Browns149 Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Fat finger, I apologize. Next thing you know I'll be talking about how a man can live inside a whale... You also ignored the bulk of my original post, fyi Probably from all the fast food you eat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery. Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html#ixzz3erob19iN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Probably from all the fast food you eat I don't eat much fast food anymore. I've got a job haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Excellent take on polygamy. ....????? (I mean what you say might well enough be true but it has something to do with the question) WSS I'm sorry? Was i only supposed to talk about that? What do you want to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 you know full well that slaves were taken as spoils of war. The practice you're referring to was a form of indentured servitude which yes, was of free will. We're obviously talking about non willful forced servitude which the old testament quite obviously still condoned. This is an old tactic from old testament apologists. The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery. Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html#ixzz3erob19iN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 . That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery. Or we could just as a society say this is unacceptable in all it's forms and not allow it. And that's actually what the real god had in mind for us to do. The fact that alot of people on this planet still to this day haven't fully wrapped their head around the notion that "owning" another human being is an intrinsic evil is why we're still here and haven't moved on to better times and places. We're not wanted on the next level. Cause we're not worthy there, profoundly unworthy and it doesn't matter who's name we utter and call our god. If you're still trying to apologize for an intrinsic base evil by making statements such as "well back in those days..." blah blah blah...have fun in your next go around here, you're not moving on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 "Sure, the bible talks about slavery. But its nice, fun slavery!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Actually what do you say about it? WSS Actually what do you say about it? WSS you can go back a little bit and see what I was replying to your post where you asked "what does the Bible say about polygamy." And then I asked the quoted question. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 you can go back a little bit and see what I was replying to your post where you asked "what does the Bible say about polygamy." And then I asked the quoted question. WSS Oh. From a govt perspective, it should be illegal. Taxes, laws, etc would get too complicated. From a consenting adults perspective, I really don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Fair enough. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Oh. From a govt perspective, it should be illegal. Taxes, laws, etc would get too complicated. From a consenting adults perspective, I really don't care. I don't think you should be a tightwad when it comes to matters of love and marriage: Since the definition of marriage has been re-defined let's not be selfish and allow financial concerns deny those who have many loves in their life to have the same opportunity at the pursuit of happiness as everyone else. Also what do you tell the man in love with his cat he can't get married because you are worried about tax concerns?: Fashion Designer Karl Lagerfeld Wants to Marry His CatIn June 2013, the Fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld announced that he wished to marry his cat Choupette. The 77-year-old fashion guru said that he never thought it was possible to love 22-month-old Choupette as much as he does. Lagerfeld is so enamored with the animal that her eyes are said to have been the inspiration for a cornflower-blue couture collection for Chanel, the fashion house for which he is head designer. When Lagerfeld is not at home, the maids write down everything she does in little books so he can catch up on it later. Lagerfeld adopted Choupette a year ago after looking after her for a friend for two weeks. He refused to give her back, and the pair have been inseparable ever since. The fashion world is certainly waiting for the wedding of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 We get it OBF, your side lost. It's losing its pull. But don't be an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Cheapskate ^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 For Woodypeckerhead https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060709193054AAfLtHf&p=gay%20woodpecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 5 of the 9 appointed by Republican Presidents, I do feel bad that all the justices can't be cut from the same cloth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 5 of the 9 appointed by Republican Presidents, I do feel bad that all the justices can't be cut from the same cloth. How did this pass then? I thought republicans hate gay people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 How did this pass then? I thought republicans hate gay people? Checked the wrong box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted July 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Of course we knew this was going to happen. You'll have people wanting to marry animals too, doesn't mean they're not crazy. This was the point of my prior post, we've been debating this topic for decades and as a culture have concluded that gays were not a threat to our society. "Maybe" polygamy goes the same way, I expect a vigorous debate which I will enjoy listening to. In any case, it will be a long time before that gets resolved. Probably as long as it took gay marriage to be "resolved". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted July 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 We get it OBF, your side lost. It's losing its pull. But don't be an idiot. OBF is only the messenger. Don't attack the messenger. I would say the guy that wants to marry his cat is the idiot, probably a lib. You idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Reagan was dealing with democrats in Congress. His first two nominees were trashed, attacked, etc. So, Reagan picked Kennedy, the only nominee the dems liked. Kennedy was a longstanding gay rights advocate, but who knew he was a blantantly leftist activist judge on the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 woody, if all you can do is smart off to people.... go to Sam's club and buy a ton of toilet paper, because you are the butt of this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Reagan was dealing with democrats in Congress. His first two nominees were trashed, attacked, etc. So, Reagan picked Kennedy, the only nominee the dems liked. Kennedy was a longstanding gay rights advocate, but who knew he was a blantantly leftist activist judge on the matter? At the time (87 I believe) the democrats trashed a very qualified Justice in Robert Bork because he was conservative and the republicans then settled on Kennedy. I read where if Kennedy had been honest in his interviews he would have never gotten nominated by republicans. The left knew when to bring the gay marriage case before the Supremes with 4 liberal justices and Kennedy who has a history of ruling in favor of gay rights. I saw this as a done deal from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 and the dems also went after the conservative Ginsburg. they rejected him...because..... he smoked pot a few times as a student. Really. Kennedy even referred to homosexual rights, as in behavior, in his confirmation hearing.... Ginsburg would have made a terrific Supreme Court judge. Bork would have, too, but he did ruffle a few feathers in some of his stances in the past. ""On November 30, 1987, Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court seat that had been vacated byLewis F. Powell, Jr.. His nomination came after Reagan's failed nominations of Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate, and Douglas Ginsburg,[12][13] who withdrew his name from consideration after admitting to marijuana use. "" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Levin: If Kennedy Had Been Honest About His Views, He Wouldn’t Have Been Nominated Talk radio host, former Chief of Staff to Edwin Meese, and author of “Plunder and Deceit,” Mark Levin argued that “had Kennedy been honest in his interviews…he never would have been nominated” on Friday. Levin continued, “Justice Kennedy has written yet another decision on gay marriage. This is really his third decision on the issue, his third decision, and all three are childish, are absurd, are superficial. He thinks he’s writing to future generations. He thinks he’s writing to the gay community. He thinks he’s writing to the New York Times editorial and the Washington Post editorial page.” He later added, “Kennedy is gone. Kennedy is Harry Blackmun. And I can assure you had Kennedy been honest in his interviews with President Ronald Reagan, and Attorney General Ed Meese, and a phalanx of originalist conservatives in the Reagan administration, when he was interviewed for this post, if he had told them the truth about his attitudes and his philosophy, he never would have been nominated.” Levin further argued that the definition should be left up to the states, and that it is an “absurdity” to think the 14th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War applied to same-sex marriage. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/26/levin-if-kennedy-had-been-honest-about-his-views-he-wouldnt-have-been-nominated/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 and the dems also went after the conservative Ginsburg. they rejected him...because..... he smoked pot a few times as a student. (he inhaled) Really. Kennedy even referred to homosexual rights, as in behavior, in his confirmation hearing.... Ginsburg would have made a terrific Supreme Court judge. Bork would have, too, but he did ruffle a few feathers in some of his stances in the past. ""On November 30, 1987, Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court seat that had been vacated byLewis F. Powell, Jr.. His nomination came after Reagan's failed nominations of Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate, and Douglas Ginsburg,[12][13] who withdrew his name from consideration after admitting to marijuana use. "" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Marriage is a religious ceremony so government shouldn't be involved anyway. They only care in the context of determining taxation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 and advancing the left's pandering to fringe groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 and advancing the left's pandering to fringe groups. If there wasn't some alternative taxation code for married people, the government could give a shit. Every union, straight or gay, should just be a civil union in the eyes of the law. Let churches/synagogues/mosques/temples/etc. do the marrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 I agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 No matter who appoints you ideology should not be a factor in how rule on constitutional matters. Either way. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.