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.
Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." It is important to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house, wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.
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.
Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Break the marriage and you break the covenant with God. That we as humans have fallen short in many instances in keeping the covenant of marriage with God doesn't make the any less sacred, it means we have fallen short as humans tend to do.
Attempting to normalize homosexuality by using the church and perverting a covenant made with God destroys the sanctity of that covenant.
A civil union is man's law and thus not sacred while marriage is God's law and is sacred. The two are not interchangable.
Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.
Not the marriage being discussed in this thread. Marriage as is germane to this discussion is a legal contract and status as defined by the secular governments within the USA. God is not a party to that contract. Thank you for playing, though.
This is the problem. Reality isn't restricted to antonymic pairs. That's an arbitary construct you are applying to the issue.
We have more than two choices, but people who are very religious tend to think in binary absolutes, just like you are doing now.
It's not logical. The idea that disproving one proves the other is ABSOLUTELY ILLOGICAL.
Give me a third option, then.
The law of excluded middle states that a statement is either true or false. There is no other answer. Now...either the universe was created, or it wasn't.
Quote:
You have no basis for this conclusion. I non-personal creator is just as possible as a personal one. If we assume arguendo that there is a Creator of the Universe, it does NOT logically follow that the Universe was created for US, or even for LIFE. We, and Life itself, could just be a side effect. Like a mold or a virus. Not a pleasant thought, but just as possible as any other alternative.
I'll summarize for you. Try to keep up.
1. The universe exists.
2. It had a beginning.
3. If it had a beginning it was caused.
4. That cause was a personal, not non-personal cause.
Suppose I want to move something. I can't move it without a lever, so I use one. The necessary cause for me to move it is 1. Me. 2. a lever 3. a fulcrum. Does the rock move automatically? No. It needs necessary and sufficient cause--me choosing to move it, and the tools to do so.
Now...you presuppose that there is an impersonal cause for the universe. As soon as the necessary things came to pass in the pre-existence of the universe, the universe would have been caused. That means the universe would have come to exist an infinite amount of time ago. We know that isn't the case because of little things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Do you need me to explain that one to you as well? We can also surmise that time had a beginning because we cannot pass an infinite amount of time to get to our current time.
Quote:
Again, I've given you several and in just about every post. You refuse to even acknowledge them, which is not intelletually honest.
Can you point to one please? Perhaps I missed them. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit that you'd actually understand what I'm trying to say.
Please elaborate.
Quote:
It also disproves it, since there is no reason to not apply causality to your arbitrary creator. This has already been explained to you many times in this very thread.
What are you not understanding? If there is a beginning, what caused it? There HAD to be an uncaused first cause that exists outside of that which was caused.
An infinite regression is impossible, as without a first cause there is no existence.
Quote:
Um, this would be a good place to inform you that I have had formal training in logic in two separate graduate programs. I'm pretty sure from our exchanges that you absolutely have not.
I would ask for my money back if I were you.
Quote:
When you toss that word around and then go on to commit logical fallacies of your own, the loss of credibility is yours. I would respectfully suggest you not try the argument from authority business with me again.
You wrongly assume ab initio that there are only two choices and that they are mutually exclusive. They aren't.
Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Break the marriage and you break the covenant with God. That we as humans have fallen short in many instances in keeping the covenant of marriage with God doesn't make the any less sacred, it means we have fallen short as humans tend to do.
Attempting to normalize homosexuality by using the church and perverting a covenant made with God destroys the sanctity of that covenant.
A civil union is man's law and thus not sacred while marriage is God's law and is sacred. The two are not interchangable.
Or, according to the bible, marriage is a covenant between a man, many wives, and a god.
You can't lecture people about logic whilst committing logical fallacies.
Thread derailed enough already.
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.
