Gay Marriage (leader, federal government, federal, homosexuals)

[madicarus2000]

[quote=wildberries61;322565] You can try to find any sick way to interpret the Bible if you are a non-believer or trying to find fault with the Bible.

Non-believers will take any strange verse from the Bible and instead of finding the meaning find it easier to deny the Only book that proclaims God's name[/ QUOTE]

So it is only non-believers who find “sick ways” to interpret the bible? There are no believers who interpret it their own way to support their “beliefs” or “understanding”?

[quote=wildberries61;322565] You can decide for yourself. Some people like the Bible to read the way they want too see and hear it, and others take it at face value and others decide by not understanding a few parts of the Bible[/ QUOTE]

I thought we weren’t supposed to decide for ourselves because we may come up with some “sick” interpretation. I thought you said in another post that only preachers and scholars can. What happens when they have different interpretations? Who is right then?

[PrettyHateMachine]

Originally Posted by wildberries61

You can try to find any sick way to interpret the Bible if you are a non-believer or trying to find fault with the Bible. madicarus was using the verse to show women had NO Rights. These verses were meant to show authority for God through man. The Bible tells believers women are responsible to their husbands and the husband is responsible to Christ and Christ is responsible to God. Not, dog commands.
Non-believers will take any strange verse from the Bible and instead of finding the meaning find it easier to deny the Only book that proclaims God's name.

You can twist it anyway you like. If interpreting certain verses to suit your ideology makes you sleep at night, fine. It stills sounds like dog commands to me. I say if you're going to follow the book, then follow the whole book and not some of it. I will not blindly follow a book written by pigs.

I don't know how any woman could take this book seriously.

[wildberries61]

[quote=madicarus2000;322792][quote=wildberries61;322565] You can try to find any sick way to interpret the Bible if you are a non-believer or trying to find fault with the Bible.

Non-believers will take any strange verse from the Bible and instead of finding the meaning find it easier to deny the Only book that proclaims God's name[/ QUOTE]

So it is only non-believers who find “sick ways” to interpret the bible? There are no believers who interpret it their own way to support their “beliefs” or “understanding”?

Originally Posted by wildberries61

You can decide for yourself. Some people like the Bible to read the way they want too see and hear it, and others take it at face value and others decide by not understanding a few parts of the Bible[/ QUOT

I thought we weren’t supposed to decide for ourselves because we may come up with some “sick” interpretation. I thought you said in another post that only preachers and scholars can. What happens when they have different interpretations? Who is right then?

madicarus, you can elaborate on sick or fault but, I see you chose sick to make it look like most people find sick ways and I didn't say ALL CHRISTIANS THINK alike. Catholics are Christians but, I am far from the Catholic belief so remember when you say Christians we are NOT ALL the same!!!

YOU were using verses in your own referencing not, trying to show understanding of the Bible but, to blast it. So, you took some verses and twisted them to prove your own idea.

Those verse have nothing to do with women's rights. Also, this conversation was not even mentioning the Bible except from the poster and then, you come along and use verses that had nothing to do with homosexuals or women having no rights.

What I meant by preachers and scholars was you should to at lest get the interpretation rather then, use the Bible to blast believers with wrong interpretation and saying something that is not true to non-believers.

[wildberries61]

Originally Posted by PrettyHateMachine

You can twist it anyway you like. If interpreting certain verses to suit your ideology makes you sleep at night, fine. It stills sounds like dog commands to me. I say if you're going to follow the book, then follow the whole book and not some of it. I will not blindly follow a book written by pigs.

I don't know how any woman could take this book seriously.

There was nothing mentioned about following the whole book or not. It was rather do you believe the whole book or not!! I said" there are things you might not understand seek and you shall find or not all is for me to understand.

Dog Commands then, you have never read the Bible to understand it. It's tough to debate with one of little knowledge of the Bible because, they tend to tell you things that are not written in the BOOK.

Pigs AH!! Well, from what I have read most other religions respected Moses,David, and others. These were not just men they were choosen men.

[PrettyHateMachine]

Originally Posted by wildberries61

Pigs AH!! Well, from what I have read most other religions respected Moses,David, and others. These were not just men they were choosen men.

That's not saying much. But like I said if it works for you, great.

[madicarus2000]

Originally Posted by wildberries61

madicarus, you can elaborate on sick or fault but, I see you chose sick to make it look like most people find sick ways and I didn't say ALL CHRISTIANS THINK alike. Catholics are Christians but, I am far from the Catholic belief so remember when you say Christians we are NOT ALL the same!!!

So if they all don’t think alike and claim they are Christians and have different interpretations of the bible, who is right? If even Christians can’t come to a complete agreement, then why should people use this book to legislate morality on others. I didn’t come up with those verses nor am I the only person (believers and non-believers included) who interprets it that way.

Originally Posted by wildberries61

YOU were using verses in your own referencing not, trying to show understanding of the Bible but, to blast it. So, you took some verses and twisted them to prove your own idea.

Why havent you addressed any of Marks posts when he post the passages from the bible? He’s also giving his interpretation. He’s taking a literal interpreation and you don’t seem to object by your silence of it. But you object to all mine. Is it because you agree to the literal text against homosexuality but regarding womans rights “there’s a correct interpretation”?

Where is the page in the bible that says “this is how you interpret the passages”? I didn’t twist them, I took them out of the bible as they were written and used the Christian Fundamentalist method of strict interpretation of “that’s what the bible says”.

Originally Posted by wildberries61

Those verse have nothing to do with women's rights. Also, this conversation was not even mentioning the Bible except from the poster and then, you come along and use verses that had nothing to do with homosexuals or women having no rights.

This conversation was about rights and the major objection to gay marriages is the religious view that it is wrong. Where do they get that view, from the bible. That was always underlying the conversation and I brought it up. The root cause against it is traced back to the bible and people’s literal interpration of the passage. So if they choose a literal interpretation, then so am I.

Originally Posted by wildberries61

What I meant by preachers and scholars was you should to at lest get the interpretation rather then, use the Bible to blast believers with wrong interpretation and saying something that is not true to non-believers.

I do read other religious scholars bible interpretation. You should see my library of books. However even between religious scholars you find too many interpretations. So you follow your interpretation that that makes you happy and and I’ll follow mine that irritates you.

[madicarus2000]

Originally Posted by wildberries61

Pigs AH!! Well, from what I have read most other religions respected Moses,David, and others. These were not just men they were choosen men.

So they only respected the men and not the women? And only chosen men? No chosen women? Or is it because women were still second class in the bible? Or as you put it in another post “The Bible tells believers women are responsible to their husbands”. So they would eventually become a man’s responsibility so they can’t be “choosen”.

Ok, so can you provide me the interpretation of the following text from Genesis?

3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Now keep in mind as I read the passage I keep thinking of your quote "The Bible tells believers women are responsible to their husbands".

[wildberries61]

QUOTE=madicarus2000;323773]So if they all don’t think alike and claim they are Christians and have different interpretations of the bible, who is right? If even Christians can’t come to a complete agreement, then why should people use this book to legislate morality on others. I didn’t come up with those verses nor am I the only person (believers and non-believers included) who interprets it that way.

madicarus, people like you are so,funny.There are Catholics,Lutheran, Evangelical,Mormon,Southern Baptist must I go on. Each one claims to be Christians and each one preaches in their churches in different ways and most do not agree with the others teachings. So yes, you decide which, church you feel does the best interpretation of the Bible and follow that teaching.

Why havent you addressed any of Marks posts when he post the passages from the bible? He’s also giving his interpretation. He’s taking a literal interpreation and you don’t seem to object by your silence of it. But you object to all mine. Is it because you agree to the literal text against homosexuality but regarding womans rights “there’s a correct interpretation”?

I have been answering you and PrettyHat How much time do you think I have too sit here and debate with everyone!! As far as homosexuality I really don't judge people on this even though it does say it very clear in the KJV. I have had friends and a family member being gay so, who am I to judge people on their personal life.

Where is the page in the bible that says “this is how you interpret the passages”? I didn’t twist them, I took them out of the bible as they were written and used the Christian Fundamentalist method of strict interpretation of “that’s what the bible says”.

Women did not have the rights of today's women but, some of the women were the most faithful and God used them in big ways that is whats important. Readers tend to miss the point with women in the Bible God used them and showed their faithfulness to HIM.

This conversation was about rights and the major objection to gay marriages is the religious view that it is wrong. Where do they get that view, from the bible. That was always underlying the conversation and I brought it up. The root cause against it is traced back to the bible and people’s literal interpration of the passage. So if they choose a literal interpretation, then so am I.

I feel most, felt that religion was underlying but, were trying to avoid the conflict and trying to get answers without religion involved. Everyone knows if you bring religion in to this conversation someone would have to point it out were it tells you in THE BIBLE. I think that's were they didn't want it to go.

I do read other religious scholars bible interpretation. You should see my library of books. However even between religious scholars you find too many interpretations. So you follow your interpretation that that makes you happy and I’ll follow mine that irritates you.[/quote]

Exactly, too many interpretations and maybe, reading so many books hasn't helped you to find a stand. How can you possibly follow so, many peoples words and ideas of God. I just find the preachers and scholars that most interest me and go with it. I really don't try to find anything that would tell me theres no God. I know that God is all good and if someone is to tell me different then, naturally I don't want too listen.
You don't irritate me, I just find it strange when people don't appreciate the Bible's teachings then, it will be the first that they pull for information. With your many books possibly you could have chosen another to quote from.

[Marks]

It seems we're getting off into a debate on the Bible, and not on what the original query/statement was. As I stated in my first post, "This is yet another attempt from those that struggle to "be accepted" in their sin, and another attempt to push the evil agenda into the mainstream."

I gave reasons as to why it's wrong from both a theological and natural order perspective. I understand that there are many who disagree. Some are saying, in effect, you can have your opinion but I can't have mine because it happens to be backed up with the Bible--God's word to mankind.

Again, "What is required is not simpathy, acceptance, or understanding but REPENTANCE!"

Once again here is the truth:

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:25-27)

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind." (1 Corinthians 6:9)

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." (1 Timothy 1:9-10)

Finally, what is required is for the homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transvestite, etc. to REPENT. Those that agree with this sin are just as guilty. This sin is one of many that is the downfall of America.

[wildberries61]

QUOTE=madicarus2000;323819]So they only respected the men and not the women? And only chosen men? No chosen women? Or is it because women were still second class in the bible? Or as you put it in another post “The Bible tells believers women are responsible to their husbands”. So they would eventually become a man’s responsibility so they can’t be “choosen”.

I don't know why women didn't write in the Bible but, they did have importance and you need to see the message more then, looking at it as stories. In the OT women didn't have rights but, were used by God and that is the message. With the NT Jesus showed importance of women. He showed compassion for young & old women,widows, foreign women women were at his death He appeared first to a women after resurrection and women was first to be told that HE was alive.
With being married comes responsibility I guess you have an issue with this. I believe its to say don't stray from your partner, be there for support all that goes with commitment. All radical sides of religion can take it to the distant. Jesus came to change the way.

Ok, so can you provide me the interpretation of the following text from Genesis?

3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Now keep in mind as I read the passage I keep thinking of your quote "The Bible tells believers women are responsible to their husbands".[/quote]

This was after the disobedient that Adam and Eve showed in the Garden of Eden. Women shall experience pain during childbirth and Man shall work hard until his dying day. This is not far from the truth is it?
But, upon the birth of the child women feels no pain and holds no anger toward her husband and the rule part is the husband shall take care of his family and raise in a Godly way. Men tend to RULE rather then, PROVIDE!! I am sure it's just a difference in words and leave it to some men to take it to extreme.