Are there Christian roots of Gay Marriage proposal and gay agenda in general?
roller blade runner
Much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is coming from Christian
conservatives, but it's worth wondering if there's a Christian root to
the gay movement in general. Also, it's about time conservatives
realized that they need to make a powerful rational-secular argument
against homosexual agenda and gay marriage. As it stands, many people
believe the forces of the gay agenda are on the side of rationality
and science while anti-gay forces are mired in superstitution,
reactionary bigotry, and old thinking. This is because gay agenda
people speak the words of science even if their science is all wrong,
or, at the very least, their linkage of scientific findings and social
policy is socially and morally unfeasible. The word 'homophobia' has
the ring of rational science, whereas words like 'god hates fags' or
'sodomites' have the ring of blind intolerance and hate. What the
right should emphasize is tolerance for homos and even respect for
homo contribution to human culture, civilization, arts, and ideas.
but, when it comes to social morality, homosexuality must play a
peripheral, if any role, in our affairs. all people--even homos--have
been created thru union of man and woman. the sexual union of man and
woman is the fundamental key to why humanity exists and will go on to
the exist. for that reason, there is a reason why society pays special
respect to such union and elevates it to a social/moral concept called
marriage. there is no need for gays to get married since they cannot
produce kids--and without kids, they have far fewer responsibilities
and socio-economic burdens. it's just a vain lifestyle brand for the
gays. gays think of marriage as just a fashion statement(and many of
us sympathize with gays because in our overabundant and priviliged
society, we take everything for granted and think everything is of
equal value. we have lost the sense of what is crucial/central and
what is trivial/frivolous. we cannot see that a stacker is more
valuable than a slacker. in a poor society, those with work ethic are
clearly more prized than those who are lazy. but, in a plentiful
society like us, the lazy can live well as the industrious, and we've
lost the sight of the value of work ethic and diligence. the great
prosperity and security have made us lose sight of what's really
crucial. in the story of noah's ark, noah was reminded of what REALLY
matters. for life to continue, he had to take one male and one female
of every species. had he been politically correct and took aboard gay
couples of some species, they would have become extinct too. but, we
have lost sight of what is crucial because of our overabundance and
privilege. we measure the worth of something by its fun-value. so, a
slacker can seem more valuable to us than a stacker, because a guy
like jeff spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgmont High seems more fun than
some guy who works hard, takes care of his family, and is a good
citizen. and, we've become so sympathetic with gays because the
liberal/leftwing jewish controlled media and entertainment industry
have presented gays as the most fun, wonderful, and charming people on
earth. during the jazz age, people lost sight of values and regained
them only during the Great Depression and WWII. when the internet
bubble was rising higher and higher in the 90s, americans began to
lose sight of financial responsibility and moral values. it was all
about consumption. and the same kind of idiocy took hold when housing
values rose higher and higher during the bush era. our success and the
overflow of wealth and pleasure among all of us have made us lose
sight of what is truly crucial to society and morality.) if a gay
couple want to live together, they may do so; but, they have no right
to demand that we deem their relationship as a form of marriage.
marriage is necessary between man and woman because they produce
children who require the commitment of both parents to become healthy
citizens.
also, the right should abandon the victorianish priggishness and
discuss the functions of the human body. naturally, rationally, and
scientifically, it's not hard to explain why homosexuality is abnormal
and even putrid. the sexual organs--penis and vagina--were designed by
nature to be complementary. the anus was designed for the purpose of
excretion. there is nothing natural, rational, or purposeful about
the penis going into a fecal hole. there is no point of semen being
ejaculated into the large colon--that's not how any of us came to be
conceived. that is not the point of reproductive activity. of course,
most sex is not for the purpose of reproduction, but humans, alone
among all animals, purposely have sex for reproduction. all other
animals don't understand that sex leads to pregnancy which leads to
birth of offsprings. animals have sex for a simple reason; they go
into heat, feel lustful, and seek release/pleasure thru sex. though
it's often said that animals have sex for reproduction while humans
have sex for fun, it's the other way around. humans understand that
sex leads to offsprings. it's this very understanding that led to
moral and social concepts like marriage and family. because people
can anticipate childbirth soon after the sexual act, they have
prepared for such eventuality thru coming up with social institutions
such as marriage which provide a more stable, longterm environment for
the children-to-be. in contrast, animals have sex simply because they
feel horny and wanna release their pent-up frustration thru humping-
and-bumping.
some 'scientific' pro-gay people have argued for homosexuality on the
basis that such exists among animals. though homosexuals are generally
born homosexual, such is rare and abnormal among both humans and
animals. hermaphrodites are naturally born too, but they are also
rare and abnormal. indeed, there are many deformities and diseases
people and animals are born with; it doesn't make the those defects
normal and healthy. sickle-cell anemia is a natural disease, but is
it healthy and normal? some women are born with predisposition to
breast cancer? so, is breast cancer normal and healthy? now, being
born with defects certainly doesn't make a person inhuman or
subhuman. also, the defects can have certain advantages over
normality for certain folks. some gays have keener aesthetic
sensibility. some mentally troubled people can be highly artistic. and
some autistic people are geniuses at math or music.
nevertheless, it makes no point in arguing that we should accept
homosexuality because homosexuality occurs in nature. if we are to
base our behavior on nature, let's keep in mind that most of nature is
more 'homophobic' than we are. if a male tiger tried to hump another
male tiger, the straight tiger is not gonna take it crouching down.
he's gonna roar, 'what are you, a faggot?!' no healthy straight male
gorilla will tolerate a gay male gorilla trying to bugger its rear.
also in the animal world, rape is natural. and, many animals practice
polygamy. take a lion pride where the chief male lion will hump all
the females. this is true among wolves too, where the top alpha male
gets most of the wolf gals. so, i suppose we should have polygamy too,
since it exists in the animal world. also, incest and pedophilia are
not uncommon in the animal world. sisters sometimes mate with
brothers, fathers with daughters, sons with mothers in the animal
kingdom. and, many young females are often humped by big full-grown
males, or a young male will mate with a full grown female.
if we purely based human behavior on the natural world, we'd go
crazy. we understand the natural order and the need for natural
bodily function. it is because we understand the natural order and
anticipate its consequences that we've come up with rules, laws,
institutions, and things to accomodate them. for example, we know that
we must shit. so, we build outhouses or washrooms with plumbing
instead of just shitting anywhere like animals. it's because we need
to sleep--and know that we're helpless when we sleep--that we build
shelters for sleeping. it's because we know that people need to have
sex that we've come with courtship and private rooms where people can
screw. it's because we know that sex begats children that we've come
up with the institution of marriage. heck, if all children were
produced and raised by the State, there would be no need for marriage
among heteros either. whether a couple chooses to live together or
not would merely be a personal-moral than a social-moral choice--
marriage is about social morality. as it stands, the concept of
family is a social-moral necessity because a hubby and wife produce
children for whom the parents must be responsible. because how kids
are raised affects all of us, it becomes a social-moral issue. a kid
that is not properly raised act like crazy negroes in the inner city,
and the end result? white flight from black areas and racial
segregation and tensions.
anyway, the main point i want to make is the link between christianity
and homosexuality. i wasn't raised a christian and have been an
atheist all my life. until my early 20s, i had an hatred and contempt
for religion--especially christianity--that was more extreme than
dawkins and hitchens combined. but, i realized that most christian
folks are not crazy, and there is much good sense in the bible--
though, to be sure, there's a lot of crazy stuff. at any rate, most
american christians are not conservative christians but personal
christians. they believe in separation of church and state, church and
science, church and social life. this is why even most american
christians feel closer to the gay agenda than to the christian
conservative agenda. gay agenda seems to exist within the realm of
science, secular society, political liberty, and personal freedom,
whereas christian conservative agenda seems to be about forcing its
unscientific, intolerant, and reactionary values down our throats.
this is why the argument against the homo agenda must be secular and
rational than religious and reactionary. americans don't like radical
rationalism but still prefer rationalism to religionism. though the
homo agenda is not rational or sensible, it's clothed in rationalist
terminology. the idea of -phobia is scientific within the pscyhology
community. so, when someone is called a 'homophobe', there is the
weight of science, research, and rationality behind the charge. but,
when someone is called a 'fag' or 'sodomite', the charge sounds either
bigoted or defined by blind religious dogma. so, anti-gay-agenda
folks must come up with scientific terminology.
the gay agenda should be defined as a part of a larger agenda called
normophobia. there is a sick and devious cultural/social movement that
has an extreme, violent, virulent, rabid, and sick fear/dread/hatred/
animus to anything that is deemed 'normal'. this is partly an
understandable reaction to the long dominance of cultural values and
social power that had mainly been held by white christian european
males for so long. why shouldn't different cultures, peoples, ideas,
and values assert themselves in the marketplace of ideas and social
change? but, the political correctness that has taken over the West
is a form of kneejerk hatred against all things defined as 'normal'--
generally, heterosexual gentile white males. this has been given an
huge boost by the fact that liberal jews now command much of our
media, academia, and other institutions. as the perennial outsider
group who've been marginalized by the majority, liberal jews think
it's in their interest to promote a value system that always favors
the abnormal over the normal; this is merely a projection onto the
larger community the mentality of the jewish minority(abnormal)
against majority goyim(normal). long ago, jews maintained their own
enclosed and very strict concept of normality. they did business with
the goyim but maintained their separate culture. but, since the 19th
century, jews embraced the golden calfism of the gentile world. the
problem was jews still couldn't fit in because (1) their high
intelligence made them rise high above the goyim who felt envy and
resentment (2) even secular jewish mental habit remained shaped by
millenia of tribal and monomaniacal judaism (3) jews looked and acted
differently, which offended many 'normal' goyim. given these
realities, jews found it necessary to undermine all notions of
normality within any society they inhabited. so, arose the normphobic
movement, mainly inspired, led, and funded by liberal jewish
interests. to be sure, leftist jews, unlike liberal jews, weren't
really normophobic but merely wanted to overthrow one normality to be
replaced with another that was far more extremely normalist. what is
more normalist than communism where everyone is made into the New Man
and made to dress, think, and earn alike? communists were radical
secular normalists. it was liberal jews who were normophobes because
their preferred cosmopolitan lifestyle was best protected under a
system without a powerful sense of normality. for liberal jews,
normalism could mean majoritarian goyimism, like nazism. of course,
jewish normalism in israel doesn't seem to bother most jews, which
goes to show liberal jews will choose normalism or normophobia
depending on its usefulness to their interests.
anyway, back to christianity. one of the reasons why a christian
basis for opposing gay marriage is that christianity simply isn't a
very conservative or normal religion. it was strange when it started
and remains strange to this day. though jesus was probably not gay
and would have opposed anything even close to gay marriage, there was
something asexual--if not androgynous--about him. the first time i
saw him as a child, i thought he was a bearded lady. why would a guy
have long hair and wear a dress? also, even if he didn't act
feminine, there was much about him that was closer to the passive
ideal of womanhood than the aggressive/active ideal of manhood. he
refused to fight like a man. women admired him not for his manliness
machismo but because he was sooooo understanding and compassionate--
same reason women today love oprah. he didn't join in with the tough
guy zealots--the jewish A-team--to fight the romans. when romans
whupped him good and got thru with him, there wasn't anything that
resembled manhood left in him. he looked like a guy raped and turned
into 'my bitch' in prison by big tough guys with big muscles and
dicks. if not for the concept of son-of-god and resurrection, jesus
was like a girly man who got his ass kicked by big tough guys. when
richard gere said we should not invade afghanistan after 9/11, he
sounded like a girly man, like jesus. and, indeed, all red blooded
conservatives booed, mocked, and jeered at gere. so, how odd that
christianity should be the main basis for opposing the gay agenda.
though jesus wasn't pro-gay, he was for forgiveness and being slow to
judge sinners. while jesus would have laughed at the notion of gay
marriage, he would have been much slow to call homos 'fags' or
prostitutes 'whores' or romans 'illegal aliens on sacred jewish
soil'. also, jesus wasn't really for normal marriage either. he
accepted the need for marriage as a way for men and women to get
together and raise families, but his real ideal was somewhat close to
that of buddha. jesus's ideal was for man to give up everything--
property, family, sex, sensual needs, etc--and find spiritual purity
and enter heaven and never look back. a perfect christian would have
done as jesus did--never have sex, never get married, never find a
job, never accumulate wealth, etc, etc. there was little that was
strictly MALE or MANLY about jesus. he was not your typical
patriarchal type of the Old Testament. an ideal follower of jesus,
man or woman, would just pray, meditate, commune with god, grow old,
forgo most bodily desires, die, and enter heaven. because most
people couldn't attain such, jesus accepted marriage as necessary, but
it was more a necessary evil than the highest human ideal. same is
true of buddhism. though the real buddhist ideal is to go it alone and
reach nirvana, there is place for marriage in the buddhist tradition.
if people are gonna have sex, they might as well do it under some kind
of moral law.
the old testament or judaism is more conducive to opposing gay
marriage than christianity is. of course, as most jews today are
secular and/or normophobic--for social and historical reasons--,
conservatives are not gonna get much support from jews. many jews
think anti-homosexuality = nazism = holocaust. liberal jews also
think conservative christianity = closet-nazism. still, judaism is
far more anti-gay than christianity is because it's about family,
differences between man and woman, and such and such. christianity
blurs many lines between the sexes, cultures, moral values, etc.
though jesus was not a moral relativist, he was for understanding and
compassion more than for simple judgment. for this reason, the anti-
gay agenda argument must be secular and rationalist than christian and
religious.
now, what about paganism? neo-paganism of nazism--at least the anti-
SA kind of hitler and himmler which took control of the movement--was
anti-gay. and, italian fascism wasn't friendly to gayness either.
but, the ancient greeks, founders of much of western civilization,
were kinda funny. still, i don't think they had gay marriage back
then. anyway, greeks offer a useful model for us. they managed to
maintain their social and moral values while at the same time
harnessing the great creative and brilliant qualities of gay
sensibility. so, conservatives can, even while opposing gay marriage
and the idea of gayness as abnormal, can still make room for
pewaothigs--people who are, among other things, gay--within the
movement. since pewaothigs are born gay, there's nothing that can be
done about that. it would be stupid to say they are 'sinful'. but, we
must not confuse defect or dysfunction with normality or healthiness.
but, we must understand that even great ideas and visions can come
from abnormal folks. indeed, much of the clothes and dresses that
conservatives wear were designed by gay fashion geniuses. many of the
great artworks at the center of western and other civilizations were
made by gay boys. too much gay influence is not good as it leads to
the overly effeminate english manners and some of the overripe
fashions among the french of the 18th century. but, as long as gays
leave our moral values and institutions alone, there's no reason for
us to call them 'fags' and all that stuff.
BUT, if they assault OUR institutions such as marriage, we must fight
back tooth and nail. but, we must use the secular and scientific
argument that is far more respectable--rightfully so--than clinging to
Old Testament dogma. if we stick to the old testament ways, we might
as well stone all sinners. and, do we really wanna use jesus as
practical figure of advice for humanity? he was a profound,
courageous, and noble man, but he was not manly in the way in the
pragmatic sense. also, if we followed his advice, we might as well get
rid of our military, erase all national borders, and pretend race
doesn't exist. christian ideals are mostly fantasies, and most non-
white christians know this.
black churches are always black before they are christian. chinese
churches are always chinese before christian. so, it's stupid for
white conservatives to go on and on about christian values. if white
conservatives really practiced christian values, they'd be like
liberal christians--committing racial, national, and cultural
suicide. so, we need a pagan revival that puts christianity where
it belongs--as a junior partner to the paganism that truly defines
what is UNIQUE about western man. though christiantiy developed most
fully in the West, it's something western man cannot claim for
himself. indeed, jesus was not a western man but a proto-hippie jew.
though we hear so much blah blah about christian anti-semitism, far
more damaging has been christian anti-paganism which destroyed the red-
blooded indigenous cultures of europe. this murderous and totalistic
intolerance of christianity was rooted in the concept of One and Only
God and destroy-all-idols mentality in Judaism.
according to judaism/christianity, sound morality resides only with
the one-and-only-god and within the Book. so, all pagan stuff was
seen as promoting little more than stupid wining, partying, acting
crazy and corrupt, barbarism, lunacy, and funny stuff. all of
paganism has been defined as dionysianism or vandalism. but,
paganism--especially of the greeks--offered a whole range of human
feelings, thought, values, needs, etc. there was dionysius the wine
god but also apollo the god of reason and athena the goddess of
wisdom. some gods were for adventure, some were for home and hearth,
some were for men, some were for women, some were for war, some were
for peace, etc. yet, all this richness was reduced to 'paganism is
about nothing but orgies and beer guzzling'. sadly, even neo-paganites
have accepted this stereotype, which is why so many pagan festivals in
europe have naked idiots dancing around bonfires while making funny
noises.
----------------
by the way, was there a greek influence on jesus's asexualism? in
jewish tradition, men were men and women were women. in the greek
world, some men were not quite man-ish and some women were not quite
woman-ish. maybe, greek influence got to jesus and made him reject
the jewish concept of rigidly defined man as opposed to rigidly
defined woman. in a way, he was a man with some feminine qualities,
even if he wasn't gay or effeminate.
and, we wonder if the idea of son-of-man/son-of-god of christianity
was also influenced by greek ideas. in judaism, the idea of man-as-
god is outrageous, yet there are many half man/half gods in greek
mythology.
No One
<lots snipped>
> This is because gay agenda people speak the words of science even
> if their science is all wrong, or, at the very least, their linkage
> of scientific findings and social policy is socially and morally
> unfeasible. The word 'homophobia' has the ring of rational science,
> whereas words like 'god hates fags' or 'sodomites' have the ring of
> blind intolerance and hate.
Perhaps "homophobia" has "the ring of rational science" because
scientists use the term: as an example on the American Psychological
Association web site, look at
<http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1996-00463-014>,
which contains the abstract for the paper, "Is homophobia associated
with homosexual arousal?" Adams, Henry E.; Wright, Lester W.; Lohr,
Bethany A. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1996 Aug Vol 105(3)
440-445.
duke
<cerebur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is coming from Christian
>conservatives
Surprise: God defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It's
in Script.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented duke broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:34:26 -0700 (PDT), roller blade runner
><cerebur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is coming from Christian
>>conservatives
> Surprise: God defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
> It's in Script.
Nonsense. Before the 9th century C.E., no one could get married in a
church. As for an endorsement of an institution that existed long before
any christian or Hebrew god, the best Paul could muster was that it was
better than burning.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 240 days to go.
duke
wrote:
>In our last episode, <gtki349op7hflh68v...@4ax.com>, the
>lovely and talented duke broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:34:26 -0700 (PDT), roller blade runner
>><cerebur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is coming from Christian
>>>conservatives
>
>> Surprise: God defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
>> It's in Script.
>
>Nonsense. Before the 9th century C.E., no one could get married in a
>church. As for an endorsement of an institution that existed long before
>any christian or Hebrew god, the best Paul could muster was that it was
>better than burning.
Shall I show Holy Script to you - yes I will. And that is Jesus, the Son of
God, in 33AD explaining what God has said.
Matthew 19:5-6 (New International Version)
5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united
to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[a]? 6So they are no longer two,
but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Dionisio
> Surprise: God defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It's
> in Script.
Genesis 4:19
And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one [was] Adah, and the name of
the other Zillah.
[Oh dear, first book of the Bible, and already there's a plurality of folks married
to one man. Hardy an auspicious start for the "Christian history says" angle...]
Genesis 29:21-28
And Jacob said unto Laban, Give [me] my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may
go in unto her. 22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast.
23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to
him; and he went in unto her. 24 And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid
[for] an handmaid. 25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it [was] Leah: and
he said to Laban, What [is] this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for
Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me? 26 And Laban said, It must not be so done in
our country, to give the younger before the firstborn. {country: Heb. place} 27 Fulfil her
week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet
seven other years. 28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his
daughter to wife also.
[Jacob. Hmm... Wasn't he rather important to Christianity? How could his marital
status be overlooked by the "faithful"? Willfully perhaps?]
Genesis 36:2-4
Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the
Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; 3 And
Bashemath Ishmael's daughter, sister of Nebajoth.
[Still not out of Genesis, and here's another man with several wives. Sheesh.]
And then there's this little item in Deuteronomy 21:15-17
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him
children, [both] the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was
hated: 16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit [that] which he hath,
[that] he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated,
[which is indeed] the firstborn: 17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for]
the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he [is] the
beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his. {that...: Heb. that is
found with him}
[Oh yes, "one man and one woman was the law of the land." So much so that laws were
written for folks who had more than one wife. (Please note the extensive use of sarcasm
there.)]
Judges 8:30-31
And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.
{of his...: Heb. going out of his thigh} 31 And his concubine that [was] in Shechem, she
also bare him a son, whose name he called Abimelech. {called: Heb. set}
[More multiple wives, and a concubine! The monogamy knows no end.]
1st Samuel 1:1-2
Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name [was]
Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an
Ephrathite: 2 And he had two wives; the name of the one [was] Hannah, and the name of the
other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.
[Well, that one was rather obscure. Maybe we should just chuck it.]
1st Samuel 25:40-43
And when the servants of David were come to Abigail to Carmel, they spake unto her,
saying, David sent us unto thee, to take thee to him to wife. 41 And she arose, and bowed
herself on [her] face to the earth, and said, Behold, [let] thine handmaid [be] a servant
to wash the feet of the servants of my lord. 42 And Abigail hasted, and arose, and rode
upon an ass, with five damsels of hers that went after her; and she went after the
messengers of David, and became his wife. {after her: Heb. at her feet} 43 David also took
Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives.
[Well, my, my, my. Another fairly important figure in Christianity. And another man
whose life just dripped with monogamy. Oh the inconvenience!]
2nd Samuel 12:7-11
And Nathan said to David, Thou [art] the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I
anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave
thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of
Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto
thee such and such things. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to
do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken
his wife [to be] thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 10
Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised
me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. 11 Thus saith the LORD,
Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy
wives before thine eyes, and give [them] unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy
wives in the sight of this sun.
[Grabby King David! As if his present wives weren't enough, he engineers the killing
of Uriah so he can get married to yet another wife. Oh, and I just LOVE verse 11, don't
you? "What God hath joined together, let no man tear asunder." But if God Himself wants to
do that, well, that's okey dokey.]
2nd Samuel 19:5
And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, Thou hast shamed this day the
faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons
and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines
[More wives and concubines! Will the monogamy never end?]
1st Kings 11:1-3
But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh,
women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, [and] Hittites; {together...: or,
beside} 2 Of the nations [concerning] which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye
shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: [for] surely they will turn
away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. 3 And he had seven
hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines
[Was that the word "hundred"? And were there several of those hundreds? And were
there also several hundreds of concubines?!? And this is a man praised as the wisest man
around? Sheesh. He's lucky something didn't fall off! But, oh yes, that was all monogamy
don't ya know...]
1st Kings 20:1-7
And Benhadad the king of Syria gathered all his host together: and [there were]
thirty and two kings with him, and horses, and chariots: and he went up and besieged
Samaria, and warred against it. 2 And he sent messengers to Ahab king of Israel into the
city, and said unto him, Thus saith Benhadad, 3 Thy silver and thy gold [is] mine; thy
wives also and thy children, [even] the goodliest, [are] mine. 4 And the king of Israel
answered and said, My lord, O king, according to thy saying, I [am] thine, and all that I
have. 5 And the messengers came again, and said, Thus speaketh Benhadad, saying, Although
I have sent unto thee, saying, Thou shalt deliver me thy silver, and thy gold, and thy
wives, and thy children; 6 Yet I will send my servants unto thee to morrow about this
time, and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be,
[that] whatsoever is pleasant in thine eyes, they shall put [it] in their hand, and take
[it] away. {pleasant: Heb. desirable} 7 Then the king of Israel called all the elders of
the land, and said, Mark, I pray you, and see how this [man] seeketh mischief: for he sent
unto me for my wives, and for my children, and for my silver, and for my gold; and I
denied him not. {I denied...: Heb. I kept not back from him}
[<chuckle> And now the Bible has a man giving another man his wives... So much for
the sanctity of marriage. Won't even fight for his women. Pathetic.]
1st Chronicles 4:5
And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.
[Eh, what's another one?]
1st Chronicles 8:8
And Shaharaim begat [children] in the country of Moab, after he had sent them away;
Hushim and Baara [were] his wives.
[And another...]
2nd Chronicles 11:21-23
And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his
concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and
eight sons, and threescore daughters.) 22 And Rehoboam made Abijah the son of Maachah the
chief, [to be] ruler among his brethren: for [he thought] to make him king. 23 And he
dealt wisely, and dispersed of all his children throughout all the countries of Judah and
Benjamin, unto every fenced city: and he gave them victual in abundance. And he desired
many wives. {many wives: Heb. a multitude of wives}
[Why look everyone! A mini Solomon!]
2nd Chronicles 13:21
But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives, and begat twenty and two sons,
and sixteen daughters.
[And the examples of monogamy just keep on coming, and coming, and coming... (Double
entendre? What double entendre?)]
2nd Chronicles 24:3
And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters.
[Whew! Just two wives this time.]
Daniel 5:2
Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver
vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which [was] in
Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink
therein. {father: or, grandfather} {taken: Chaldee brought forth}
[Oops. Back to wives and concubines again. <sigh> Will the monogamy never stop?]
Well, if the Bible won't stop, I will. That's a fair little list of exceptions. Certainly
more than enough to establish the falsity of a certain claim.
Those who deliberately misrepresent the Christian -- or Judeo-Christian -- history of
marriage are properly called liars. And since many also use this false thing to beseech
others for money... Well, they are also frauds, social parasites, abominations even. The
founder of the religion which many of these folks claim to follow, had something to say
about seekers after of filthy lucre. It was not charitable. And if there is a schism
between those who claim to be Christian, and the Christ which gave the C-H-R-I-S-T to
Christianity... Well, it would be best to take the word of the founder, would it not?
One last thought, and then I shall be done.
It is said that same-sex marriage is a path to Satan. Consider if you will whether or not
some people are already in bed with him. For it is written that he is the Father of
Lies... Just a thought.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
The devoutly Buddhist Thais believe people are homosexuals, lesbians, transvestites or
heterosexuals because of their karma. They generally don't judge them for being different
but attribute it to actions in their past lives. It is simply their fate.
-- From an AP story dated 26 Nov 94
(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
duke
Wow, not so much as one quote from the Christian NT.
The Jews disobeyed God. It's the same for you and me and them - listen to God
or say hello to satan.
>Those who deliberately misrepresent the Christian -- or Judeo-Christian -- history of
>marriage are properly called liars. And since many also use this false thing to beseech
>others for money... Well, they are also frauds, social parasites, abominations even. The
>founder of the religion which many of these folks claim to follow, had something to say
>about seekers after of filthy lucre. It was not charitable. And if there is a schism
>between those who claim to be Christian, and the Christ which gave the C-H-R-I-S-T to
>Christianity... Well, it would be best to take the word of the founder, would it not?
>
>One last thought, and then I shall be done.
>It is said that same-sex marriage is a path to Satan. Consider if you will whether or not
>some people are already in bed with him. For it is written that he is the Father of
>Lies... Just a thought.
Yep, satan does his best to convince you that you don't need to listen to God.
That's how he gets his fresh meat - finding suckers.
The Archangel Michael
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:vcsj34dngrm3bp4nm...@4ax.com...
> Yep, satan does his best to convince you that you don't need to listen to
> God.
>
> That's how he gets his fresh meat - finding suckers.
>
> duke, American-American
The squabbling and fighting among humans about gay men is both ugly and
unnecessary.
As many seek to demean the gay man and attempt to condemn him on a religious
level - so you may also condemn the heterosexual man by his fornication with
woman and thus his defilement and consequential impurity.
References can be found from many different religious sources for or against
what you wish - depending on your own personal hatreds and vendettas.
These condemnations and personal hatreds and vendettas are of course "sin".
You are the ones to be judged.
You should not judge each other.
And it is a sin of the highest level for a human to condemn another on a
religious basis. They have no right to do this.
As you condemn - so you will be condemned.
As you love - so you will be loved.
juanjo
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:34:26 -0700 (PDT), roller blade runner
>
> >Much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is coming from Christian
> >conservatives
>
> Surprise: God defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It's
> in Script.
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
Marriage preexisted Christianity and has nothing to do with religion.
It has everything to do with establishing property rights and by
extension inheritance rights. It was not even a sacrament in the
Catholic Church until long after the founding of that church.
In a secular society such as we live in today, marriage is a civil
ceremony. Curiously we have Martin Luther and Henry VIII to thank for
the start of that concept. In a secular society one may or may not
involve a clergy person in the rite. It does not matter to the
state. But marriage as a civil institution provides for numerous
contractual rights between the parties. It is those rights that same
sex partners seek. Those rights are not dependent upon procreation
nor defined by them.
Personally it is my belief that the United States should follow the
example of other nations and remove the involvement of religious
clergy entirely from the marriage rite. In many European countries as
well as Mexico and some South American countries, the marriage is
complete and valid upon the completion of the registration with the
clerk or registrar, no religious service is involved. One may of
course later have a religious ceremony should one choose to do so but
that religious service has no impact on the validity of the marriage.
Indeed simply having a religious ceremony does not create a legal
marriage.
God worships me
Did not your teachers teach you that speaking of yourself is bad form,
oh yee, one of Satan's disciples?
God worships me
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 14:56:46 +0200 (CEST), Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In our last episode, <gtki349op7hflh68v...@4ax.com>, the
>> lovely and talented duke broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:34:26 -0700 (PDT), roller blade runner
>>> <cerebur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is coming from Christian
>>>> conservatives
>>> Surprise: God defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
>>> It's in Script.
>> Nonsense. Before the 9th century C.E., no one could get married in a
>> church. As for an endorsement of an institution that existed long before
>> any christian or Hebrew god, the best Paul could muster was that it was
>> better than burning.
>
> Shall I show Holy Script to you - yes I will. And that is Jesus, the Son of
> God, in 33AD explaining what God has said.
More lies, from he who lies.
duke
I'm not judging. It's not in my charter. God will take care of that himself.
God worships me
Yet you admonish. How can you do that without judging?
Dionisio
>>Well, if the Bible won't stop, I will. That's a fair little list of exceptions. Certainly
>>more than enough to establish the falsity of a certain claim.
>
> Wow, not so much as one quote from the Christian NT.
Well, the line was that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. That is a
lie, and plainly and clearly demonstrated by God's own Word.
However, should you desire to discard a large chunk of the Bible, that's your choice.
The examples are numerous and, yes, extend to the New Testament as well. Since you do not
appear to realize who you challenge, I say to you, "Behold!"
Matthew 19:8
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away
your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
[Golly, there's one...]
Luke 17:27
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day
that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
[There's two...]
Acts 21:5
And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way; and they all
brought us on our way, with wives and children, till [we were] out of the city: and we
kneeled down on the shore, and prayed.
[There's three...]
1st Corinthians 7:29
But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short: it remaineth, that both they that have
wives be as though they had none;
[How interesting... Counseling the married to be as eunuchs...]
Ephesians 22:24
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own
husbands in every thing.
[And, let's see... Who are the "wives of Christ"? Why, I think they number both the male
and the female, do they not? (I mean, what Fundy worth their collection plate would say
that Jesus had husbands, hmm...?) And it goes on from there for a few verses.]
Colossians 3:18-19
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. 19 Husbands,
love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them.
[Now, are we to believe that this reference to the plural form of "wife" is accidental?
What with all the plurality previously noted? Perhaps.]
1st Timothy 3:8-12
Likewise [must] the deacons [be] grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not
greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10
And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being
[found] blameless. 11 Even so [must their] wives [be] grave, not slanderers, sober,
faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their
children and their own houses well.
[OMG! A reference to one man and one wife! For deacons! And this was a thing of such
importance that it took... Hmm... Quite a few books to get to. And it only applies to
deacons... (Let me guess, you'll latch onto this like a terrier latches onto a rat. And
had it not been pointed out to you via a secular humanist, you'd not have known of it at
all. You're welcome.)]
It is written that they who ask shall receive. You asked. You have received.
It would have been nicer had you been more familiar with God's Word, and not inquired of
an unbeliever to educate you as to the contents of the central book which governs
Christianity. Oh well. Now you know.
> The Jews disobeyed God.
Hello!?! *Everyone* disobeys God! Doesn't matter if they're Jewish, Muslim, atheist,
Hindu, Buddhist, or even Christian. But you're welcome to call God a liar if you like. Of
course, that would qualify as blasphemy...
Are you prepared to say "Hello" to Satan?
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Why do we call them "moving sales" when they're always in a stationary location?
duke
>duke wrote:
>>>Well, if the Bible won't stop, I will. That's a fair little list of exceptions. Certainly
>>>more than enough to establish the falsity of a certain claim.
>> Wow, not so much as one quote from the Christian NT.
>Well, the line was that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. That is a
>lie, and plainly and clearly demonstrated by God's own Word.
A marriage in the sight of God is.
>However, should you desire to discard a large chunk of the Bible, that's your choice.
The OT reveals God introducing himself to mankind, laying out his expectations,
and the prophesy of the coming Messiah.
The last I checked, the Messiah came 2000 years ago, and his words and teachings
are reflected in the NT.
>The examples are numerous and, yes, extend to the New Testament as well. Since you do not
>appear to realize who you challenge, I say to you, "Behold!"
>Matthew 19:8
> He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away
>your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
> [Golly, there's one...]
Yep, Moses said divorce is ok under certain circumstances, but not remarriage as
that is adultery.
>Luke 17:27
> They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day
>that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
> [There's two...]
Not two wives authorized.
>Acts 21:5
> And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way; and they all
>brought us on our way, with wives and children, till [we were] out of the city: and we
>kneeled down on the shore, and prayed.
> [There's three...]
Not two or more wives authorized.
>1st Corinthians 7:29
> But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short: it remaineth, that both they that have
>wives be as though they had none;
> [How interesting... Counseling the married to be as eunuchs...]
Yep - for the good of the kingdom of God. Mat 19:12.
>Ephesians 22:24
> Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own
>husbands in every thing.
Not two or more wives.
> [And, let's see... Who are the "wives of Christ"? Why, I think they number both the male
>and the female, do they not? (I mean, what Fundy worth their collection plate would say
>that Jesus had husbands, hmm...?) And it goes on from there for a few verses.]
Hell no. The Church is the bride of Christ.
>Colossians 3:18-19
> Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. 19 Husbands,
>love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them.
> [Now, are we to believe that this reference to the plural form of "wife" is accidental?
>What with all the plurality previously noted? Perhaps.]
Nope. NO two or more wives.
>It is written that they who ask shall receive. You asked. You have received.
Yep, and marriage following divorce (a civil action only) is adultery.
>It would have been nicer had you been more familiar with God's Word, and not inquired of
>an unbeliever to educate you as to the contents of the central book which governs
>Christianity. Oh well. Now you know.
It's clear I am the one, and not you.
>> The Jews disobeyed God.
>Hello!?! *Everyone* disobeys God! Doesn't matter if they're Jewish, Muslim, atheist,
>Hindu, Buddhist, or even Christian. But you're welcome to call God a liar if you like. Of
>course, that would qualify as blasphemy...
But only Christians have the sacrament of confession. John 20:22-23,
>Are you prepared to say "Hello" to Satan?
Based on your postings, you are the one doing that.
Emerson Wainwright
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:34:26 -0700 (PDT), roller blade runner
>
> >Much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is coming from Christian
> >conservatives
>
> Surprise: God defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It's
> in Script.
Not everyone believes the script. And since there's no proof that
it's true, well, you're really not left with a valid argument, are ya.
Emerson Wainwright
> duke wrote:
> >>Well, if the Bible won't stop, I will. That's a fair little list of exceptions. Certainly
> >>more than enough to establish the falsity of a certain claim.
>
> > Wow, not so much as one quote from the Christian NT.
>
> Well, the line was that marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
Things change.
> That is a
> lie, and plainly and clearly demonstrated by God's own Word.
Why didn't God mention internet porn?
No One
It's not in the Bible. What's there is the following (Genesis 2:22 to
2:24) <http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm> and select Genesis and
then select Chapter 2:
2:22 Then the Lord God made66 a woman from the part he had
taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 2:23 Then
the man said,
"This one at last67 is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called68 'woman,'
for she was taken out of69 man."70
2:24 That is why71 a man leaves72 his father and mother and
unites with73 his wife, and they become a new family.74
But footnote 71 states
71tn This statement, introduced by the Hebrew phrase
[non-ascii] ('al-ken, "therefore" or "that is why"), is an
editorial comment, not an extension of the quotation. The
statement is describing what typically happens, not what will
or should happen. It is saying, "This is why we do things the
way we do." It links a contemporary (with the narrator)
practice with the historical event being narrated. The
historical event narrated in v. 23 provides the basis for the
contemporary practice described in v. 24. That is why the
imperfect verb forms are translated with the present tense
rather than future.
So, what it is saying is that the custom of marriage as a contemporary
practice when Genesis was written was motivated by the Bible's
creation myth.
Also, not the phrase "typically happens", which means that marrying
a woman is not some sort of divine requirement.
duke
<emersonw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 26, 1:51 pm, Dionisio <moc-rr-thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
>> duke wrote:
>> >>Well, if the Bible won't stop, I will. That's a fair little list of exceptions. Certainly
>> >>more than enough to establish the falsity of a certain claim.
>>
>> > Wow, not so much as one quote from the Christian NT.
>>
>> Well, the line was that marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
>
>Things change.
Not with God.
duke
wrote:
>Marriage preexisted Christianity and has nothing to do with religion.
But God defining "marriage" pre-existed mankind.
>It has everything to do with establishing property rights and by
>extension inheritance rights. It was not even a sacrament in the
>Catholic Church until long after the founding of that church.
Uh, no. The civil contract part of later marriages is just that, of course. But
God defined marriage as between one man and one woman and becoming one.
It's in script.
>In a secular society such as we live in today, marriage is a civil
>ceremony.
Sorry, God still is in control in your "secular" society.
>But marriage as a civil institution provides for numerous
>contractual rights between the parties. It is those rights that same
>sex partners seek. Those rights are not dependent upon procreation
>nor defined by them.
Yet it's still a late add-on to the religious marriage ceremony.
> In many European countries as
>well as Mexico and some South American countries, the marriage is
>complete and valid upon the completion of the registration with the
>clerk or registrar, no religious service is involved.
Then they are not married, as marriage always has been defined as a union
between one man and one woman IN THE SIGHT OF GOD.
duke
<emersonw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Surprise: God defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It's
>> in Script.
>Not everyone believes the script.
It matters not. God spoke.
>And since there's no proof that
>it's true, well, you're really not left with a valid argument, are ya.
There's no proof you have thoughts either.
Errol
>
> Then they are not married, as marriage always has been defined as a union
> between one man and one woman IN THE SIGHT OF GOD.
Apparently you are too stupid to read or too confuddled with religion
to accept quotes right from the bible that contradict your
preconceptions
.
Merlin
> But God defining "marriage" pre-existed mankind.
god does not marry people. each state government makes the laws and
holds the certificates of marriage.
there is no national state registry of marriages in the us.
> Uh, no. The civil contract part of later marriages is just that, of course.
every marriage must pass this test. no marriage in a church is
recognized without a liscense from the state.
> But
> God defined marriage as between one man and one woman and becoming one.
when a farmer say to farmers what farmers understand.
when speaking with plumbers say what plumbers might understand.
do you wish to live under the religious laws that support one man one
woman marriages?
do you wish for a kosher life with diet and behavior? that would be a
good start,
when you say god said something. live like people lived when god said
it. then,
you don't modern life for your faith. do you?"
>
> It's in script.
>
so is stoning people to death in the scriptures.......
will you allow us to stone you death the next time you break an old
testament law?
will you submit to old fashion old testament justice?
> Sorry, God still is in control in your "secular" society.
god is yes, religion is not.
>
> Yet it's still a late add-on to the religious marriage ceremony.
the egg or the chicken?
adam and even eve got married, they lived in sin.
they had children and died without the benefit of marriage.
and you say marriage is eternal?
when adam was a hemaphorite before god cut him up and made eve.
>
> Then they are not married,
in your religion, that must have the stamp of approval of your church?
that would be hard don't you think?
for 6 billion people to have to get married in your church to be
married?
no other way of doing this other than with your church registry?
when are you gonna force this into law?
> as marriage always has been defined as a union
> between one man and one woman IN THE SIGHT OF GOD.
go ahead, tell us about god when you cannot claim to have ever met
god.
you sound like a fertility cult member from gomora, that would do
anything to make
your neighbor have sex the way your fertility goddes tells you to have
sex.
so much so that you would threaten to harm angles when they refuse to
have sex the way you religion demands.
in love with the living gay jesus,
merlin
> *****
Emerson Wainwright
That is VERY interesting! Because it means that the people needed a
REASON for why men and women married each other (just as they needed a
reason or cause for birds and oceans and the "firmament" to exist).
Emerson Wainwright
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 15:57:03 -0700 (PDT), Emerson Wainwright
>
> >> Surprise: God defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It's
> >> in Script.
> >Not everyone believes the script.
>
> It matters not.
Except that it does matter.
> God spoke.
1. Prove God's existence
2. Prove that he spoke.
3. Prove WHAT he spoke
Shouldn't be too tough, eh?
> >And since there's no proof that
> >it's true, well, you're really not left with a valid argument, are ya.
>
> There's no proof you have thoughts either.
Incorrect. Had I no thoughts, you'd not have responded to my post,
which required thought, followed by action.
Are you graduating high school soon? Or are ya just gonna get a GED
like your friends?
Dionisio
> Why didn't God mention internet porn?
I think that would fall under "looking at a woman with lust in your heart."
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Among life's perpetually charming questions is whether the truly evil do more harm than
the self-righteous and wrong.
--JON MARGOLIS
Dionisio
He knows a good thing when He sees it: Thus His bachelor status.
Which would sort of make one rather suspicious as to whether the first temptation was not
from Satan via the snake and apple, but by God via woman.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"I was court-martialed in my absence, and sentenced to death in my absence, so I said they
could shoot me in my absence."
-- Brendan Behan
Dionisio
> Dionisio <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
>>Well, the line was that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. That is a
>>lie, and plainly and clearly demonstrated by God's own Word.
>
> A marriage in the sight of God is.
Is... What?
>>However, should you desire to discard a large chunk of the Bible, that's your choice.
>
> The OT reveals God introducing himself to mankind, laying out his expectations,
> and the prophesy of the coming Messiah.
>
> The last I checked, the Messiah came 2000 years ago, and his words and teachings
> are reflected in the NT.
And then you proceed to try to have sections of that tossed out 'cause they don't conform
to your preconceived notions. (As an aside, would preconceived thought be like "immaculate
thought," conceived without the act?)
>>Matthew 19:8
>> He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away
>>your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
>> [Golly, there's one...]
>
> Yep, Moses said divorce is ok under certain circumstances, but not remarriage as
> that is adultery.
Well, in the Beginning, there was no adultery. I know that may come as something of a
shock to such an upstanding "there is sin everywhere" Christian; Nonetheless, it is
difficult to commit adultery when there's only one woman on the planet.
Next astonishing revelation?
>>Luke 17:27
>> They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day
>>that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
>> [There's two...]
>
> Not two wives authorized.
Funny thing Biblical times, wives tended not to be mentioned unless there were children,
or the wives served to fulfill prophecy.
>>1st Corinthians 7:29
>> But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short: it remaineth, that both they that have
>>wives be as though they had none;
>> [How interesting... Counseling the married to be as eunuchs...]
>
> Yep - for the good of the kingdom of God. Mat 19:12.
<smile> What's that? A discontinuity? Marriage isn't good enough for Heaven? But it is
good for Heaven on Earth? Fascinating.
>>Ephesians 22:24
>> Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own
>>husbands in every thing.
>
> Not two or more wives.
Except for those who had them...
>> [And, let's see... Who are the "wives of Christ"? Why, I think they number both the male
>>and the female, do they not? (I mean, what Fundy worth their collection plate would say
>>that Jesus had husbands, hmm...?) And it goes on from there for a few verses.]
>
> Hell no. The Church is the bride of Christ.
Even when it's composed of men? My, my! What a singularly interesting thing that...
Or would you be contending that the church is sexless? God Himself doesn't buy that.
Dig deeper desperate one. (Or should I say, "bride.")
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
People used to explore the dimensions of reality by taking LSD to make the world look
weird. Now the world is weird and they take Prozac to make it look normal.
--Bangstrom