By making up our own doctrine you mean directly quoting the king james bible, which you believe to be the inerrant word of God? Who now is trying to discredit God?
Also, pro tip: Yelling at your opponents that they are lazy is not a way to win friends and influence people.
FACT: God gave David Saul's wives. God is DIRECTLY causing polygamy.
So if Polygamy is against god's will, and going against god's will is sinning, god is sinning.
No. God didn't give him "wives":
2 Samuel 12:8 - "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
David was to take care of them and provide for themNOT make them his wives. God gave the wives of other men to provide for (old KJV-only):
Luke 16:22 - "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;"
John 1:18 - "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
2 Samuel 12:3 - "But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter."
David had wives because HE decided to do so. God doesn't interfere with the gift of free will he has given mankind, but will allow us to go through the consequences of our actions so that we turn back to him and learn (experience) what we are doing wrong. God doesn't always immediately punish us for our wrong-doing:
Romans 2:4 - "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?"
None can be patient like God. He still gives His blessings hoping that we see His goodness and repent of our wrong deeds.
Romans 5:3-6 - "3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."
Once again:
Ephesians 5:31 - "31 For this cause shall a man(singular) leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife(singular-not wives), and they two(not 3,4 or more-just two) shall be one flesh."
Please read in context.
John 3:20 - "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."
Luke 8:17 - "For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad."
God saw that David went too far and had to confront him when he killed Uriah and took Uriah's wife to be one of his wives. God didn't mention the wives he already took of his own free will, but he mentioned the ones he gave him from others that died to care for. The dispensation of time: Women in THESE days are not anything like they were in old times: Wisdom of Solomon 26. Feminism wasn't mainstream.
These are the ravings of a lunatic and bear zero resemblance to history. Believe me, I had to restrain myself not to write a snarky blow-by-blow of all the places he goes wrong. But that would be a waste of screen space here, because the first problem is not the video's historical accuracy; it's that the video does not even purport to demonstrate that the Anglo-Saxons were the Sons of Isaac. The thesis is, rather, that the rulers of the Roman, Byzantine, and Holy Roman Empires were a continuous dynasty of Africans -- which is bull*****, but more importantly, not relevant to this discussion. So the video appears to be mistitled, and you appear to have linked it without watching it.
God doesn't interfere with the gift of free will he has given mankind, but will allow us to go through the consequences of our actions so that we turn back to him and learn (experience) what we are doing wrong.
Okay, since you seem to have zero interest in historical accuracy or even the authenticity of your own scripture, let's try a different tack:
If God doesn't interfere with the gift of free will he has given mankind, isn't it hubris in the extreme for humans to interfere with it? What right have we to discourage, censure, and punish activity that God himself sees fit to allow? If we were to prevent gay and polygamous marriage, wouldn't that be denying those people the experience of the consequences of their actions? God, you say, wants them to experience these consequences, so by denying that we are thwarting God's will.
By making up our own doctrine you mean directly quoting the king james bible, which you believe to be the inerrant word of God? Who now is trying to discredit God?
Also, pro tip: Yelling at your opponents that they are lazy is not a way to win friends and influence people.
FACT: God gave David Saul's wives. God is DIRECTLY causing polygamy.
So if Polygamy is against god's will, and going against god's will is sinning, god is sinning.
No. God didn't give him "wives":
2 Samuel 12:8 - "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
David was to take care of them and provide for themNOT make them his wives. God gave the wives of other men to provide for (old KJV-only):
Luke 16:22 - "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;"
John 1:18 - "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
2 Samuel 12:3 - "But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter."
David had wives because HE decided to do so. God doesn't interfere with the gift of free will he has given mankind, but will allow us to go through the consequences of our actions so that we turn back to him and learn (experience) what we are doing wrong. God doesn't always immediately punish us for our wrong-doing:
Romans 2:4 - "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?"
None can be patient like God. He still gives His blessings hoping that we see His goodness and repent of our wrong deeds.
Romans 5:3-6 - "3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."
Once again:
Ephesians 5:31 - "31 For this cause shall a man(singular) leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife(singular-not wives), and they two(not 3,4 or more-just two) shall be one flesh."
Please read in context. John 3:20 - "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."
Luke 8:17 - "For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
God saw that David went too far and had to confront him when he killed Uriah and took Uriah's wife to be one of his wives. God didn't mention the wives he already took of his own free will, but he mentioned the ones he gave him from others that died to care for. The dispensation of time: Women in THESE days are not anything like they were in old times: Wisdom of Solomon 26. Feminism wasn't mainstream.
I'm about to go on a route I rarely go on. But I think it will help in this case. You remind me of my college roommate Dave. Dave was a good guy, loved sports and people. He went on to become a pastor. Back then I was already a Christian, and the two other guys in the suite were engineers. They were nice folk too, logically minded, and mildly open to the word.
By mildly open to the word, I mean they didn't go out of their way to oppose being taught the bible. But you had to make the case to them.
Some folks will go out of your way just to disagree with you for no reason. That wasn't me nor was it them. You had to be able to make the case, and you had to do so logically cause thats the language they spoke.
Now by logically, I don't mean to say Dave didn't make any sense. He did. But let's just say he was used to being given the benefit of the doubt. Dave was used to talking to Christians in bible study, in church, and most of those folks were kind enough to agree and give Dave the benefit of the doubt when he hadn't tied up all the loose ends in the point he was trying to make.
That's the distinction I'm trying to draw here. There's a difference between talking with people in bible study, Christian friends, family, and having them give you the benefit of the doubt. Most of them are receptive to scripture in the first place.
But that's not the environment you'll face here, and certainly not the rest of the world.
This is the debate forum. Here you have to make a tight case. Most people on this forum won't go out of their way to oppose you for no reason. But they will poke holes in your arguments. Here you can't rely on people's good graces to give you the benefit of the doubt. When you're making a point, point A has to lead to point B pretty clearly.
What do I mean? Here's a few things you do that I wouldn't do.
First of all, your pieces don't connect well at all. Let's look at what you wrote:
Luke 16:22 - "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;"
See...now I'm reading about beggars, and angels. What I'm looking for is stuff on polygamy, something...anything about multiple wives. I see angels, beggars, etc.
So I'm telling you honestly, I don't see how your scripture connects with your main point---which I assume is about Polygamy or David's wives. You didn't do the legwork you needed to in making this connect.
Let's look at your next citation.
John 1:18 - "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
This here doesn't connect either. At face value, the citation is about seeing God. I know you highlighted bosom of the father. But again, its not at all clear what you're trying to connect with. You see once again I'm looking about David's wives, polygamy.
So this is what I see. BOSOM OF THE FATHER = GOD DIDNT GIVE WIVES TO DAVID.
I'm not here to say I believe you, or that I'm against you. I'm just telling you, again, you didn't do the legwork you needed to make your point.
Now you might go ahead and say: well only if you read it in the context will you understand. I want to point out that that's a very bad strategy. You see, you're the one trying to make the point. What if your audience earnestly goes and actually reads the context and they STILL don't understand your point. Then what? You're going to tell them to read it again and again?
No. You need to do more work. Bring the context here. I know thats daunting. But there's gotta be other words in the context which suggest what you're saying. It connects in your mind I know. But you're not making it connect on paper---and that's what you need to do.
Finally, the last point you're making about feminism. Don't do that. I'm not saying you're wrong. And I'm honestly not here to argue with you. What I am saying is when you're making your point---keep things tight. Don't go opening cans of worms.
Let me give you an example.
God blesses the meek. We see how women are so meek and God has blessed them richly. And you know the Chinese? They have a meek attitude. It's part of their culture! and God blesses that too---which is why God has blessed them with wealth. Wealth is a sign of God's favor and its the Chinese meekness that shows God's word: blessed are the meek.
Do you see what I wrote there? There's about a hundred things wrong with making your point like that. That's the kind of thing your uncle says to you over a family dinner. Don't ever go about trying to make a point and convince people that way.
Keep it tight. Don't go off on tangents. Don't base your arguments off sub-points that themselves will serve as points of controversy.
TomCat26 you definitely make good points. I felt like his throwaway feminist statement was a bad idea, and I was able to make the connection he was trying to show with "in the bosom." However, since Samuel was originally written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek (or at least, not English) I would have found a comparison of an original or direct translation more useful then what he did. I think you'd really have to dig deep to determine what was meant in those passages, not just do a "find: bosom" on biblegateway.com. (And I was hoping someone with more Biblical experience than I would do just that, but it might not be worth the effort at this point)
I think we all have to remember that solidscheme is clearly new. (He's making many of the same mistakes I made. Like, linking a video without watching it first )
But, I also think -for this discussion- the bottomline is you can't find God prohibiting polygamy anywhere in the Good Book, while He's pretty clear about other things He doesn't like (See the Ten Commandments). And, He's not very subtle when He comes to punishment (See Sodom and Gomorrah). You don't have to make tenuous connections when He's pissed off and bad things happen; they directly tell you why. This idea that "if you only read it in context" it's "obvious" that "Marrage=oneman&onewoman," is silly. If God wants to condemn something (like shellfish or figs) He (or one of His prophets) comes out and SAYS IT. They're not shy or coy about it; they get bears to maul children about it (2 Kings 2:24).
So, unless I missed the part where Jacob was turned into a pillar of salt (and it explicitly says it was because of polygamy), I think it's clear God doesn't really care.
But, I also think -for this discussion- the bottomline is you can't find God prohibiting polygamy anywhere in the Good Book, while He's pretty clear about other things He doesn't like (See the Ten Commandments).
Or Shellfish. It's pretty clear that shellfish is an abomination, one of the few things I'm 100% in sync with in the Bible.
Or Shellfish. It's pretty clear that shellfish is an abomination, one of the few things I'm 100% in sync with in the Bible.
No it isn't. Kosher dietary laws apply specifically to Jews and Jews alone, not Gentiles. Gentile Christians are not expected to follow Mosaic Law. Furthermore, Jesus is said to have declared all foods clean.
Also, seriously? How do you not like shellfish? You've got to at least like ONE type of shellfish, man.
Or Shellfish. It's pretty clear that shellfish is an abomination, one of the few things I'm 100% in sync with in the Bible.
No it isn't. Kosher dietary laws apply specifically to Jews and Jews alone, not Gentiles. Gentile Christians are not expected to follow Mosaic Law. Furthermore, Jesus is said to have declared all foods clean.
I didn't say Christians couldn't eat it, just that it's pretty clear that God considered it an abomination, which is more than he said about polygamous marriage.
Just because Jesus reversed that ruling doesn't make what the Bible specifically says about it untrue.
These are the ravings of a lunatic and bear zero resemblance to history. Believe me, I had to restrain myself not to write a snarky blow-by-blow of all the places he goes wrong. But that would be a waste of screen space here, because the first problem is not the video's historical accuracy; it's that the video does not even purport to demonstrate that the Anglo-Saxons were the Sons of Isaac. The thesis is, rather, that the rulers of the Roman, Byzantine, and Holy Roman Empires were a continuous dynasty of Africans -- which is bull*****, but more importantly, not relevant to this discussion. So the video appears to be mistitled, and you appear to have linked it without watching it.
God doesn't interfere with the gift of free will he has given mankind, but will allow us to go through the consequences of our actions so that we turn back to him and learn (experience) what we are doing wrong.
Okay, since you seem to have zero interest in historical accuracy or even the authenticity of your own scripture, let's try a different tack:
If God doesn't interfere with the gift of free will he has given mankind, isn't it hubris in the extreme for humans to interfere with it? What right have we to discourage, censure, and punish activity that God himself sees fit to allow? If we were to prevent gay and polygamous marriage, wouldn't that be denying those people the experience of the consequences of their actions? God, you say, wants them to experience these consequences, so by denying that we are thwarting God's will.
1. The game is up. I KNOW Esau's schemes and what he did to hide truth (Psalm 83/ the Renaissance period). Esau trying to rewrite history won't stop The Most High (Psalm 2). Esau was born from Rebekah and Isaac (Genesis 25:25). Those two aren't from Europe. Esau lived in Edom (present-day Petra) and migrated into Chittim (Jasher 60 and 61). Esau/Edom/Idumea (1 Maccabees 1) were doing exactly what Isaac said he would (Genesis 27:35-41/ Jasher 47:1-6). They had the Protestant Church remove the Apocrypha from what King James did( The Biblical destruction group, look it up) because it gave clear understanding of what Esau was doing and is STILL doing on Earth. Verses like this: 2nd Esdras 6:8-9/ Wisdom of Solomon 2. What did prophecy say about Esau? (Malachi 1:1-4/ Obadiah/ Revelation 2:9/ Revelation 3:9). All of the dancing and flipping around truth won't stop it from being revealed. You know what I'm talking about (there's no media to hide behind these days) so don't play coy. Truth doesn't move. As time goes forward you will see it manifest like Spring flowers in full bloom.
America's real name is Arsareth. Ever heard of the Gullah Wars?
1. John 7:24 / 1 Corinthians 6 = You can judge to edify. I know that a lot of people judge by throwing stones though. They will be dealt with in their own specific time if they don't repent.
By making up our own doctrine you mean directly quoting the king james bible, which you believe to be the inerrant word of God? Who now is trying to discredit God?
Also, pro tip: Yelling at your opponents that they are lazy is not a way to win friends and influence people.
FACT: God gave David Saul's wives. God is DIRECTLY causing polygamy.
So if Polygamy is against god's will, and going against god's will is sinning, god is sinning.
No. God didn't give him "wives":
2 Samuel 12:8 - "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
David was to take care of them and provide for themNOT make them his wives. God gave the wives of other men to provide for (old KJV-only):
Luke 16:22 - "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;"
John 1:18 - "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
2 Samuel 12:3 - "But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter."
David had wives because HE decided to do so. God doesn't interfere with the gift of free will he has given mankind, but will allow us to go through the consequences of our actions so that we turn back to him and learn (experience) what we are doing wrong. God doesn't always immediately punish us for our wrong-doing:
Romans 2:4 - "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?"
None can be patient like God. He still gives His blessings hoping that we see His goodness and repent of our wrong deeds.
Romans 5:3-6 - "3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."
Once again:
Ephesians 5:31 - "31 For this cause shall a man(singular) leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife(singular-not wives), and they two(not 3,4 or more-just two) shall be one flesh."
Please read in context. John 3:20 - "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."
Luke 8:17 - "For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
God saw that David went too far and had to confront him when he killed Uriah and took Uriah's wife to be one of his wives. God didn't mention the wives he already took of his own free will, but he mentioned the ones he gave him from others that died to care for. The dispensation of time: Women in THESE days are not anything like they were in old times: Wisdom of Solomon 26. Feminism wasn't mainstream.
I'm about to go on a route I rarely go on. But I think it will help in this case. You remind me of my college roommate Dave. Dave was a good guy, loved sports and people. He went on to become a pastor. Back then I was already a Christian, and the two other guys in the suite were engineers. They were nice folk too, logically minded, and mildly open to the word.
By mildly open to the word, I mean they didn't go out of their way to oppose being taught the bible. But you had to make the case to them.
Some folks will go out of your way just to disagree with you for no reason. That wasn't me nor was it them. You had to be able to make the case, and you had to do so logically cause thats the language they spoke.
Now by logically, I don't mean to say Dave didn't make any sense. He did. But let's just say he was used to being given the benefit of the doubt. Dave was used to talking to Christians in bible study, in church, and most of those folks were kind enough to agree and give Dave the benefit of the doubt when he hadn't tied up all the loose ends in the point he was trying to make.
That's the distinction I'm trying to draw here. There's a difference between talking with people in bible study, Christian friends, family, and having them give you the benefit of the doubt. Most of them are receptive to scripture in the first place.
But that's not the environment you'll face here, and certainly not the rest of the world.
This is the debate forum. Here you have to make a tight case. Most people on this forum won't go out of their way to oppose you for no reason. But they will poke holes in your arguments. Here you can't rely on people's good graces to give you the benefit of the doubt. When you're making a point, point A has to lead to point B pretty clearly.
What do I mean? Here's a few things you do that I wouldn't do.
First of all, your pieces don't connect well at all. Let's look at what you wrote:
Luke 16:22 - "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;"
See...now I'm reading about beggars, and angels. What I'm looking for is stuff on polygamy, something...anything about multiple wives. I see angels, beggars, etc.
So I'm telling you honestly, I don't see how your scripture connects with your main point---which I assume is about Polygamy or David's wives. You didn't do the legwork you needed to in making this connect.
Let's look at your next citation.
John 1:18 - "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
This here doesn't connect either. At face value, the citation is about seeing God. I know you highlighted bosom of the father. But again, its not at all clear what you're trying to connect with. You see once again I'm looking about David's wives, polygamy.
So this is what I see. BOSOM OF THE FATHER = GOD DIDNT GIVE WIVES TO DAVID.
I'm not here to say I believe you, or that I'm against you. I'm just telling you, again, you didn't do the legwork you needed to make your point.
Now you might go ahead and say: well only if you read it in the context will you understand. I want to point out that that's a very bad strategy. You see, you're the one trying to make the point. What if your audience earnestly goes and actually reads the context and they STILL don't understand your point. Then what? You're going to tell them to read it again and again?
No. You need to do more work. Bring the context here. I know thats daunting. But there's gotta be other words in the context which suggest what you're saying. It connects in your mind I know. But you're not making it connect on paper---and that's what you need to do.
Finally, the last point you're making about feminism. Don't do that. I'm not saying you're wrong. And I'm honestly not here to argue with you. What I am saying is when you're making your point---keep things tight. Don't go opening cans of worms.
Let me give you an example.
God blesses the meek. We see how women are so meek and God has blessed them richly. And you know the Chinese? They have a meek attitude. It's part of their culture! and God blesses that too---which is why God has blessed them with wealth. Wealth is a sign of God's favor and its the Chinese meekness that shows God's word: blessed are the meek.
Do you see what I wrote there? There's about a hundred things wrong with making your point like that. That's the kind of thing your uncle says to you over a family dinner. Don't ever go about trying to make a point and convince people that way.
Keep it tight. Don't go off on tangents. Don't base your arguments off sub-points that themselves will serve as points of controversy.
Cognitive Dissonance
1 Corinthians 14:33
Why not just do what you know you want to do? Why drag The Almighty into man's philosophy? I already showed what happened to the households of those with multiple wives and that David had the free will to commit sin AND the women given by The Almighty were without AND David was far wealthy enough to take care of them, but you want to try to find a loophole so you can do something (I'm not sure what) without a guilty conscience. I love you (even if you hate me) and will pray that you see the truth of the Lord and turn to Him. The sin we keep around (because The Lord took it with him to the grave) leads to death.
John 16:33 - "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."
1 Corinthians 10:13 - "13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."
Isaiah 45:7 - " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
Revelation 1:18 -"18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."
I already showed what happened to the households of those with multiple wives
One guy became the founder of an entire nation and is the revered ancestor of the Jewish people!
But you didn't address the issue of how awesome Jacob was rewarded despite having the "crime" of multiple wives the first two times I've said it, why would you start now?
I love you (even if you hate me) and will pray that you see the truth of the Lord and turn to Him.
If the truth of the Lord is truth and your posts are filled with complete nonsense, then what should we make of that?
These are the ravings of a lunatic and bear zero resemblance to history. Believe me, I had to restrain myself not to write a snarky blow-by-blow of all the places he goes wrong. But that would be a waste of screen space here, because the first problem is not the video's historical accuracy; it's that the video does not even purport to demonstrate that the Anglo-Saxons were the Sons of Isaac. The thesis is, rather, that the rulers of the Roman, Byzantine, and Holy Roman Empires were a continuous dynasty of Africans -- which is bull*****, but more importantly, not relevant to this discussion. So the video appears to be mistitled, and you appear to have linked it without watching it.
God doesn't interfere with the gift of free will he has given mankind, but will allow us to go through the consequences of our actions so that we turn back to him and learn (experience) what we are doing wrong.
Okay, since you seem to have zero interest in historical accuracy or even the authenticity of your own scripture, let's try a different tack:
If God doesn't interfere with the gift of free will he has given mankind, isn't it hubris in the extreme for humans to interfere with it? What right have we to discourage, censure, and punish activity that God himself sees fit to allow? If we were to prevent gay and polygamous marriage, wouldn't that be denying those people the experience of the consequences of their actions? God, you say, wants them to experience these consequences, so by denying that we are thwarting God's will.
1. The game is up. I KNOW Esau's schemes and what he did to hide truth (Psalm 83/ the Renaissance period). Esau trying to rewrite history won't stop The Most High (Psalm 2). Esau was born from Rebekah and Isaac (Genesis 25:25). Those two aren't from Europe. Esau lived in Edom (present-day Petra) and migrated into Chittim (Jasher 60 and 61). Esau/Edom/Idumea (1 Maccabees 1) were doing exactly what Isaac said he would (Genesis 27:35-41/ Jasher 47:1-6). They had the Protestant Church remove the Apocrypha from what King James did( The Biblical destruction group, look it up) because it gave clear understanding of what Esau was doing and is STILL doing on Earth. Verses like this: 2nd Esdras 6:8-9/ Wisdom of Solomon 2. What did prophecy say about Esau? (Malachi 1:1-4/ Obadiah/ Revelation 2:9/ Revelation 3:9). All of the dancing and flipping around truth won't stop it from being revealed. You know what I'm talking about (there's no media to hide behind these days) so don't play coy. Truth doesn't move. As time goes forward you will see it manifest like Spring flowers in full bloom.
So one of these books is about there being no scientific difference between caucasion people and black people. The other is about the fact that King James was James the sixth of scotland and James the first of Britain and I have no idea what on earth you think they mean. I can, at this point, only assume you are a troll or extremely confused.
Also, America isn't Arsareth, because there aren't enough orcs and goblins. Although I guess a lot of the servers for it are located in America.
America's real name is Arsareth. Ever heard of the Gullah Wars?
I am going to leave a wild tangent of semantics and then run away...
In regards to Genesis 2:24-25...The gender roles for 'Husband' and 'Wife' are not defined. It seems to want to set up a monogamous system, but no gender roles are established...more like job descriptions for the person holding the title 'Husband' and the person holding the title 'Wife'.
That is all.
EDIT: I guess one gender role is mostly established...man to his wife...but that passage nowhere says the wife cannot be a man. Although, it could be using 'man' in the generic sense (since English has no gender neutral pronoun) and mean human.
America's real name is Arsareth. Ever heard of the Gullah Wars?
You mean Arzareth.
(For those who don't get the references, "Arzareth" is the land that the 10 lost tribes of Israel fled to, according to the bible. This land has never been found, or further referenced to.)
Are you referring to Native Americans? Native American history, archaeology, and even DNA testing shows that the Native Americans are not of jewish descent. The only thing that could possibly give any evidence to this theory is the Newark Holy Stones - which are obviously a hoax and shown as such even when discovered (the first stone discovered had modern hebrew writing, even though it was "found in an ancient burial ground". After proven a hoax, the same person "found" ones written more correctly).
If you are referring to the Gullah/Geechee people, as your "Gullah Wars" infers, than you are suggesting that the lost tribes of israel fled to Angola, and were then kidnapped and forced into slavery thousands of years later by slave ships? That would make Angola the Arzareth, as that would be the land they actually fled to during biblical times.
Yes, a few people long ago, including Columbus, conjectured that America could be Arzareth (as did most explorers who found new areas at the time - "Where is Arzareth?" was a huge topic in the grand explorer days). There is 0 evidence that this is the case, and there is, in fact, a huge amount of evidence that discredits this as a possibility.
Also, what does this have to do with how you believe God defines marriage?
Or Shellfish. It's pretty clear that shellfish is an abomination, one of the few things I'm 100% in sync with in the Bible.
No it isn't. Kosher dietary laws apply specifically to Jews and Jews alone, not Gentiles. Gentile Christians are not expected to follow Mosaic Law. Furthermore, Jesus is said to have declared all foods clean.
Also, seriously? How do you not like shellfish? You've got to at least like ONE type of shellfish, man.
Are you comfortable in believing that the mosaic law of do not murder also does not apply to Christians? I will admit that the views on what role the Mosaic laws should have in a Christians life is as wide as the lord's mercy but to claim that none of it applies seems to trivialize a very important and complicated matter in Christianity.
The real question is, who cares what the bible says? The US government is, supposedly, separate from religious institutions. Yeah, marriage is a word associated with religion, but words can have multiple meanings based on the context in which they are used. So, the government allows gay marriage. Stop trying to turn this into a theocratic government. It's obnoxious, dangerous, and overall just a bad idea.
The real question is, who cares what the bible says? The US government is, supposedly, separate from religious institutions. Yeah, marriage is a word associated with religion, but words can have multiple meanings based on the context in which they are used. So, the government allows gay marriage. Stop trying to turn this into an theocratic government. It's obnoxious, dangerous, and overall just a bad idea.
This ^. Keep religion eithor in your own house or the Church, Mosque or Temple (or wherever you worship) and seperate from the government.
Are you comfortable in believing that the mosaic law of do not murder also does not apply to Christians? I will admit that the views on what role the Mosaic laws should have in a Christians life is as wide as the lord's mercy but to claim that none of it applies seems to trivialize a very important and complicated matter in Christianity.
You would benefit from actually reading the Bible sometime. This is explained in it.
What exactly is the point of this thread? Do you want to prove that Christians should abolish gay marriage because the bible says so? Even if you could prove that (which you seem to be failing to achieve), whats your end game? All you would have proven is that the bible says some pretty hurtful and hateful stuff that serves no purpose beyond causing pain to hard working/ law abiding citizens.
Don't you have something better you could be doing as a Christian? Perhaps feeding the homeless or assisting the sick and elderly? Maybe you should be spreading the word of God's love instead of his Hate. Do you know what other groups of people like to spread the word of God's hate and judgement instead of his love and acceptance? Nazi's, Isis, and Satanist's....just sayin.
Are you comfortable in believing that the mosaic law of do not murder also does not apply to Christians? I will admit that the views on what role the Mosaic laws should have in a Christians life is as wide as the lord's mercy but to claim that none of it applies seems to trivialize a very important and complicated matter in Christianity.
You would benefit from actually reading the Bible sometime. This is explained in it.
I'm actually pretty sure that the bible verse you are thinking of is this one. but there is also this verse that seems to indicate that Jesus did not come to invalidate the Jewish laws but to make them perfect.
@jynxed
Exactly. And that is how it should be. Religious beliefs are not facts, they should not decide how society operates. If people want to believe them, that's their decision others are entitled to their own opinion and society shouldn't encroach on them with the personal beliefs of others.
What exactly is the point of this thread? Do you want to prove that Christians should abolish gay marriage because the bible says so? Even if you could prove that (which you seem to be failing to achieve), whats your end game? All you would have proven is that the bible says some pretty hurtful and hateful stuff that serves no purpose beyond causing pain to hard working/ law abiding citizens.
The real question is, who cares what the bible says? The US government is, supposedly, separate from religious institutions. Yeah, marriage is a word associated with religion, but words can have multiple meanings based on the context in which they are used. So, the government allows gay marriage. Stop trying to turn this into a theocratic government. It's obnoxious, dangerous, and overall just a bad idea.
@jynxed Exactly. And that is how it should be. Religious beliefs are not facts, they should not decide how society operates. If people want to believe them, that's their decision others are entitled to their own opinion and society shouldn't encroach on them with the personal beliefs of others.
This thread isn't about public policy, and I don't think it was the direction the OP wanted the discussion to go (and he's pushing it deep into esoteric-ville, I mean 'Arzareth?' wut?) . Anyway, so far, you're the only ones that have brought public policy up. Literally no one here has proposed there should be any coloration between the Biblical definition and the legal definition of "marriage."
We are simply discussing what the Biblical definition is. If you find that particular piece of knowledge uninteresting, I think you're on the wrong thread.
Policy is relevant here because this thread was clearly created in response to this thread, which the OP of this thread commented in until it got locked for being a necro. That thread opened by saying
No. God didn't give him "wives":
2 Samuel 12:8 - "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
David was to take care of them and provide for themNOT make them his wives. God gave the wives of other men to provide for (old KJV-only):
Luke 16:22 - "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;"
John 1:18 - "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
2 Samuel 12:3 - "But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter."
David had wives because HE decided to do so. God doesn't interfere with the gift of free will he has given mankind, but will allow us to go through the consequences of our actions so that we turn back to him and learn (experience) what we are doing wrong. God doesn't always immediately punish us for our wrong-doing:
Romans 2:4 - "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?"
None can be patient like God. He still gives His blessings hoping that we see His goodness and repent of our wrong deeds.
Romans 5:3-6 - "3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."
Once again:
Ephesians 5:31 - "31 For this cause shall a man(singular) leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife(singular-not wives), and they two(not 3,4 or more-just two) shall be one flesh."
Please read in context.
John 3:20 - "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."
Luke 8:17 - "For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad."
God saw that David went too far and had to confront him when he killed Uriah and took Uriah's wife to be one of his wives. God didn't mention the wives he already took of his own free will, but he mentioned the ones he gave him from others that died to care for. The dispensation of time: Women in THESE days are not anything like they were in old times: Wisdom of Solomon 26. Feminism wasn't mainstream.
Okay, since you seem to have zero interest in historical accuracy or even the authenticity of your own scripture, let's try a different tack:
If God doesn't interfere with the gift of free will he has given mankind, isn't it hubris in the extreme for humans to interfere with it? What right have we to discourage, censure, and punish activity that God himself sees fit to allow? If we were to prevent gay and polygamous marriage, wouldn't that be denying those people the experience of the consequences of their actions? God, you say, wants them to experience these consequences, so by denying that we are thwarting God's will.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Isn't pride a funny thing?
Once again, Jacob had multiple wives. Jacob was the founder of Israel. Your move.
I'm about to go on a route I rarely go on. But I think it will help in this case. You remind me of my college roommate Dave. Dave was a good guy, loved sports and people. He went on to become a pastor. Back then I was already a Christian, and the two other guys in the suite were engineers. They were nice folk too, logically minded, and mildly open to the word.
By mildly open to the word, I mean they didn't go out of their way to oppose being taught the bible. But you had to make the case to them.
Some folks will go out of your way just to disagree with you for no reason. That wasn't me nor was it them. You had to be able to make the case, and you had to do so logically cause thats the language they spoke.
Now by logically, I don't mean to say Dave didn't make any sense. He did. But let's just say he was used to being given the benefit of the doubt. Dave was used to talking to Christians in bible study, in church, and most of those folks were kind enough to agree and give Dave the benefit of the doubt when he hadn't tied up all the loose ends in the point he was trying to make.
That's the distinction I'm trying to draw here. There's a difference between talking with people in bible study, Christian friends, family, and having them give you the benefit of the doubt. Most of them are receptive to scripture in the first place.
But that's not the environment you'll face here, and certainly not the rest of the world.
This is the debate forum. Here you have to make a tight case. Most people on this forum won't go out of their way to oppose you for no reason. But they will poke holes in your arguments. Here you can't rely on people's good graces to give you the benefit of the doubt. When you're making a point, point A has to lead to point B pretty clearly.
What do I mean? Here's a few things you do that I wouldn't do.
First of all, your pieces don't connect well at all. Let's look at what you wrote:
Luke 16:22 - "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;"
See...now I'm reading about beggars, and angels. What I'm looking for is stuff on polygamy, something...anything about multiple wives. I see angels, beggars, etc.
So I'm telling you honestly, I don't see how your scripture connects with your main point---which I assume is about Polygamy or David's wives. You didn't do the legwork you needed to in making this connect.
Let's look at your next citation.
John 1:18 - "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
This here doesn't connect either. At face value, the citation is about seeing God. I know you highlighted bosom of the father. But again, its not at all clear what you're trying to connect with. You see once again I'm looking about David's wives, polygamy.
So this is what I see. BOSOM OF THE FATHER = GOD DIDNT GIVE WIVES TO DAVID.
I'm not here to say I believe you, or that I'm against you. I'm just telling you, again, you didn't do the legwork you needed to make your point.
Now you might go ahead and say: well only if you read it in the context will you understand. I want to point out that that's a very bad strategy. You see, you're the one trying to make the point. What if your audience earnestly goes and actually reads the context and they STILL don't understand your point. Then what? You're going to tell them to read it again and again?
No. You need to do more work. Bring the context here. I know thats daunting. But there's gotta be other words in the context which suggest what you're saying. It connects in your mind I know. But you're not making it connect on paper---and that's what you need to do.
Finally, the last point you're making about feminism. Don't do that. I'm not saying you're wrong. And I'm honestly not here to argue with you. What I am saying is when you're making your point---keep things tight. Don't go opening cans of worms.
Let me give you an example.
God blesses the meek. We see how women are so meek and God has blessed them richly. And you know the Chinese? They have a meek attitude. It's part of their culture! and God blesses that too---which is why God has blessed them with wealth. Wealth is a sign of God's favor and its the Chinese meekness that shows God's word: blessed are the meek.
Do you see what I wrote there? There's about a hundred things wrong with making your point like that. That's the kind of thing your uncle says to you over a family dinner. Don't ever go about trying to make a point and convince people that way.
Keep it tight. Don't go off on tangents. Don't base your arguments off sub-points that themselves will serve as points of controversy.
I think we all have to remember that solidscheme is clearly new. (He's making many of the same mistakes I made. Like, linking a video without watching it first )
But, I also think -for this discussion- the bottomline is you can't find God prohibiting polygamy anywhere in the Good Book, while He's pretty clear about other things He doesn't like (See the Ten Commandments). And, He's not very subtle when He comes to punishment (See Sodom and Gomorrah). You don't have to make tenuous connections when He's pissed off and bad things happen; they directly tell you why. This idea that "if you only read it in context" it's "obvious" that "Marrage=oneman&onewoman," is silly. If God wants to condemn something (like shellfish or figs) He (or one of His prophets) comes out and SAYS IT. They're not shy or coy about it; they get bears to maul children about it (2 Kings 2:24).
So, unless I missed the part where Jacob was turned into a pillar of salt (and it explicitly says it was because of polygamy), I think it's clear God doesn't really care.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Also, seriously? How do you not like shellfish? You've got to at least like ONE type of shellfish, man.
Just because Jesus reversed that ruling doesn't make what the Bible specifically says about it untrue.
I can eat some crab meat, but in very small doses. Shrimp if it's breaded and fried. I'm generally not a fan of seafood in general.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
1. The game is up. I KNOW Esau's schemes and what he did to hide truth (Psalm 83/ the Renaissance period). Esau trying to rewrite history won't stop The Most High (Psalm 2). Esau was born from Rebekah and Isaac (Genesis 25:25). Those two aren't from Europe. Esau lived in Edom (present-day Petra) and migrated into Chittim (Jasher 60 and 61). Esau/Edom/Idumea (1 Maccabees 1) were doing exactly what Isaac said he would (Genesis 27:35-41/ Jasher 47:1-6). They had the Protestant Church remove the Apocrypha from what King James did( The Biblical destruction group, look it up) because it gave clear understanding of what Esau was doing and is STILL doing on Earth. Verses like this: 2nd Esdras 6:8-9/ Wisdom of Solomon 2. What did prophecy say about Esau? (Malachi 1:1-4/ Obadiah/ Revelation 2:9/ Revelation 3:9). All of the dancing and flipping around truth won't stop it from being revealed. You know what I'm talking about (there's no media to hide behind these days) so don't play coy. Truth doesn't move. As time goes forward you will see it manifest like Spring flowers in full bloom.
http://www.amazon.com/Reunion-Christendom-Cambridge-Studies-British/dp/0521793858
http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Knows-No-Color-Line-Research/dp/0960229450/ref=pd_sim_14_2/180-5149813-2884250?ie=UTF8&refRID=1DWGXVSDH7V2NQ20RJFA
America's real name is Arsareth. Ever heard of the Gullah Wars?
1. John 7:24 / 1 Corinthians 6 = You can judge to edify. I know that a lot of people judge by throwing stones though. They will be dealt with in their own specific time if they don't repent.
Cognitive Dissonance
1 Corinthians 14:33
Why not just do what you know you want to do? Why drag The Almighty into man's philosophy? I already showed what happened to the households of those with multiple wives and that David had the free will to commit sin AND the women given by The Almighty were without AND David was far wealthy enough to take care of them, but you want to try to find a loophole so you can do something (I'm not sure what) without a guilty conscience. I love you (even if you hate me) and will pray that you see the truth of the Lord and turn to Him. The sin we keep around (because The Lord took it with him to the grave) leads to death.
John 16:33 - "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."
1 Corinthians 10:13 - "13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."
Isaiah 45:7 - " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
Revelation 1:18 -"18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."
"for God is a God not of disorder but of peace.
(As in all the churches of the saints,"
Erm... What is the purpose behind this quote?
[Source: Oremus Bible Browser]
One guy became the founder of an entire nation and is the revered ancestor of the Jewish people!
But you didn't address the issue of how awesome Jacob was rewarded despite having the "crime" of multiple wives the first two times I've said it, why would you start now?
If the truth of the Lord is truth and your posts are filled with complete nonsense, then what should we make of that?
So one of these books is about there being no scientific difference between caucasion people and black people. The other is about the fact that King James was James the sixth of scotland and James the first of Britain and I have no idea what on earth you think they mean. I can, at this point, only assume you are a troll or extremely confused.
Also, America isn't Arsareth, because there aren't enough orcs and goblins. Although I guess a lot of the servers for it are located in America.
America's real name is Arsareth. Ever heard of the Gullah Wars?
In regards to Genesis 2:24-25...The gender roles for 'Husband' and 'Wife' are not defined. It seems to want to set up a monogamous system, but no gender roles are established...more like job descriptions for the person holding the title 'Husband' and the person holding the title 'Wife'.
That is all.
EDIT: I guess one gender role is mostly established...man to his wife...but that passage nowhere says the wife cannot be a man. Although, it could be using 'man' in the generic sense (since English has no gender neutral pronoun) and mean human.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
convert bulk into good cards? PucaTrade - https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/21195
Ebay - decks/Promos/DVDs
Trade thread (constantly updated)
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/337-pokerbob1s-casual-trading-emporium
(For those who don't get the references, "Arzareth" is the land that the 10 lost tribes of Israel fled to, according to the bible. This land has never been found, or further referenced to.)
Are you referring to Native Americans? Native American history, archaeology, and even DNA testing shows that the Native Americans are not of jewish descent. The only thing that could possibly give any evidence to this theory is the Newark Holy Stones - which are obviously a hoax and shown as such even when discovered (the first stone discovered had modern hebrew writing, even though it was "found in an ancient burial ground". After proven a hoax, the same person "found" ones written more correctly).
If you are referring to the Gullah/Geechee people, as your "Gullah Wars" infers, than you are suggesting that the lost tribes of israel fled to Angola, and were then kidnapped and forced into slavery thousands of years later by slave ships? That would make Angola the Arzareth, as that would be the land they actually fled to during biblical times.
Yes, a few people long ago, including Columbus, conjectured that America could be Arzareth (as did most explorers who found new areas at the time - "Where is Arzareth?" was a huge topic in the grand explorer days). There is 0 evidence that this is the case, and there is, in fact, a huge amount of evidence that discredits this as a possibility.
Also, what does this have to do with how you believe God defines marriage?
No longer staff here.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Are you comfortable in believing that the mosaic law of do not murder also does not apply to Christians? I will admit that the views on what role the Mosaic laws should have in a Christians life is as wide as the lord's mercy but to claim that none of it applies seems to trivialize a very important and complicated matter in Christianity.
Edit: Spelling error. an > a
This ^. Keep religion eithor in your own house or the Church, Mosque or Temple (or wherever you worship) and seperate from the government.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Don't you have something better you could be doing as a Christian? Perhaps feeding the homeless or assisting the sick and elderly? Maybe you should be spreading the word of God's love instead of his Hate. Do you know what other groups of people like to spread the word of God's hate and judgement instead of his love and acceptance? Nazi's, Isis, and Satanist's....just sayin.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
I'm actually pretty sure that the bible verse you are thinking of is this one. but there is also this verse that seems to indicate that Jesus did not come to invalidate the Jewish laws but to make them perfect.
Exactly. And that is how it should be. Religious beliefs are not facts, they should not decide how society operates. If people want to believe them, that's their decision others are entitled to their own opinion and society shouldn't encroach on them with the personal beliefs of others.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
We are simply discussing what the Biblical definition is. If you find that particular piece of knowledge uninteresting, I think you're on the wrong thread.
I'm sure all people likely could be doing something better than posting on a forum. I don't know why you're leveling this only at Christians.
which was clearly a condemnation of people trying to affect policy using the "biblical defintion of marriage" as their basis.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!