Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

He'll be back.

Let's play a little drinking game. Everytime Mookie checks this thread after this post; everybody take one drink. Every time he posts after this post everybody take two drinks.

Three drinks if he posts another funny gif.

Line 'em up, boys!

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Line 'em up, boys!

May god have mercy on our livers.

[August]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

May god have mercy on our livers.

I have created a Monster!

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by August

I have created a Monster!

You mean monstah.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Line 'em up, boys!

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Indeed, but in the context it was used it appeared to be bundling one person on account of their views.

Understood.

[Safe-Keeper]

But seriously, you'll never get in trouble in this forum for posting anti-religious stuff, especially if it's anti-christian. Anti-gay or anti-Muslim on the other hand...

Of course not. That is because those of us who criticize the religion of Christianity know to separate the Scripture from the believers. We know that even though Jesus says slavery is okay, Christians in the Western world are opposed to slavery.

Whenever Islam or its holy book are questioned, however, it's invariably by people who for some reason or other seem to be believe that if they can just find enough medieval crap in the Qur'an, that justifies their bigotry towards actual, real-world Muslims (because apparently Muslims are all apparently schooeld in the Qur'an, and all adhere to the belief that it should be taken 100% litterally. Yeah).

There is a difference between criticizing someone's mythology, knowing full well it's not actually adhered to, and criticizing scripture in an effort to smear a group of people you for some reason dislike.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

There are financial considerations. As stated way earlier - marriage does not require monogamy - and homosexuality has massively increased risks to health compared to heterosexuality.

Either drop the argument or apply it consistently and ban everyone with health risks over a certain treshold from marrying.

Anyone who has disagreed with gay marraige has been called a bigot innumerable times (...) I mean come on - this thing STARTED with name calling..... But it seems that its ok as long as your bashing people who are anti-gay marriage.

Treat someone poorly, expect to be treated likewise. See also reciprocity. Human relations 101.

There's also the fact that the anti-gay side must know it's losing anyway, and that every discussion on gay marriage (though they're thankfully growing more and more rare) revolve around the same debunked logical fallacies and misconceptions. Frankly, it makes me sick and tried, and I'm not even homosexual.

[August]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

...those of us who criticize ......We know that ....

But you can't lump such a large and diverse group of people like everyone thinks the same way. Some do and some don't. Some manage to get their skepticism across politely and some have to do it with insults. Some have genuine questions and others are there just for the fun of pissing people off.

Same thing goes for the other side too. There are true believers and there are those who just go through the motions of believing and every opinion in between.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

We know that even though Jesus says slavery is okay,

Sorry my fellow member but I think you should back up that statement with some kind of reference, scripture maybe.

[Safe-Keeper]

scripture maybe.

I swear, discussions on the Bible would be so much easier if people actually read it (goes for all the quotes taken out of context, too -- such as people cherry-picking Deuteronomy for anti-gay quotes, disregarding all the other wacky laws in the book).

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jesus+on+slavery
First bloody result.
There's even an illustrated edition here.

There seems to be a widespread misconception that the Bible 100% agrees with all of the modern standards and views we take for granted in 2012. Guess what, when a book is 2000 years old, it won't.

How about you give me a single quote where Jesus speaks out against slavery. I'm waiting.

[antikristuseke]

that illustration is racist

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I swear, discussions on the Bible would be so much easier if people actually read it.

You know what else would be much easier? If everyone understood Greek, Latin and Hebrew!

The word "slavery" as we use it today is translated from the Hebrew "ebed" which has a much wider meaning that just slave. It is more often translated accurately as servant or hired worker.
# Jewish Encylopedia - published by Funk and Wagnalls.

It also helps if you look at the what slavery meant in the Hebrew world - it was not lifelong, it did not require hard labor, the "slave" was to be treated as extended family, etc.

How about you give me a single quote where Jesus speaks out against slavery. I'm waiting.

You really want a disertation on this? Fine - it SHOULD be in a new thread - but what the heck, this is already way off the tracks.

Slavery is an institution in which one man "owns" and is above another. There is a reason why the Bible speaks to this, yet Jesus didn't directly scream about it AS a social ill. Know why? Its because Jesus wasn't here to cure social ills - He was here to offer a solution to the SOUL issue of sin. He knew this existence is passing - the one that matters is beyond here.

The Bible does speak about slavery quite a bit - just as it speaks about charity to the poor. But lets deal with the idea that all men are equal, not one above the other first. We will come back to the social aspect in a moment.

The Bible is clear - we all shall be judged before God - not on the basis of our race, nationality, gender - but on whether our names are written in the book of life, or by our works for those not written. The Bible is also clear that works fall short of the glory of God, and that God is an impartial judge. So, an impartial judge weighing evidence clearly demonstrates that we are all equal - IN GOD's EYES! Which is why Jesus was here in the first place - to insure that every person had the ability to be covered by His sacrfice. Thus there is no "slave" or "master", no "property" or "owner" in the Grand view of God.

*References: Romans 3:23, II Cor. 5:10, Romans 14:10, Colossians 3:24-25, Romans 2:2-6, Rev. 20:12, Romans 10:12

Want to know what God says about slavery? Colossians 3:9-11

9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all

To God - and thus to Jesus - slavery doesn't exist as a real topic.

Now, lets deal with the social aspect - since your gnashing your teeth over the view of God on slavery. Both Peter and Paul wrote that slaves were to behave toward their masters as to the Lord, and not to men - in other words - to serve as they would the Lord God. Seems pretty accepting of slavery, huh? Well, before you go "AHH HAH! Got ya now!" further reading will show you that slave owners were to behave exactly the same way - as to the Lord and not to men. You can't get more equal than telling a slave owner he should be serving his slave as he should serve the Lord. Paul in fact encourages a slave owner (Philemon) to consider a returning slave as more than such - to consider him as a brother instead. The Bible also encourages actual slaves to purchase their freedom where possible, and instructs everyone to consider any follower of Christ as a brother in Christ. Know anyone who considers his brother as a slave?

Galatians 3:28 is very clear on this....

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

You see, people want to deal with the here and now - Jesus (and God the Father) are much more concerned about eternity. People have suffered here on this earth for thousands of years - yet the Lord knows that each life here suffers but a moment compared to the eternity that awaits each soul. Jesus was focused on that eternity. He offered guidance - He LIVED His entire life in voluntary service to mankind.

You say He never said a word against slavery? I tell you His whole life was a testimony against slavery of a more damaging kind - that of the slavery of sin.

He provided the way for you to have the purchase price of your slavery paid in full. Who chooses to take it?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I swear, discussions on the Bible would be so much easier if people actually read it

I have read it . More than a few times. How about you?

Answering a request for a reference by posting links to anti-Christian web sites isn't going to cut it. An attempt to link your statement " We know that even though Jesus says slavery is okay", to the biblical or historical or even the mythical person Jesus is going to take more than what you have offered. I'm waiting.

@ CaptainHaplo. Well done.

[Tribesman]

@ CaptainHaplo. Well done.

So despite the long winded run around Haplo manages to confirm that Jesus didn't speak against it so safe keeper was correct.

Thus there is no "slave" or "master", no "property" or "owner" in the Grand view of God.

Interesting, then why does god set out the conditions for treating slaves? Or was gods rules on how to do slavery a bit of the bible which was just made up?

The word "slavery" as we use it today is translated from the Hebrew "ebed" which has a much wider meaning that just slave. It is more often translated accurately as servant or hired worker.
# Jewish Encylopedia - published by Funk and Wagnalls.

Would that be funk and wagnalls? then......
The Hebrew word "'ebed" really means "slave"; but the English Bible renders it "servant" (a) where the word is used figuratively, pious men being "servants of the Lord" (Isa. xx. 3), and courtiers "servants of the king" (Jer. xxxvii. 2); and (b) in passages which refer to Hebrew bondmen, whose condition is far above that of slavery (Ex. xxi. 2-7). Where real slaves are referred to, the English versions generally use "bondman" for "'ebed," and "bondwoman" or "bondmaid" for the corresponding feminines (Lev. xxv. 49).
.....So it is slave when it means slave but is written as bondsman sometimes when it means real slaves.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by u crank

@ CaptainHaplo. Well done.

It almost wrote itself - I don't get the credit for that one....
It was a blessing for me to do it.