Biblical marriage thread

Postby draque » Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:19 pm

Oi. I was horribly sick today and the VPN server at work was broken, so... I got bored and decided to write up a little essay on Biblical marriage, since it's such a hot topic these days. This is marriage as defined in the Bible. That is to say, kind that's illegal in the United States and condemned by Christianity. If you want the nice, linked/cross referenced version, it's [url text = "here"]http://draque.livejournal.com/51755.html#cutid1[/url]. All quotes taken from BibleGateway.com and quoted from both the New International and King James Bibles. Anyhow, slightly offensive language warning because I'm feeling fever-ey and the concept of offending someone makes me feel a little bit better.




Biblical Marriage:

OLD TESTAMENT:

Leviticus 18: 18

NIV "Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living."

KJV "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time."

The meaning of this is pretty clear. You can't marry a woman's sister so long as she is both married to you and alive. The obvious implication is that you may marry a woman who is not her sister. Also, if she dies or stops being your wife, the sister is fair game... In any event, I've heard the argument that this passage does not specifically condone taking multiple wives, but to say that is clearly being both naive and willfully ignorant of what is implied here. If multiple wives were disallowed, then taking multiple wives would be forbidden, as opposed to stipulating how one may take them.

If you're curious, the full text of what women men can bone without a guilty conscience, check it out here.

NEW TESTAMENT:

Matthew 5: 31-32

NIV "31)It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'* 32) But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

KJV "31) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:* 32)But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

*law found in Deut. 24:1

Ok. Here's how marriage is ended... if a woman cheats on a man, he may divorce her. And she may never be with another man ever again without committing adultery. And... this works the other way as well? Ah, here's a good verse to answer our question. Proverbs 29: 3 reads "It is a foolish waste to spend money on prostitutes." Huh... foolish. Well, cheating husbands get a mighty finger wagging. That ought to teach them.



1 Corinthians 5: 9-13

NIV "9) I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ... 11) But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy ... 13) God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you."

KJV "9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: ... 11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator... 13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

This would be all well and good if it weren't for a couple of dudes that God seemed pretty cool with. Remember Hosea? Yeah, probably not. He was an Old Testament prophet. Had his own whole book of the fucking Bible. Good for him, right? God commanded him to marry a prostitute to symbolize his (God's) marriage to the unfaithful Israel. Check it out here if you're feeling masochistic. Also, Jesus. He hung out with prostitutes, idolaters and a whole list of other forbidden people in sections of 9-13 that I cut for space. Again, the references are right there if you want to look them up yourself.

I'm getting off topic, though. Back to marriage.



1 Corinthians 7: 1-2

NIV "1) Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2)But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband."

KJV "1) Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2) Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

I've heard these verses used to bolster the idea that the Bible preaches monogamy, and if taken out of context, the last half of verse 2 could be interpreted that way. Taken within the context of both of the verses however (or moreover, the entire chapter), it's clear that the purpose of this is not to establish monogamy, but to ensure that a man's lust is kept under his own control. If you cannot control your desire for sex, marry so that you won't have to. If you're interested in this particular verse or would like to debate the point with me, please read the entire chapter of Corinthians. It's entirely about a man's ability to serve the Christian God without distraction.



Matthew 19: 4-8

When asked about divorce by the Pharasies, Jesus answered...

NIV "4) "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' * 5) and 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'**? 6) So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 7) "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8) Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

KJV "1)And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 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.

*Gen. 1:27
**Gen. 2:24

Another example of supposed support of exclusive monogamy, Jesus uses singular pronouns when referring to the woman in a relationship. "Wife," as opposed to "wives." The Pharasies reference "wives," but the counter argument I typically hear is that they were immoral and that Jesus was not. That counter is typically made when only the verses 4-6 are quoted. In verse 8, Jesus makes clear reference to wives plural.




Ephesians 5:22-24

NIV "22) Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23) For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24) Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

KJV "22)Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."

This one is pretty straight forward... as long as we're going to legislate the Bible, keep in mind that women enter into subservience to their husbands when they marry. Since it's the man who dictates divorce (he can choose to divorce if the woman cheats on him, and if he cheats... well, then he's being bad and will probably feel guilty later), the woman gives up 100% power once the marriage takes place. She does not have the option to leave. Also, it's worth mentioning that "wives" is plural again... still no monogamy rules in sight.



Now as a last point... many people like to push the idea that monogamy was always wrong and that people simply accepted it as a necessary evil, which is why there is Mosaic law concerning it. They cite the many instances of Biblical quotes referring to a man and woman becoming one flesh after intercourse (1 Cor. 6:16 is a good example) as meaning that there must be only one man and one woman. That is to me a nonsequitur. It does not follow that a man can become one flesh with only one woman. Even if it were somehow supposed to be a subtle subtext to the writing (which I don't believe it was intended to be), it would still contradict the explicit passages supporting polygyny. Biblical marriage can be summed in only a few points. 1) marriage is forever, unless the woman fucks up or someone dies. 2)Guys can collect as many wives as they want, but women may only have a single man, and will be released only if he dies (divorce means that by sleeping with another man ever again, they become adulteresses... a crime punishable by stoning). 3) There is no step 3. It's like a goddamn Mac.
User avatar
draque
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:57 am
Location: <=CLEVER-LOCATION=>

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Jennifer Diane Reitz » Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:44 pm

As long as you understand that according to this bronze-age book of bullshit and ignorance, women are chattel and property, akin to cows, only men can fuck them legally, and they can be used as baby machines for making more men (and unfortunately, more women), then you comprehend all that the bible has to teach.

There is a limit on how much one man can hog the resource, but he can have more than one. He can't have more than one from the same stockyard, and just to make things clear, the animals - women- can't have anything. They are to be owned, not ever be owners.

Fuck. The. Bible. Period.
Jennifer Diane Reitz
'Giniko-chan'
Image
User avatar
Jennifer Diane Reitz
Creatrix

  Offline
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:25 am
Location: Olympia, Washington

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Monocheres » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:24 pm

Jennifer Diane Reitz wrote:... this bronze-age book of bullshit and ignorance ...


That's funny, I was using the phrase "stupid bronze-age book" on another thread almost simultaneously. I kid you not! Serendipity, huh?
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Monocheres » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:40 pm

draque wrote:... as long as we're going to legislate the Bible...


I know social conservatives have been trying to swing the pendulum back that way the last few years, but seriously, how far have they managed to? Is there truly such a danger of that, given all the hoops the Constitution makes you jump through? With half of this country blue-state, can red-staters really succeed in getting their way?

Well, I suppose it's a state-by-state thing. I imagine they're getting their way more in AL/GA/MS/TN etc. as opposed to CA/OR/WA/NY/NJ/MA etc.

(BTW, in case anyone was wondering, I'm an atheist conservative. Yeah, ponder that.)
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Monocheres » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:41 pm

Preface: My wife is a wayward Catholic and I'm a wayward Greek Orthodox. So it was fore-ordained we'd be married Unitarian Universalist.

A sign at a UU church read:

Bible Study after service today. Bring your own bible and a pair of scissors.
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Monocheres » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:50 pm

Shackler wrote:The problem with all the "lol Christianity = evil" people is that they assume that the Old Testament is the same thing as the Bible.


Hey, most of Draque's citations were from the New Testament.

That Paul of Tarsus dude what wrote all those letters ... he was no bargain, lemme tellya.
Last edited by Monocheres on Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Sparksol » Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:39 pm

Paul was rather a jerk, if he really went by what he wrote in there. From what I've seen he was a jerk before he converted too, so he only changed who he was being a jerk to (along with his name.)

Now, in the bible being talked about, there are indeed a few good items, but in a book that big and written by so many people, it'd be tricky to remove all the worthwhile lines. Of course, it's at least as difficult to go through and pick out all the good ones, too.
Last edited by Sparksol on Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Religion, over time, tends to diverge. Science tends to converge.
Funny thing about magic, it doesn't consistently go either way."

- strange_person
User avatar
Sparksol
100 Post Little Master

  Offline
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:42 am

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Monocheres » Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Jennifer Diane Reitz wrote:Fuck. The. Bible. Period.


Now, now, Jennifer. Don't go advocating that to your impressionable followers. I mean, can you imagine the paper cuts? Major owie!

Edit: Jen=>Jennifer
Last edited by Monocheres on Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby InterNutter » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:44 pm

Lots of the bible be some pretty fucked up shit. IMHO, the only people clamouring to follow it -heh- religiously... have never actually read it or understand the phraseology.

Hell, there's whole passages on how to do your animal sacrifices correctly.

...and I don't think there's a single passage about *not* beating your spouse(s)...

Random Biblical Bigot wrote:Three cheers for biblical law! Hip! Hip! ::gets stoned to death::
The sig is a lie
The sig is a lie
The sig is a lie
The sig is a lie...
User avatar
InterNutter
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:24 pm
Location: Burpengary [seriously, it's real]

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby draque » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:08 pm

Shackler wrote:The problem with all the "lol Christianity = evil" people is that they assume that the Old Testament is the same thing as the Bible.


Hey now, I've historically been one of the most outspoken long time members to stand up here for people's rights to practice Abrahamic religions, which are none too popular around here. Lumping me with "lol Christianity = evil" types seems a bit off from where I'm standing... The essay was mostly something written out of a frustration at people who lack any sort of understanding of what they're asking for when they say "We need more Biblically sound legislation." Also, I did anticipate people would bring up the Old/New Testament point either here or on my LJ... which is why I really didn't use it much.
User avatar
draque
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:57 am
Location: <=CLEVER-LOCATION=>

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Tychomonger » Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:35 am

Well there's your problem right there. You should be talking to her!
Hello!
Aealacreatrananda wrote:When I envision a far far future.... I don't fuck around.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff.
--The Doctor
User avatar
Tychomonger
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:13 pm
Location: Beside myself

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Enoch » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:42 am

Jennifer Diane Reitz wrote:As long as you understand that according to this bronze-age book of bullshit and ignorance, women are chattel and property, akin to cows, only men can fuck them legally, and they can be used as baby machines for making more men (and unfortunately, more women), then you comprehend all that the bible has to teach.

There is a limit on how much one man can hog the resource, but he can have more than one. He can't have more than one from the same stockyard, and just to make things clear, the animals - women- can't have anything. They are to be owned, not ever be owners.

Fuck. The. Bible. Period.

Jennifer, did you know that St. Paul commanded men to die for their wives, should the need arise?

As far as the rest goes, draque, I'm afraid that you have demonstrated what happens when a non-believer attempts to interpret the Bible. Right off the top of my head, I can point out several glaring errors in your post. The first is the use of the term "foolish waste." Translated from the original texts, a fool is someone who is morally wayward; ergo, someone (or something) who is foolish is immoral. (After a bit of looking, you have also misquoted the verse--Proverbs 29:3 reads, "A man who loves wisdom brings joy to his father, but a companion of prostitutes squanders his wealth."

Secondly, you'll notice in verses from Matthew 5 that both men and women are condemned for their actions. The man is condemned because he forces his wife to become an adulteress by divorcing her for anything less than infidelity (that is, she is forced into unlawful sexual relations), and any man who marries her is an adulterer. One can extrapolate that the reverse is true in contemporary cultures where women have the ability to file for divorce (unlike during the days of the Christ).

Thirdly, in 1 Cor. 5, St. Paul is admonishing a church because of their tolerance of immoral sexual behavior among them. He says that Christians are not to judge unbelievers, but they are to keep the Church pure and holy (i.e., no sexual immorality in the ranks).

Fourthly, 1 Cor. 7 needs to be read as a whole rather than singling out a specific verse. The specific verses you took do not reflect St. Paul's attitude on marriage. (Similarly, all of St. Paul's views on marriage need to be taken as a whole, unless one thinks that men shouldn't marry.)

Fifthly, the verse about wives submitting to their husbands is a commonly misused and misinterpreted one. St. Paul makes clear that a woman's body belongs to her husband, but also that a man's body belongs to his wife. As I mentioned to Jennifer, St. Paul goes on to command men to die for their wives (if necessary).

I hope I've managed to clear up some confusion; good day and God bless.
Enoch

  
 

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Anna » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:24 am

Enoch wrote:I hope I've managed to clear up some confusion; good day and God bless

Oh, you're a painter?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNPyM7q7Cuc
speedpaint-photoshop-style
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu1JjGI4 ... re=related
Joy of painting Bavaria...
(Allright, some inside-info is needed but it's in english :wink: )


I wonder why no one is ever using the Koran, or the Mahabharata, - or Buddhism, or Zen, ... - if religion, then the full stuff, please ...
And it's weird, - there is no place in the last years like the Jennyverse-fourm where I had read such a lot about religion...
User avatar
Anna
Worthy Forumite

  Offline
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:45 pm
Location: Germany, west, not south.

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby draque » Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:22 am

Enoch wrote:The first is the use of the term "foolish waste." Translated from the original texts, a fool is someone who is morally wayward; ergo, someone (or something) who is foolish is immoral. (After a bit of looking, you have also misquoted the verse--Proverbs 29:3 reads, "A man who loves wisdom brings joy to his father, but a companion of prostitutes squanders his wealth."


Granted.

Secondly, you'll notice in verses from Matthew 5 that both men and women are condemned for their actions. The man is condemned because he forces his wife to become an adulteress by divorcing her for anything less than infidelity (that is, she is forced into unlawful sexual relations), and any man who marries her is an adulterer. One can extrapolate that the reverse is true in contemporary cultures where women have the ability to file for divorce (unlike during the days of the Christ).


Ok, I think you're missing the point of what upset me there. Certainly the man is a fault there, but he's still given the power to essentially force sin on someone. When sin is Biblically the cause of y'know... burning for an eternity in an unending inferno of general unpleasantness, it's a bit disturbing to see that it cen be forced on a person through no fault of their own. Even if the man is to blame and is accountable for it, the woman still gets the short end of the stick in the deal.

Thirdly, in 1 Cor. 5, St. Paul is admonishing a church because of their tolerance of immoral sexual behavior among them. He says that Christians are not to judge unbelievers, but they are to keep the Church pure and holy (i.e., no sexual immorality in the ranks).


Yes... he is saying this. You are correct. Also, the sun rises in the east. The ocean is blue. Bugs are yucky. All of these things, like your statement are true, but don't address the fact that although it's in the context of a church rife with inappropriate behavior, it's still saying that you can't consort with X type of people. It doesn't seem to make exceptions.

Fourthly, 1 Cor. 7 needs to be read as a whole rather than singling out a specific verse. The specific verses you took do not reflect St. Paul's attitude on marriage. (Similarly, all of St. Paul's views on marriage need to be taken as a whole, unless one thinks that men shouldn't marry.)


Did you read my whole post? I mention specifically the context is important with this verse and that for a deeper understanding the entire chapter should be read. I mention specifically that the chapter as a whole pertains less to marriage and more to avoiding sexual temptations. The point that I make is that the references in passing to marriage are based on the presupposition of marrying multiple wives.

Fifthly, the verse about wives submitting to their husbands is a commonly misused and misinterpreted one. St. Paul makes clear that a woman's body belongs to her husband, but also that a man's body belongs to his wife. As I mentioned to Jennifer, St. Paul goes on to command men to die for their wives (if necessary).


[citation needed]

I hope I've managed to clear up some confusion; good day and God bless.


If I'm still confused, point out where I'm wrong. Take the time to reply to what I've said, though. I get the feeling you read the verses that I listed, but ignored the commentary that was the meat of my post. Also, I do have one last question... the Bible is supposed to be God's communication to mankind that allows us to see his truth, right? If that's the case, why are you telling me that nonbelievers can't interpret it? That's like writing an book on instructional English in Swahili then handing it to a Russian.
User avatar
draque
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:57 am
Location: <=CLEVER-LOCATION=>

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Enoch » Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:53 am

Ok, I think you're missing the point of what upset me there. Certainly the man is a fault there, but he's still given the power to essentially force sin on someone. When sin is Biblically the cause of y'know... burning for an eternity in an unending inferno of general unpleasantness, it's a bit disturbing to see that it cen be forced on a person through no fault of their own. Even if the man is to blame and is accountable for it, the woman still gets the short end of the stick in the deal.

Romans 3:23: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Even were she not forced into adultery, she would have been condemned. Again, though, it is reasonable to expect that the reverse is true in contemporary culture, where a woman may divorce a man. Secondly, anyone who looks at another with lust has committed adultery--it is unavoidable. Thirdly, I believe that Christ was referring to her having sexual relations after an unlawful divorce.
Yes... he is saying this. You are correct. Also, the sun rises in the east. The ocean is blue. Bugs are yucky. All of these things, like your statement are true, but don't address the fact that although it's in the context of a church rife with inappropriate behavior, it's still saying that you can't consort with X type of people. It doesn't seem to make exceptions.

1 Cor. 9-11: "I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."
Did you read my whole post? I mention specifically the context is important with this verse and that for a deeper understanding the entire chapter should be read. I mention specifically that the chapter as a whole pertains less to marriage and more to avoiding sexual temptations. The point that I make is that the references in passing to marriage are based on the presupposition of marrying multiple wives.

I misunderstood, then. I don't understand exactly how you are interpreting St. Paul's words to conclude that polygamy is acceptable. Could you help me out? (Also, considering the number of people in the Old Testament who had multiple wives and concubines, it is feasible that polygamy is not morally wrong, although some theologians believe that Song of Songs is Solomon's lamentation over not being monogamous.)
[citation needed]

Ephesians 5:25: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Husbands, be prepared to sacrifice yourself, suffering humiliation and torture and injustice, for your wives.

1 Cor. 7:4: "The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife."
Also, I do have one last question... the Bible is supposed to be God's communication to mankind that allows us to see his truth, right? If that's the case, why are you telling me that nonbelievers can't interpret it? That's like writing an book on instructional English in Swahili then handing it to a Russian.

1 Cor. 2:12-4: "We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Only those filled with the Spirit can truly interpret and understand the Word of God. The non-believer is not filled with the Spirit, and so he cannot understand the Word. I have seen many anti-theists quote the Bible in an attempt to "disprove" it, but they do not really understand the words coming from them. It is why there are people who say things like
As long as you understand that according to this bronze-age book of bullshit and ignorance, women are chattel and property, akin to cows, only men can fuck them legally, and they can be used as baby machines for making more men (and unfortunately, more women), then you comprehend all that the bible has to teach.

It saddens me, but then I rejoice that I am so blessed for being able to bring a lighted candle to a dark place.
Enoch

  
 

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Monocheres » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:42 pm

All I can add to this discussion is to point out that this thing, this Bible, we're talking about is not really a unitary work. It is an anthology of literature from a certain region of the Earth, written over a certain rather broad stretch of history, by various authors, in various styles (often jarringly contrasting), serving various purposes and agendas (sometimes fundamentally different). I wager there is something in there for everyone. But I'll say this: It is so drippingly redolent of Humanity, both good and bad, that it seems ridiculous to me to call it the Word of God. And wasteful. To revere every last jot and tittle of it as divine is to deny the faculty of human reason. But to toss the whole thing onto the bonfire in revulsion against the abuses of those who do is to rob us all of a rich cultural heritage that is our birthright.
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Thilia » Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:41 am

Enoch wrote:Jennifer, did you know that St. Paul commanded men to die for their wives, should the need arise?



Enoch, did you know that you have already been banned from this board under a different name, and have now been banned again. You don't even have to die for your wife. Instead, just stay dead to us. God would appreciate it, I'm pretty sure. At least, he told ME he would.

I didn't delete your comments time because you hadn't actually become obnoxious yet.

Jesus loves you, now FUCK OFF and stay fucked off.


-Thilia
User avatar
Thilia
Site Admin

  Offline
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:11 pm
Location: olywa

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby arex » Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:32 pm

What's the Bible have to say about leg-humping?



Hnngh.
"Ahab knew, baby...I lust." -- Vet-san
User avatar
arex
Apple Class Master

  Offline
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:05 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Tarnatia

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby Anna » Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:48 pm

Arex wrote:What's the Bible have to say about leg-humping?



Hnngh.

Humping with the left is impure...

(I think so)
User avatar
Anna
Worthy Forumite

  Offline
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:45 pm
Location: Germany, west, not south.

Re: Biblical marriage thread

Postby arex » Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:50 pm

I always hump the right leg. I'm no savage.


Hnngh.
"Ahab knew, baby...I lust." -- Vet-san
User avatar
arex
Apple Class Master

  Offline
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:05 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Tarnatia

Next

Return to The Political Arena

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron