Biblical Marriage Not Defined Simply As One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious Scholars'

poet said:
That wasn't me, refusing to "read the Bible"
Click to expand...

actually it was....it was a disagreement about what word the original text used, I linked you to the original text.....you said you would not look at it.....I didn't ask you to look at it to placate me......I asked you to look at it to correct your error.....you were afraid to......remember THAT.......

poet said:
that was me, balking at your piss poor defense of your position
Click to expand...

If I tell you I have a glass of milk in my hand and you say I don't.....and when I show you my hand you close your eyes, the problem is not my defense.......
 
Re: Biblical Marriage Not Defined Simply As One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious Scho

"Fire and Blood" said:
never said it was. I was using that as an example of how we don't care much for the consent of animals for doing something that if done to a human, would usually be sexual assault.

right . . . that's kinda my overarching point. So why draw the line at sex? We already do many other things animals don't consent to.

do you just type to listen to yourself speak or something? I don't think you really disagreed with anything I said. I never asserted that those laws violated the constitution.

Also a big part of my post was clearly hyperbole, for example, I don't actually support a fake proposition 28 to legalize goat sex.

Do I really have to point this stuff out?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand you are using your standard ad hominem troll argument. It goes nowhere and has no value. Its a nonstarter either intentionally or because it is weak sauce.

I don't know why you bother to post.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually it was....it was a disagreement about what word the original text used, I linked you to the original text.....you said you would not look at it.....I didn't ask you to look at it to placate me......I asked you to look at it to correct your error.....you were afraid to......remember THAT.......

LOL...."an error"???? When I commit an error, I'll tell you. Your schtick has always been "your interpretation" of text. You're not the end all, nor the be all. Sorry. That is why there is different denominations within the confines of Christianity. Not all people believe the same, interpret the same, nor worship in the same way(s).
Afraid? I'm afraid of nothing, least of all, you.

If I tell you I have a glass of milk in my hand and you say I don't.....and when I show you my hand you close your eyes, the problem is not my defense.......
Click to expand...
Illogical fallacy. Sorry. Poor analogy
 
Re: Biblical Marriage Not Defined Simply As One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious Scho

PostmodernProphet said:
I posted it....I will do it again....

it doesn't say cut your balls off.....it says live LIKE eunuchs......not live AS eunuchs....so this is just another example of you lying to denigrate something you dislike......
Click to expand...

In what post did you do that?

It's an example of you lying with strawmen arguments and the pretense that your interpretations are the only ones possible. You seem to be delusional and believe that the only way to understand the Bible is through you. You even reject others professing faith if they are too conservative and harsh or too liberal and tolerant or stray anywhere outside the goldilocks zone, as you define it.

It says those who can accept it should do it.
 
Professor Baxter said:
In what post did you do that?

It's an example of you lying with strawmen arguments and the pretense that your interpretations are the only ones possible. You seem to be delusional and believe that the only way to understand the Bible is through you. You even reject others professing faith if they are too conservative and harsh or too liberal and tolerant or stray anywhere outside the goldilocks zone, as you define it.

It says those who can accept it should do it.
Click to expand...
Bravo. And also insanity is often defined as those who repeatedly do the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results. Instead of him accepting that others believe 'differently", from himself, he beats a dead horse by repeatedly telling others they are wrong for believing the way that they do. Whether it's abortion, gay rights, war, or whatever....people are entitled to their beliefs, without someone "beating them up, and telling them they are wrong". It's called "tolerance". Which the right has little of.
 
"Fire and Blood" said:
never said it was. I was using that as an example of how we don't care much for the consent of animals for doing something that if done to a human, would usually be sexual assault.
Click to expand...

Dare I mention that humans are a bit inconsistent and hypocritical? Yes, we kill animals without their consent, but we won't have sex with them without their consent. Yes, that's inconsistent. If we were really true to our values, we'd be vegetarian, but I admit, I like to eat meat. Sigh. Once again, I fall short of perfection...
 
poet said:
Your schtick has always been "your interpretation" of text
Click to expand...

not at all.....you repeatedly use the argument that "God says homosexual acts and shellfish are abominations"......I simple pointed out that the words used in the original text were different, even though both have been translated as "abomination"......the word used in the case of homosexual acts is actually the same as the word used only for incest, bestiality, and human sacrifice......

I did not ask you to accept mine or anyone else's translation....I just asked you to look at the glass of milk in my hand.....

you refused to look at the word in the original text for some odd reason.......

I can even live with that....the problem is, you just used the same stupid argument again on a different thread......once you've been proven wrong you ought to leave it behind.....
 
Professor Baxter said:
In what post did you do that?

It's an example of you lying with strawmen arguments and the pretense that your interpretations are the only ones possible. You seem to be delusional and believe that the only way to understand the Bible is through you. You even reject others professing faith if they are too conservative and harsh or too liberal and tolerant or stray anywhere outside the goldilocks zone, as you define it.

It says those who can accept it should do it.
Click to expand...

please.....no one is stupid enough to think that sentence asks people to cut their balls off......not even you......I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing by posing as an absolute idiot, but I do want to compliment on acting the part to perfection.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not at all.....you repeatedly use the argument that "God says homosexual acts and shellfish are abominations"......I simple pointed out that the words used in the original text were different, even though both have been translated as "abomination"......the word used in the case of homosexual acts is actually the same as the word used only for incest, bestiality, and human sacrifice......

I did not ask you to accept mine or anyone else's translation....I just asked you to look at the glass of milk in my hand.....

you refused to look at the word in the original text for some odd reason.......

I can even live with that....the problem is, you just used the same stupid argument again on a different thread......once you've been proven wrong you ought to leave it behind.....
Click to expand...


http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

I Corinthians 6:9:

The passage: In his first epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul lists many activities that he believes will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God (heaven). Robertson's Word Studies refers to this passage as: "a solemn roll call of the damned even if some of their names are on the church roll in Corinth whether officers or ordinary members." 1

Unfortunately, the Greek original from which many English language Bibles have been translated, is ambiguous about two of the groups who are condemned.

The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:

bullet "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)

This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed. Unfortunately, many of the translations do not differentiate between:

bullet Persons who are sexually attracted to others of the same-sex, but who are celibate and do not act on their desire, and||


bullet Persons who are are sexually active and who act on their sexual attraction to others of the same sex.

The two activities of interest -- shown above in bold -- have been variously translated as:

bullet effeminate (KJV, NASB): In the English language, this covers a wide range of male behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility. One might think of the characters "John," the receptionist on NYPD Blue, or "Jack" on Will and Grace.

bullet homosexuals, variously described as:
bullet "men who practice homosexuality," (ESV);
bullet "those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified);
bullet "abusers of themselves with men," (KJV);
bullet "practicing homosexuals," (NET Bible). This translation would refer only to persons with a homosexual or bisexual orientation who is sexually active with persons of the same sex. It would not include persons who are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, but who are celibate.
bullet "homosexuals," (NASB, CSB, NKJ, NLT, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English);
bullet "homosexual perversion," (NEB);
bullet "homosexual offenders," (NIV);
bullet "liers with mankind," (Rhiems); and
bullet "homosexual perverts." (TEV)
bullet "passive homosexual partners." (NET Bible)

Although "homosexual" is a very common translation, it is almost certain to be inaccurate:

bullet If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.

bullet The second term is "arsenokoitai" in Greek. The exact meaning of this word is lost. It seems to have been a term created by Paul for this verse. "Arsen" means "man" in Greek. So there is no way that "arsenokoitai" could refer to both male and female homosexuals. It seems that the English translators gave in to the temptation to widen Paul's condemnation to include lesbians as well as gay males.


Unfortunately, the term "homosexual" is commonly defined in two different ways: as a behavior (engaging in same-sex activity) or as a sexual orientation (being sexually attracted only to members of the same sex). Most of the biblical translations appear to refer to behavior rather than orientation.


bullet male prostitutes, also described as "men kept for unnatural purposes." The term "male prostitutes" (NIV, NRSV, CSB, NLT) can be interpreted in modern times as men who are paid to have sex with men only or with women only or with men or women. Again, the original Greek appears to refer only to male-male contact.

bullet catamites, or boy prostitute. This is a young male -- often a slave -- who is kept as a sexual partner of an adult male. (Jerusalem Bible, NAB, James Moffatt). These translations provide another example of a theme that runs throughout the Bible: the transfer of guilt and punishment from guilty perpetrators to innocent persons.

bullet pederasts: male adults who sexually abuse boys; an abusive pedophile (an adult who molests young children) or abusive hebephile (an adult who molests post-pubertal teenagers).

bullet perverts: a person engaged in some undefined activity that is one of the dozens of sexual activities that some consider to be perversions. (Phillips, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

bullet sodomites: This used to refer to inhabitants of the city of Sodom which is described in Genesis 19. It is now used as a "snarl" word to refer to men who have sex with men. InGenesis 19, the men of the city appear to want to anally rape some male angels who were visitors to Sodom. Many Christians interpret this as a blanket condemnation of all homosexual behavior, whether rape or consensual; whether a one-night stand or within a committed relationship; whether manipulative or mutually agreeable; whether by two men or two women. (NRSV, NKJ, NAB).

bullet other terms:
bullet The Message refers to "Those who ... use and abuse sex," which is probably the broadest translation ever, and would include a very large percentage of the human population.


bullet BBE translates it as "or is less than a man, or makes a wrong use of men."


And your premise for dismissing the above is mainly due to not the position, but the credibility of the author of the site, which makes no sense. Meaning, that if I disagree with you for your personage, I can invalidate anything you may say or propose...which is precisely what you do and are doing.
Kyrie Eleison. Christe Eleison. Kyrie Eleison. In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. I know Greek and Latin. Thank you.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not at all.....you repeatedly use the argument that "God says homosexual acts and shellfish are abominations"......I simple pointed out that the words used in the original text were different, even though both have been translated as "abomination"......the word used in the case of homosexual acts is actually the same as the word used only for incest, bestiality, and human sacrifice......

I did not ask you to accept mine or anyone else's translation....I just asked you to look at the glass of milk in my hand.....

you refused to look at the word in the original text for some odd reason.......

I can even live with that....the problem is, you just used the same stupid argument again on a different thread......once you've been proven wrong you ought to leave it behind.....
Click to expand...

Thank you for figuring out that you're "the odd reason".
 
Professor Baxter said:
Yes, I understand you are using your standard ad hominem troll argument. It goes nowhere and has no value. Its a nonstarter either intentionally or because it is weak sauce.

I don't know why you bother to post.
Click to expand...

it's not a troll argument, I just think you are too stupid to understand what I said.

You are were arguing against things I never even asserted, i.e. animal sex bans violating the constitution.

You honestly might have the #1 slot for posters that think they are way smarter than they actually are. Seriously you can be dumb as a box of rocks sometimes.
 
Re: Biblical Marriage Not Defined Simply As One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious l'

"Fire and Blood" said:
it's not a troll argument, I just think you are too stupid to understand what I said.

You are were arguing against things I never even asserted, i.e. animal sex bans violating the constitution.

You honestly might have the #1 slot for posters that think they are way smarter than they actually are. Seriously you can be dumb as a box of rocks sometimes.
Click to expand...

I never said you made a claim about constitutionality. That point was about the comparison to the thread topic, i.e., human sexuality and why it is different from the tangent of bestiality, dumbass.
 
tekkychick said:
Dare I mention that humans are a bit inconsistent and hypocritical? Yes, we kill animals without their consent, but we won't have sex with them without their consent. Yes, that's inconsistent. If we were really true to our values, we'd be vegetarian, but I admit, I like to eat meat. Sigh. Once again, I fall short of perfection...
Click to expand...

So plants don't have feelings worth worrying about?
 
Re: Biblical Marriage Not Defined Simply As One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious Schol

PostmodernProphet said:
please.....no one is stupid enough to think that sentence asks people to cut their balls off......not even you......I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing by posing as an absolute idiot, but I do want to compliment on acting the part to perfection.....
Click to expand...

You are boring. Strawman. It says those who can accept it should do it.
 
I find it funny how long some people kept dissing my 2 men, 3 women, and a goat marriage. And the argument that goats can't legally consent?

* The goat was just to show how silly it was for someone else to say who or what I could marry. DUH!
But...

I did happen on the following from Wiki... I know this is specific to California, but I'm too lazy to look up each state and country individually.
Ban on interracial marriage

In 1850, "all marriages of white persons with Negroes or mulattoes [were] declared to be illegal and void". This stricture held until 1948, at which point the California Supreme Court became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage, recognizing marriage as a fundamental right:
Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means. No law within the broad areas of state interest may be unreasonably discriminatory or arbitrary.... The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one’s child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” (Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.) Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_marriage_in_California

Now before someone picks the "Marriage and procreation" and claims because gays can't procreate....
* Are straight people checked for fertility before being allowed to marry?
* Perhaps when being gay was illegal there might have been an argument on THAT ground, but today?

Given more recent discoveries and understanding about DNA and how closely we are all related, questions of race/gender/orientation aside how could ANY half-way logical and just system impose barriers against marriage?

So, we are left with religious reasons based on the Christian bible. If THAT were the final word, I would think it would only apply to Christians or to marriages provided in Christian ceremonies. But, to apply such Christian biblical arguments to marriages of non-Christians or to ceremonies preformed elsewhere is likewise ludicrous. If I don't subscribe to your religion, why should I care and in a secular society with secular laws, why should I or the secular society in which I live CARE what your religious tracks or your examination of chicken bones might say?

Now, if I want to be married in a Christian ceremony in a Christian church - I might have a problem. Unless, of course, I can find a sect or offshoot of that religion that happens to agree with me.

The real troubling point in all this is how we allowed ANY of our secular laws to defer to one religious sect's religious ideas in the first place. How is it that the federal and state governments and many businesses are allowed to base rights and rewards based on a legal fiction that assumes two people are one that is still intertwined with one religious sect's ideas. This in a country that promises freedom of religion?

It's NONSENSE and/or INJUSTICE for me AND my goat.

​
 
Last edited:
Re: Biblical Marriage Not Defined Simply As One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious

Red Mule said:
I find it funny how long some people kept dissing my 2 men, 3 women, and a goat marriage. And the argument that goats can't legally consent?

* The goat was just to show how silly it was for someone else to say who or what I could marry. DUH!
But...

I did happen on the following from Wiki... I know this is specific to California, but I'm too lazy to look up each state and country individually.
Ban on interracial marriage

In 1850, "all marriages of white persons with Negroes or mulattoes [were] declared to be illegal and void". This stricture held until 1948, at which point the California Supreme Court became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage, recognizing marriage as a fundamental right:
Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means. No law within the broad areas of state interest may be unreasonably discriminatory or arbitrary.... The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one’s child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” (Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.) Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_marriage_in_California

Now before someone picks the "Marriage and procreation" and claims because gays can't procreate....
* Are straight people checked for fertility before being allowed to marry?
* Perhaps when being gay was illegal there might have been an argument on THAT ground, but today?

Given more recent discoveries and understanding about DNA and how closely we are all related, questions of race/gender/orientation aside how could ANY half-way logical and just system impose barriers against marriage?

So, we are left with religious reasons based on the Christian bible. If THAT were the final word, I would think it would only apply to Christians or to marriages provided in Christian ceremonies. But, to apply such Christian biblical arguments to marriages of non-Christians or to ceremonies preformed elsewhere is likewise ludicrous. If I don't subscribe to your religion, why should I care and in a secular society with secular laws, why should I or the secular society in which I live CARE what your religious tracks or your examination of chicken bones might say?

Now, if I want to be married in a Christian ceremony in a Christian church - I might have a problem. Unless, of course, I can find a sect or offshoot of that religion that happens to agree with me.

The real troubling point in all this is how we allowed ANY of our secular laws to defer to one religious sect's religious ideas in the first place. How is it that the federal and state governments and many businesses are allowed to base rights and rewards based on a legal fiction that assumes two people are one that is still intertwined with one religious sect's ideas. This in a country that promises freedom of religion?

It's NONSENSE and/or INJUSTICE for me AND my goat.

​
Click to expand...

I don't really care what you intend, your argument is stupid. The state can prohibit marriage to a goat or engaging in sex acts with one. You are saying that it shows how silly it is for the state to limit who you may marry, but most people would not argue that such a limit is silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top