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 (34m) : They do not do it for "content sake".
    dfosterf (10h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
    Zero2Cool (17h) : Haha
    Mucky Tundra (18h) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
    beast (19h) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
    dfosterf (22h) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
    Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
    Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
    beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
    beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
    beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Hip drop is not. Super confusing. Referees job is harder
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Swivel hip drop is banned
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : The hip drop enforcement will be in the form of fines, etc. Not flags
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : A major foul will be enforced on the offense if there are offsetting penalties in a change of possession situation
    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
    11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    23h / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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