ADVERTISEMENT

Anyone Notice the Incongruity Between the Headline and the Story?

What is sad is these folks, who did nothing to anyone, had their lives destroyed because of the work of a "journalist" and the false reporting of dozens of outlets who are either lazy, incompetent, or malicious.

But they don't "think" correctly, so they "deserve" this. #amirite
 
Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):


Originally posted by Raoul Duke MU:


Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):


Originally posted by Raoul Duke MU:


Originally posted by Walden Pond:
Why would they make the pizzas for them to come in and eat, but not for the wedding?
Because they are intellectually inconsistent. Let's be honest, the sin here isn't gay marriage (no where to be found in the Bible), but gay sex.
Historical question for you.

Were homosexual unions unknown in the 1st Century?

I'll hang up and wait...
While not common, it was not unknown. And there is some evidence the early Orthodox church united men. Of course, marriage for love was probably even less common than man-unions. Marriage is a whole different ball of wax now.
In Greek and Roman society it was very common and I'd love to hear this evidence of that "Orthodox" work (if you mean the Greek Orthodox church, that didn't exist until 1054 AD). The historical evidence is quite clear, and as more and more is discovered the fanciful conclusions that "the Bible doesn't know anything about loving, committed same-sex unions" is proven more and more false.

And PJ, does Jesus explicitly condemn 14 year old girls marrying 50 year-old men, in the Gospels?

Does Jesus explicitly condemn Bestiality?





This post was edited on 4/1 3:20 PM by wvkeeper(HN)
So, would this be a good place to insert "bronze age war gods"??? LOL...
 
Originally posted by herdfan429:
Simple solution. Get the govt out of the marriage business. Govt shouldn't subsidize marriages with tax breaks.


Why do you hate women?

Marriage is nothing more than a civil legal contract between two adults that determines the division of property if said "marriage" is terminated in the future....



So, you want to go back to the good old days where women had no legal claims to "marital property'?
 
Originally posted by big_country90:



Originally posted by pj(HN):

The next time I am in MS we need to get togehter and drink a beer or six and talk about this... Much easier...
3dgrin.r191677.gif
That's pj's way of admitting he can't answer you, 'keep.

Deflect.


Yep... That is it... LOL....





B.C.e. How is that German Pilot is a closet muslim thing working out for you?







This post was edited on 4/2 12:34 PM by pj(HN)
 
Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):
There are already attempts being made in the academy to normalize pedophilia:



This debate goes far beyond the push by pedo-activists, raising fundamental questions within the medical community about how we define mental illness. Controversially, the proposed DSM adds hebephilia (attraction to pubescent children) to the entry for pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubescents), creating the hybrid "pedohebephilic disorder." Psychiatry professor Richard Green, founding president of the International Academy of Sex Research, wrote in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, "In several European countries, the age of legal consent to have sex falls within the range proposed for the DSM as signifying mental disorder for the older participant," he writes. "If the general culture is accepting of participation by the younger party, but psychiatry pathologizes the participation by the older party, then the mental health profession pronounces a moralistic standard and, if successful, becomes an agent of social control."Few of us in the general public are capable of thinking about pedophiles, or hebephiles, in emotionless, scientific terms - but, luckily, we aren't the ones charged with treating them, or defining who "they" are.
I guess they believe in "traditional marraige" of the bibical nature...
 
Originally posted by Raoul Duke MU:
Everything herdman mentions about multiple wives, young wives, selling brides was common and acceptable in Biblical times.

I wonder if the pizza place sought out the news or the reporter called around to find one willing to bite.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The Bible explicitly condemns both having multiple wives and selling brides or having pre-pubescent wives.

Merely their presence in the Scriptural record does not equal acceptance. That is facile thinking.

One of the cool things about the Bible is that it reports events with warts and all. If you notice those who do have multiple wives (especially look at Elkanah in 1 Samuel) never have positive things come of it, there is a reason for that, but what do I know.


It is obvious no one bothered to actually read the story. It clearly says the local TV station sought ought the shop and the people had no idea what was about to happen.
 
Originally posted by Raoul Duke MU:
Were these practices acceptable or taboo in society at large? We both know the answer.

I read one version of the story yesterday and did not recall the origion. My bad.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It is acceptable in our society to inject an unborn child full of saline and suck out what is left with a vacuum.


I'm not sure what something being "acceptable" in the wider culture has to do with what the Bible promotes or condemns.
 
Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):


Originally posted by Raoul Duke MU:
Were these practices acceptable or taboo in society at large? We both know the answer.

I read one version of the story yesterday and did not recall the origion. My bad.

Posted from Rivals Mobile
It is acceptable in our society to inject an unborn child full of saline and suck out what is left with a vacuum.


I'm not sure what something being "acceptable" in the wider culture has to do with what the Bible promotes or condemns.

And when the bible was all pulled together in the 4th Century C.E. Stoning for adultery was a common practice... Marriages were arranged... And men were still giving goats to the father of bride...
 
You really need to read more.

The Bible was not "pulled together" in the 4th Century. Read the link below and be educated, rather than just repeat stuff you heard fourth-hand.


You care to prove that assertion that Christians were stoning wives in the early Church?

And why would the giving of goats as a part of a dowry be something to mock and deride? That still goes on today in many traditional cultures. Why do you use your Western conceptions to condemn other cultures?
This post was edited on 4/2 1:32 PM by wvkeeper(HN)

Link
 
397 C.E.



Yep... When you take Old Testament lessons with New Testament lessons about adultery one can logical or illogically make the assumption that an Adultery should be put to death... Stoning is just a nice method of implementing the death penalty



I have no problem with rural cultural traits... I simply use it as an example of how to show how Christendom has continually evolved the "rules" of marriage over time...



But I know you know all this and just like to bait me...
3dgrin.r191677.gif
 
Originally posted by pj(HN):

397 C.E.



Yep... When you take Old Testament lessons with New Testament lessons about adultery one can logical or illogically make the assumption that an Adultery should be put to death... Stoning is just a nice method of implementing the death penalty



I have no problem with rural cultural traits... I simply use it as an example of how to show how Christendom has continually evolved the "rules" of marriage over time...



But I know you know all this and just like to bait me...
3dgrin.r191677.gif
1) 397 is the 4th Century.

2) You didn't read the link.

3) So I guess the answer to "do you have any proof the early church stoned wives" is no.
(And according to OT law the guy gets stoned as well)

4) Changes in dowry practice (we still do it in 21st Century America, it just takes a different form) are not a change in marriage rules.
 
Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):

Originally posted by pj(HN):


397 C.E.



Yep... When you take Old Testament lessons with New Testament lessons about adultery one can logical or illogically make the assumption that an Adultery should be put to death... Stoning is just a nice method of implementing the death penalty



I have no problem with rural cultural traits... I simply use it as an example of how to show how Christendom has continually evolved the "rules" of marriage over time...



But I know you know all this and just like to bait me...
3dgrin.r191677.gif
1) 397 is the 4th Century.

2) You didn't read the link.

3) So I guess the answer to "do you have any proof the early church stoned wives" is no.
(And according to OT law the guy gets stoned as well)

4) Changes in dowry practice (we still do it in 21st Century America, it just takes a different form) are not a change in marriage rules.
1. Yes you are correct... Thank you...
2. Yes, I did...
3. So, both husband and wives where stoned... Thanks for the assist...
4. Explain this dowry practice today? LOL...
 
1) You couldn't have read the links and still think the Bible was thrown together in the 4th Century.

2) There is no "assist". You asserted the early church stoned wives and have to provide any proof.

3) Who pays for the wedding in 21-st Century American culture?
 
In the Bible, God ordered people to be stoned to death for 11 things

#1. Touching Mt Sinai: (Ex 19:12-13)(Heb 12:20-21)
#2. Breaking the Sabbath: (Num 15:32-36)
#3. Child Sacrifice: (Lev 20:2)
#4. Being a medium or wizard: (Lev 20:27)
#5. Cursing God Or Blaspheming: (Lev 24:10-16,23)
#6. Idolatry: (Deut 17:2-5)
#7. Someone Who Entices Another To Commit Idolatry: (Deut 13:6-11)
#8. Rebellion Against Parents: (Deut 21:18-21)
#9. A Woman Who Proclaimed To Be A Virgin At Marriage, But Wasn't: (Deut 22:13-21)
#10. Sex With A Betrothed Virgin: (Deut 22:23-24)
#11. Adultery: (Lev 20:10)(Implied by Jn 8:3-5)(Both man and woman to be stoned)
(An ox that gored someone to death was also to be stoned: (Ex 21:28,32)
 
Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):
1) You couldn't have read the links and still think the Bible was thrown together in the 4th Century.

2) There is no "assist". You asserted the early church stoned wives and have to provide any proof.

3) Who pays for the wedding in 21-st Century American culture?
Dude... I like to stretch things... But come on... Paying for a wedding vs get sheep? Well played... LOL...
 
I'm not going to get into a pedantic argument with you over stoning people. You made the statement that people in the early church stoned their wives.


Provide proof.




I still don't understand what the big deal is about providing farm animals in a dowry other than you just thinking that's funny for some reason. That is kind of an important thing in an agricultural economy.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT