love how the Bear Fans are now claiming they have the best skill players in the NFC North lol
    Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Vikings made a move to get a 2nd first round pick
    Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : That's a not a bad deal for the Bears
    Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Bears have traded for WR Keenan Allen sending Chargers a fourth rounder.
    Martha Careful (15-Mar) : *signs
    Martha Careful (14-Mar) : MLB Devon White science with the Eagles
    Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : But that was before FA started
    Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : Dhaze, I thought Kurls would be their #1 target when I read that he was an Amos comp (jack of all trades guy)
    dhazer (14-Mar) : I would like to see the Packers target 2 more FA still available Kamren Curl Safety and Chase Young edge
    Martha Careful (14-Mar) : wow...didn't see that coming
    Zero2Cool (14-Mar) : AJ Dillon re-signing with Packers.
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2023 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Falcons
    Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
    SAINTS
    Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
    LIONS
    Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
    Raiders
    Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
    RAMS
    Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
    CHARGERS
    Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
    CHIEFS
    Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
    BUCCANEERS
    Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
    Panthers
    Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
    Cowboys
    Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
    49ers
    Recent Topics
    38m / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    18-Mar / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    16-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    16-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

    15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

    15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    14-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    13-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.