Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The same could be said of probably 200 of the 215 posts in this thread. Yet, you choose only to respond thusly to this one.
Yeah, completely odd that I would respond to the thread starter about the hundreds of thread's created to which they made another. I mean, it is so complicated it makes the head spin! /boggle
On that note, if government must be involved, then why aren't homosexuals inclined to lobby for civil unions instead? Afterall, the only reason they want to be married to begin with is for the $$$$$. Preserve the man/woman marriage tradition and go for what you're really after..........
First, you should have said, "If the government must be involved, it needs to be fair." The government chose to involve itself in marriage when it decided to grant special privileges to married couples, etc. Civil unions are not the same at all, as they lack any of those federal benefits and are only valid in the few states that have recognized them.
Second, by limiting marriage to only heterosexuals couples, it clearly creates a second class status, and nothing like this has ever stood the test of history.
Third, man/woman marriage will remain regardless of what happens with homosexual relationships. This has always been the dumbest argument of all. Heterosexual marriage will not disappear, it will not lose its importance to those entering those unions. They are not threatened.
Finally, to suggest that homosexuals only want to get married for the money, yet clearly think all heterosexual unions are pure of heart is just ridiculous and is a lame attempt at demonizing gays in order to bolster your own discomfort with the idea of them marrying.
Given the antonymic pair of there being a personal creator that is intelligent and created it all, or a non-personal creator that is not intelligent and it just "popped" into existence, if we can disprove one the other is automatically correct.
Since a non-personal creator is impossible (if the necessary cause existed it would have occurred earlier and the universe would have been run down by now)...we know that the personal creator has to exist--and had to have arbitrarily chosen to create it at the time he did.
Give me one then, please.
No...I really don't. The fact that without a creator we have an infinite regression proves my point.
I would suggest checking that out. Basically, if both necessary and sufficient cause are present, the event automatically occurs. If the cause was non-personal, it would have happened immediately. The fact that it didn't indicates a personal creator who chose to cause it at the time he did. This is a bit heady, so I understand if you're not able to get it.
Nah...don't think so. It's caused causality.
How about the fact that any others have been disproven?
Give me a viable alternative option. I haven't seen you give a reasonable explanation. You've pretended to be the smartest guy in the room, but you really haven't explained how we all got here without being caused.
Getting a bit off topic, but here goes...
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,†Hawking writes.
“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.â€
No, but seriously. Please give me a passage that claims ownership of women outside of historical cultural contexts?
The Bible was written by physical people in a cultural time, and has to be read as such. If you want to know the true Biblical relationship intended between a man and wife, read this:
From Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
A husband is to love his wife'as Christ loved the church. The meaning of this is to love your wife to the extend where you would die to protect her. A husband is to be 'united to his wife'. Not in ownership, but in equality. In turn, the wife submits to a husband who treats her as she is more important than his own life. She gives herself to him as a half of an equal relationship.
Look - I understand that the Bible is complex, and picking one or two verses out of context as you did can create false illusions, however the old testament was written in a specific time in history in a specific context, and to read and quote those such verses without contextual and historical references is misleading, at best.
How bizarre.
So apparently it's okay for you to pick verses out of their historical and cultural contexts, but not him? Why?
The NT was also written in a specific time in history in a specific context.
This is the 21st century... Would you seriously expect your wife to "submit" to you?
Under the pre-socialist common law, a marriage was a joining of the property rights of two families for the benefit of progeny - that joining of two that no man can put asunder.
Post socialism, marriage has become superfluous. (No property rights to join)
Since the main beneficiary of marriage is the progeny emitted from said marriage, a homosexual marriage is a nullity (*unless gene splicing allows progeny from both parents).
So apparently it's okay for you to pick verses out of their historical and cultural contexts, but not him? Why?
The NT was also written in a specific time in history in a specific context.
This is the 21st century... Would you seriously expect your wife to "submit" to you?
I was reading and interpreting those verses in their cultural context, whereas the previous poster was not.
In a literal translation of Ephesians 5:22, it states "Wives to their own husbands as to the Lord". The word 'submit' never appears in this passage, it was added to aid in reading the text in English when it was translated. When it WAS translated, 'submit' wasn't the dirty word that it is today. By the literal meaning I have put in bold, it is simply meant that a wife treats her husband with respect (and listens to her husband) in the way she would listen to someone who was willing to die for her rather than see her undergo any harm. It is not submission in the modern english translation of the word. I am not married yet, however when I am I will not expect my wife to 'submit' to me in the way you use the word. I will treat my wife as she is the most important person in the world, and I will do whatever I can to keep her from experiencing any pain or suffering in any way. In return, I will expect her to consider my opinion and love me the way you would love a person who treats her as such.
I hope this helps clarify. It it does not, let me know and I will dive into it a little deeper.
I was reading and interpreting those verses in their cultural context, whereas the previous poster was not.
In a literal translation of Ephesians 5:22, it states "Wives to their own husbands as to the Lord". The word 'submit' never appears in this passage, it was added to aid in reading the text in English when it was translated. When it WAS translated, 'submit' wasn't the dirty word that it is today. By the literal meaning I have put in bold, it is simply meant that a wife treats her husband with respect (and listens to her husband) in the way she would listen to someone who was willing to die for her rather than see her undergo any harm. It is not submission in the modern english translation of the word. I am not married yet, however when I am I will not expect my wife to 'submit' to me in the way you use the word. I will treat my wife as she is the most important person in the world, and I will do whatever I can to keep her from experiencing any pain or suffering in any way. In return, I will expect her to consider my opinion and love me the way you would love a person who treats her as such.
I hope this helps clarify. It it does not, let me know and I will dive into it a little deeper.
Apparently you know very little about the culture and the status of women in the first century.
Apparently you know very little about the culture and the status of women in the first century.
Can you please elaborate on this in the context of the Biblical passages we were discussing? The Bible's explanation of the roles of men and women in marriage was different than the purely cultural context. If that were not the case, it would not have been written about in the letters which appear in the new testament.
Can you please elaborate, but this time in context of culture and the text, rather than simply culture alone? With all due respect, I am looking for something more substantial than one line, offhand comments which do not take the text of the Bible into question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
