Religious Freedom Bill Does not Survive House Judiciary (how much, restaurants)

[joey86]

The following is one of the reasons I don't believe we should get our definition of marriage from the Bible...

Deuteronomy 22:28-29New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by joey86

I think there is some humor in knowing that these people probably think about gay sex as much as any gay person does. Not that I think there is anything wrong with that, but it doesn't cross my mind often. Perhaps it does when I'm watching films that star Brad Pitt.

OK, I'll say it...I'm straight, but I would much rather think about any two (or more) gay people having sex than think about any politician having sex.

[toocold4me2013]

Awww shucks. Guess the terrorists will have to open their religious retreat centers aka training camps in Indiana now. They can't open up in Georgia or Arkansas. Christianity isn't the only religion in the world, you know. The separation of church and state is the keystone of our nation.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by joey86

Two questions, please answer directly:

If people are actually trying to defend the Biblical definition of marriage, why are we not talking about how they are going to refuse services to people who are trying to get married for the second, third or fourth time?

Why does their view of marriage, as defined in the Bible, seem to ignore other guidelines that the Bible places on marriage?

EXACTLY!! Don't you just love how the Bible thumpers pick and choose which verses to enforce and which verses to ignore?

Originally Posted by JPD

Because, try as they might, they just can NOT STOP thinking about what YOU do with YOUR d!ck. It's beyond sick. I feel sorry for them, to be honest.

Reminds me of this: (NSFW lyrics)

Originally Posted by joey86

The following is one of the reasons I don't believe we should get our definition of marriage from the Bible...

Deuteronomy 22:28-29New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

We should account for inflation and raise the price to at least a thousand shekels or so. /snark.

[joey86]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

We should account for inflation and raise the price to at least a thousand shekels or so. /snark.

Sheckels are about eleven grams, so fifty sheckels is about 550 grams. The value of 550 grams of pure silver, as of today, is $296.54. That is a very cheap sex slave. People spend more than that on lap dances. It blows my mind that anyone can believe good morals come from the same book that not only gives slavery a pass, but recommends it.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by joey86

The following is one of the reasons I don't believe we should get our definition of marriage from the Bible...

Deuteronomy 22:28-29New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

You wouldn't lift out random excerpts from any book if you have any desire to know its full meaning. Like anything else, you would need to know the context of passage in order to understand it. This and all of Deuteronomy is directed to God's chosen people to re-establish their covenant with Him. In short, if you are a Jewish person living in the 1400's BC, this applies to you.

[atltechdude]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

You wouldn't lift out random excerpts from any book if you have any desire to know its full meaning. Like anything else, you would need to know the context of passage in order to understand it. This and all of Deuteronomy is directed to God's chosen people to re-establish their covenant with Him. In short, if you are a Jewish person living in the 1400's BC, this applies to you.

Yeah yeah the "context" argument is always trotted out to try and explain away disgusting Bible passages like this.

The thing is, we reject the morality of that in ANY context.

This is what he is basically saying. Verses like that are evidence of the human (not divine) origin of the Bible, since it clearly was unable to transcend the evolved social morality of Bronze Age man. This would not have been a problem for a perfect all knowing being.

[JoeP]

Yeah yeah the "context" argument is always trotted out to try and explain away disgusting Bible passages like this.

The thing is, we reject the morality of that in ANY context.

This is what he is basically saying. Verses like that are evidence of the human (not divine) origin of the Bible, since it clearly was unable to transcend the evolved social morality of Bronze Age man. This would not have been a problem for a perfect all knowing being.

The "context' line also doesn't work because Evangelicals take the words literally without context.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by JoeP

The "context' line also doesn't work because Evangelicals take the words literally without context.

The Bible should be taken literally in its intended meaning. And it's impossible to understand it's meaning without knowing the who, what, when, and where. Since the Bible didn't end with that passage or with Deuteronomy it only makes common sense, again, for anyone wanting to understand its meaning to consider the context of what is written.

Originally Posted by atltechdude

Yeah yeah the "context" argument is always trotted out to try and explain away disgusting Bible passages like this.

The thing is, we reject the morality of that in ANY context.

This is what he is basically saying. Verses like that are evidence of the human (not divine) origin of the Bible, since it clearly was unable to transcend the evolved social morality of Bronze Age man. This would not have been a problem for a perfect all knowing being.

Clearly the major precepts of the Bible have transcended the Bronze Age and every other Age. From a purely non-religious perspective, there are numerous examples of God's divinity in the Bible given that there are things written prior to the Bronze Age that we are only now able prove scientifically.

[joey86]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

Since the Bible didn't end with that passage or with Deuteronomy it only makes common sense, again, for anyone wanting to understand its meaning to consider the context of what is written.

Jesus made it very clear that every single one of the laws in the Old Testament are valid until the end of time. There is no pick-and-choose.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)


2) "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)