Persecuted Christians In America!

[betsy]

Well, what's with the word "marriage?"

As an atheist couple my wife and I got married and get to use the married term.

We don't have children either.

Are you and your wife gay? I hope you do realise that we're talking about same-sex....and I don't expect atheists to understand, unless they've actually read the Bible (not just snippets of it either) and have a basic understanding about it.

I don't think it's ever been said in the Bible that marriage is for believers only.

I suppose we should not be allowed to use the word "marriage" unless we act like the type of Christian that you think we should be (which is strange, because if we were to be traditionally married under the bible then I'm pretty sure I should get a few more wives).

See what I mean about having read the Bible and not just snippets of it?

Of course, whenever someone gets married in a church they go through (at least) two parts - the religious part and then they go sit down and deal with the civil (or legal) part.

Hence the need for the witnesses (er, I mean best man and bridesmaid).

Honestly, I don't know if that's just man-made ritual or ceremony. Don't quote me on this but I'm not sure a marraige ceremony was actually depicted in the Bible. What I did recently came across was a verse saying that if you cleave to a prostitute, you are one flesh - so I'm thinking, perhaps having sex with someone is automatically a marriage in the eyes of God. I'm not sure....have to research on that.

So, in Canada, when a gay couple get married they are partaking in the civil portion and, like my wife and I - who gives a fig about the god part.

If a Church (lets say a United Church) allows gays to marry within it then the gay couple will be married within that church and under civil law. You know, when they actually sign the documents making it all legal before the state.

Hey, people go through all the big lavish expense of a wedding for just about any reason! To a Christian, it's the symbolism....and the vow to God and to one another - you know, the better or for worse part etc., - that makes it significantly meaningful.

Now, lets say that a Church does decide that it will marry gay couples within it - would you "bully" it to not allow such a practice?

Or would you allow the members of that church to decide for themselves?

I guess the members of the church can have their protest about it - and rightly so, unless it's not a Christian church you're talking about. A Church claiming to be Christian and yet goes against the teachings of Christ, is not a Christian church. It's teachings are what Christ called "false teachings," and we've been warned by Jesus about these many false prophets and "wolves in sheep's clothings."

It is actually a dead church - no matter even if it has thousands or millions of members.

[betsy]

No one asks for equal rights.

Because the religious bigots would scream "no!"

People demand equal rights.

In every case. Period.

Yep.

Yes, really.

But we're talking religion with same-sex issue. The doctrines, the tenets. Nobody says they can't have their union ceremony - just don't call it marriage. Since marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Anyway, I don't see anymore point spending hours debating on this - it's been done! You got your wishes. You can even say you've won! You've got your pomp and ceremony. You have your papers to say, "you are married."

But don't force Christians - like Chick Fil A - to see your so-called "marriage" as the same marriage given by God - the union between one man and one woman. That'll never happen. With true Christians, of course....who are determined to follow the teachings of Christ.

Boy, Chick Fil A apparently even close on Sundays!

Edited August 14, 2012 by betsy

[guyser]

But the fact that marriage was "instituted by God, as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of others, so that they would sanctify each other and provide the best environemnt to bring life," is at the very heart of the issue. You can't exclude that!

I would've liked to see the traditional definition of marriage as given by God - to have been preserved.

Oh for F sakes betsy.

Its one thing to feign ignorance (to whit:as given by god), but its another thing to spout pure nonsense in the guise of authority.

Marriage predates anything the church says about it. The christian church didnt conscript marriage until the 1500's when marriage contracts (families guaranteeing lineage and property)

In other words, get a f'ing clue before you post.

How the church has hoodwinked all those morons all these years is unfathomable.

Congrats ! You support the church, the same church that relegates you to second class.

Smart huh?

God doesnt owne marriage,never did.

Marriage is between two people. You can have yours with a man.

The next person can marry the same sex.

No diff no matter how you look at it.

Suck it up buttercup, you more than lost this, you are tettering on insignificance (especially in this country) and frankly the faster the better.

When 0% of the population go to church, the better off we will be.

Edited August 14, 2012 by guyser

[msj]

See what I mean about having read the Bible and not just snippets of it?

Of course I have.

Why do you think I'm an atheist?

[CANADIEN]

That's what they always say, those who cannot back up their claims.

Bye-bye.

Meaning you, for example.

[CANADIEN]

If a gay demands to be allowed to participate in Miss Canada beauty pageant since he feels like a woman - should he be allowed?

Can a homeless guy demand to be allowed inside an exclusive country club? Should he be allowed in?

We're talking about marriage, not beauty pageants or country clubs.

As for owning the word....it's not a matter of owning the words (setting aside my Christian belief), but a matter of common courtesy. Some gay groups showed that sensitivity and understanding, by defending the traditional definition of marriage. You know, that gesture by those particular gay groups who did so (God bless them)....was really something, at least for me. All this years, I can't stop talking about them.

That this is the best you come with says a lot, and it's not flattering. Frankly, a question of curtesy? Please, please don't use the word marriage because it would really really hurt us?

I for one prefer saying things as I see them, that a marriage is between a man and a woman and that calling anything else a marriage doesn't make it so, even if some were to call me a bigot for it. I will not degrade the issue by crying "mommy, mommy, they're not nice to me".

[CANADIEN]

Gays have always had the same right as heterosexuals to get married, following the traditional and Biblical definition of marriage.

This one belongs in a category of its own. Not really, actually...

Sounds like...

A Black man and a white woman have the same right as anyone else to marry... as long as they don't marrry each other.

A Black woman can sit in the same bus as a white woman... as long as she sits at the back.

Quebec Anglophones have the same rights as Quebec Francophones... the same right to use French that is.

The "gays have the same right as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex" is an insult to gays, an insult to the debate, and an insult to intelligence.

[CANADIEN]

But don't force Christians - like Chick Fil A - to see your so-called "marriage" as the same marriage given by God - the union between one man and one woman.

Once again, nobody if being forced to do anything. Not Chic-Fil-A, not anyone, despite your absurd attemps at using the word bullying to describe things that are anything but. I for one, am not being forced into anything, except maybe marvelling at the non-sense you keep digging yourself into.

[cybercoma]

Oh for F sakes betsy.

Its one thing to feign ignorance (to whit:as given by god), but its another thing to spout pure nonsense in the guise of authority.

Marriage predates anything the church says about it. The christian church didnt conscript marriage until the 1500's when marriage contracts (families guaranteeing lineage and property)

In other words, get a f'ing clue before you post.

How the church has hoodwinked all those morons all these years is unfathomable.

Congrats ! You support the church, the same church that relegates you to second class.

Smart huh?

God doesnt owne marriage,never did.

Marriage is between two people. You can have yours with a man.

The next person can marry the same sex.

No diff no matter how you look at it.

Suck it up buttercup, you more than lost this, you are tettering on insignificance (especially in this country) and frankly the faster the better.

When 0% of the population go to church, the better off we will be.

Actually, betsy has been clear that she can't stand Catholicism, so it gets better. Her brand of marriage didn't exist until much after the Protestant Reformation and it's through their "open-source" understanding of the Bible that she is interpreting it.

[cybercoma]

I wish someone would force betsy to use her brain.

[CANADIEN]

Marriage predates anything the church says about it.

Yep, marriage existed before the Christian Church.

The christian church didnt conscript marriage until the 1500's when marriage contracts (families guaranteeing lineage and property)

Not quite. The early Church already considered marriage as being a sacrament, even though the formalization of sacraments only came much later. In Western Europe, the Church began impose rules regarding marriages (no divorce, limitations based on age, limitations related to consanguinity) from the moment it replaced the Roman Empire as the defining force.

It is a fact that the presence of a priest at the wedding became mandatory in the 16th century. That being said, the requirement was already mentioned in 12th century texts. The first description of a marriage ceremony is from 9th century Wales. Until the 12th century, the mutual declaration of the spouses that they were marrying each other was sufficient, without a ceremony. That does not mean that marriage was not seen as coming from and being ordained by God.

Edited August 15, 2012 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

The real issue is not whether or not moral relativism is a bad thing - I for one think it is a weak substitute for a belief certain things are right and other are wrong. It's just thatI find... shall we say... interesting that some people think that one of Jesus' key teachings is merely "not a wrong thing to do". That I call relativism. Along with false victimhood.

(...)

Moral relativism is bad because it means nothing can be absolutely immoral. It's all a matter of perspective. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that, as it's a pretty nihilistic thought.

I'm merely pointing out that even though some religious types like to claim that the Bible is a source of absolute morals, we as a society have utterly rejected many of the rules set forth in the Old Testament. When was the last time western Jews or Christians hauled their disobedient child to town square and had the citizens stone him to death? Says to in Deuteronomy... but we know better. At some point, we decided that we're smarter than whatever asshole wrote Deuteronomy... and we're right. When some Muslim dumbass chokes his daughter to death for wearing western clothes, we don't say "yeah, well, that's what Deuteronomy says ought to happen, so we can relate." We call him a scumbag and hope he has a terrible time in prison. Because at some point, we rejected "absolute morality" set forth in the Bible. Isn't our ever-evolving concept of right and wrong a demonstration of "moral relativism" in action?

-k

[kimmy]

I think it's worth pointing out that people who claim they're defending "a Biblical definition of marriage" are just talking about the New Testament parts of the Bible, because there's all kinds of wacky marital shenanigans going on in the Old Testament, as this handy infographic explains.

There's never a wrong time to point out the zaniness of the OT, but it illustrates a more important point: marriage existed before Christ, it didn't always mean what Christians now say it does, and I have no idea how they came to the conclusion that they now own marriage and have exclusive right to define it.

-k

[Guest Derek L]

I think it's worth pointing out that people who claim they're defending "a Biblical definition of marriage" are just talking about the New Testament parts of the Bible, because there's all kinds of wacky marital shenanigans going on in the Old Testament, as this handy infographic explains.

There's never a wrong time to point out the zaniness of the OT, but it illustrates a more important point: marriage existed before Christ, it didn't always mean what Christians now say it does, and I have no idea how they came to the conclusion that they now own marriage and have exclusive right to define it.

-k

Ahh……….Just for a future Jeopardy reference……….Which Church allows Concubines?

[kimmy]

Ahh……….Just for a future Jeopardy reference……….Which Church allows Concubines?

Exactly my point. "Biblical" marriages included some stuff that the Church Lady just ain't cool with.

-k

[msj]

There's never a wrong time to point out the zaniness of the OT, but it illustrates a more important point: marriage existed before Christ, it didn't always mean what Christians now say it does, and I have no idea how they came to the conclusion that they now own marriage and have exclusive right to define it.

-k

Reminds me of this comic for some reason: Let it go.

[Guest Derek L]

Exactly my point. "Biblical" marriages included some stuff that the Church Lady just ain't cool with.

-k

Growing up we were raised Presbyterian until I was about 7 or 8, then Dad got into a fight with the Deacon when he showed up one Sunday with a new Buick………….You haven’t seen anything until you’ve seen two Scotsman arguing over money, especially when one feels he’d been grifted by the other…………The wife of course was raised Dutch Reformed and gave that up after doing a stint with MSF and seeing the business end of a certain organization that specializes in marketing kids with fly’s in their eyes………We decided to raise our kids as non practising Agnostics, or better put, just barely hedging our bets, and serve up a good dose of Jesus magic at Christmas………..The rest of the year it’s kept in the rubbermaids we have the decorations in, stored in the basement……………

But this concubine thing sounds interesting………..Would said husband in said marriage be allowed to wear Roman sandals and robes?

[kimmy]

We decided to raise our kids as non practising Agnostics, or better put, just barely hedging our bets, and serve up a good dose of Jesus magic at Christmas………..The rest of the year it’s kept in the rubbermaids we have the decorations in, stored in the basement……………

Us too. Grew up as a rather apathetic "none", but we just loved Christmas. Fun times.

But this concubine thing sounds interesting………..Would said husband in said marriage be allowed to wear Roman sandals and robes?

You know, I honestly have no idea about the fashion side of things. I'm not sure where you can get a good concubine (I do know some shady ones, though.)

If you converted to Pastafarianism, you could have wenches and dress in pirate regalia. Wenches and pirate regalia has to beat concubines and sandals, right?

-k

[Guest Derek L]

Us too. Grew up as a rather apathetic "none", but we just loved Christmas. Fun times.

I honestly don’t wish to sound too flippant towards religious folk, as I know many that are decent people and the way I look at it, if they get something out of it, all the power to them…………I’m just put off by the preachy ones, what with all their fire and brimstone………….True story , when our daughter was about ten or eleven, we’d get her to answer the door when the Jehovah Witnesses came a knocking and to tell them that her Dad and Mommies were busy practicing Wicca in the backyard………Surprisingly enough, they stopped knocking on our door.

You know, I honestly have no idea about the fashion side of things. I'm not sure where you can get a good concubine (I do know some shady ones, though.)

If you converted to Pastafarianism, you could have wenches and dress in pirate regalia. Wenches and pirate regalia has to beat concubines and sandals, right?

-k

Arrgh, dat bee sounding of a good idea Kimmy, but I worry me wife be giving me the Black Spot and off to Davy Jones I be going

[betsy]

I think it's worth pointing out that people who claim they're defending "a Biblical definition of marriage" are just talking about the New Testament parts of the Bible, because there's all kinds of wacky marital shenanigans going on in the Old Testament, as this handy infographic explains.

There's never a wrong time to point out the zaniness of the OT, but it illustrates a more important point: marriage existed before Christ, it didn't always mean what Christians now say it does, and I have no idea how they came to the conclusion that they now own marriage and have exclusive right to define it. -k

Oh for goodness sakes, Kimmy....what makes you think your interpretation about the Bible is anything to even consider pondering on, never mind taking seriously at all (since obviously you don't even understand what you're criticising about). You're as zany as they come - way up there along with the scumbag religious nuts you speak about! At least perhaps they don't get caught being "zany" in one topic - confused and delusional in one breath.

Your perception is not only clouded. You're blinded by hate.

Let's just point on your topic here which you created to ridicule and mock Christians, talking about your contradicting views on bullying!

On one hand you say....

How does the parents of Rachel feel reading the vicious savageries aimed at their daughter? I am still disturbed by them...still angry and outraged by them! And I don't even know her!

Rhetorics and violent imageries, they take on a new light when we think of our own children as the cast of characters in these imageries. The innocence of Rachel in her joyful belief in Jesus....the innocence of our children in their joyful pursuit of Hockey. The impact of savagery is more than just disturbing...it grabs your heart...it becomes frightening....when we picture our own children in the shoes of Rachel.

Good grief. I don't think a few comments about slapping her qualify as "vicious savagery".

If little Rachel's parents read those comments, perhaps they'll think twice about having her roll up on complete strangers with advice about how to live.-k

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19801&st=495

...then just a little bit farther down the line (in less than 10 pages or so), here's your heartbreaking little drama about your bullied kid brother.

Personally, I don't think you can fully understand bullying unless you've had a family member come home from school and lock himself in his room to cry each day, or develop mysterious cuts and bruises that he won't talk about, or vomit from fear each morning before school, or try to fake illness so that he wouldn't have to go. My little brother endured years of bullying, and I got in countless fights standing up for him. Proudly so. You want to compare the douchebag kid who was told to stop proselytizing at school to real victims of bullying? I don't know whether I want to laugh in your face, or puke on it.

-k

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19801&st=600

What did you say about Rachel's parents again? Well what about if someone told you, "perhaps that should teach your kid brother to stand up and face the bullies instead of being a little sissy running to his sister who probably needed and welcomed those fights to express herself ( and who needs counselling on anger management)?"

See what I mean? You're just flying by switching lanes as you go.....your opinion isn't grounded on any standard at all! That's a relativist if you ever saw one.....and a nut to boot!

PS. I'm glad to know you're taking up boxing. At least you got the punching bag.

Edited August 15, 2012 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

PS. I'm glad to know you're taking up boxing. At least you got the punching bag.

You mean you agree that marriage, as defined in the Old Testament, should be how we define it today? Raped virgins must marry their rapist? At least they wouldn't have to get an abortion.

[cybercoma]

Isn't our ever-evolving concept of right and wrong a demonstration of "moral relativism" in action?

-k

I cut everything else out because I understand why you were saying it. I agree with all of that stuff, btw.

I don't believe in the above statement. There are some things that I believe are moral absolutes and the evolution of right and wrong are simply corrections of past injustices. I beliefs about right and wrong are moving towards the universal absolutes over time.

[cybercoma]

Oh for goodness sakes, Kimmy....what makes you think your interpretation about the Bible is anything to even consider pondering on, never mind taking seriously at all (since obviously you don't even understand what you're criticising about).

This is quite possibly at once both the most arrogant and least self-aware thing ever posted on these forums.

[betsy]

You mean you agree that marriage, as defined in the Old Testament, should be how we define it today? Raped virgins must marry their rapist? At least they wouldn't have to get an abortion.

I was talking about the "ceremony" that we go through. Was there a need for a formal ceremony since it was said if you cleave to a prostitute, you are one flesh. I think it's understandable that cleaving is by mutual consent.

KJV Dictionary Definition: cleave

cleave

CLEAVE, v.i.

1. To stick; to adhere; to hold to.

My bones cleave to my skin. Ps. 102.

Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth. Ps. 137.

Cleave to that which is good. Rom. 12.

2. To unite aptly; to fit; to sit well on.

3. To unite or be united closely in interest or affection; to adhere with strong attachment.

A man shall leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife. Gen. 2. Math. 19.

Cleave to Jehovah your God. Josh. 23.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/cleave.html

Edited August 15, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

This is quite possibly at once both the most arrogant and least self-aware thing ever posted on these forums.

What about the other one I posted at the other topic? I thought that was the most....according to you?