zoony Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Sometimes I get a sense of the surreal reading tailgate threads that is relatable only to my watching Rod Serling's Twilight Zone when I was a very bright six year old. Exactly the way I felt when it was explained to me. FTR, I still find it repugnant- whether it's specifically in the teachings or not. Facts are though, if you are married, nowhere does it say that you cannot have relations with another unmarried woman. And again, the teachings are very specific on the adultery issue. It's simply not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I just keyword searched the bible for "accept people for who they are" and got zero results. Sorry. Well if God can't the Bible search function to work, what hope is there for the Extremeskins search? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 No. His entire case is that HE isn't committing adultery. Which, again, is impossible to disprove when you weigh his actions against the Gospels and OT. At least I couldn't find it. Think this through. The case he's making is based on the rigid Old Testament definition of adultery, which does technically not include married men and single women (though again, fornication is still in play). This definition is clearly not the one used by Jesus, because he says that a married man that divorces his wife without cause and then marries another woman commits adultery. That's already outside the strict Old Testament defintion of adultery, so your co-worker can no longer cling to that definition. The last step is completed in two thoughts: First, the reason a married man that divorces without cause and then marries another commits adultery is that the first marriage was never legitimately ended. The man in question is still married to his first wife, and so is commiting adultery against her. If it was legitimately ended, there would be no adultery. There would be fornication. Thus, this definition of adultery extends to married men. Second, supporting this point, the Greek word in the New Testament is a word that does not make a distinction between which partner is doing the adultering (if that's a word ). This means something, because the practice of the Biblical writers, when a word didn't exist to describe a concept, was to simply make up a new word. This is why Koine Greek is a seperate field of study from Ancient Greek. Thus, when Jesus and Paul and so on are talking about adultery, they are using the more broad ancient Greek definition, which includes married men cheating. Of course, none of this will convince, because he doesn't want to be convinced. He hasn't got a leg to stand on, and that's to say nothing of the fornication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NattyLight Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Gay people exist and have the same rights as everyone else in nature, thus should have the same rights in the "freest" country in the world. /thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Well if God can't the Bible search function to work, what hope is there for the Extremeskins search? Did Zguy28 get promoted to divinity while I wasn't looking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 TB- you're right about not convincing him. He's also a raving narcissist. If you've ever dealt with one, you know just how destructive to themselves and others they can be. But what you're saying is that Jesus re-defined the Mosaic definition of adultery to apply to married men... and by extension we should infer that it applies to ANY act of sex outside of marriage by a married man. But again, Jesus is very specific in his definition. He has to be b/c he is redefining it. Nowhere does he mention married man + unmarried woman = adultery. That he redefined it is not enough to make the jump. Though I think we can all agree it's a terrible thing to do. *edit* and your "first" point in the above post is a good one, but still not complete- as it is only adultery if the man gets married again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Did Zguy28 get promoted to divinity while I wasn't looking? Who is the mod for THE online Bible? God. Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I live in California, perhaps the most liberal state in the Union (certainly near the top). Gay marriage (since this thread was/is about homosexuality) will certainly be passed within the next couple of election cycles (here anyway). While I'm not gay, I have no problem w/this because it does not affect my life whatsoever either way. I don't get why people are upset by this, it stikes me as the biggest insecurity ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Scour again. Matthew 19 specifically says that a married man that divorces his wife and marries woman another commits adultery. Which means that men can commit adultery. Jesus expanded the legal definition to men. Yet adulterers can get married in the United States of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 But again, Jesus is very specific in his definition. He has to be b/c he is redefining it. Nowhere does he mention married man + unmarried woman = adultery. Yes he does. If a married man marries (or rather, tries to marry) another woman (without divorcing the first woman for proper reasons), when he does so, she is unmarried. He is commiting adultery with an unmarried woman. She can't be married to him, because he never properly divorced his first wife. That seems a bit unclear, so I'll use a diagram. Take jerk A, married to unsuspecting woman B. He decides to have an affair with unmarried woman C. Later, he divorces B (without cause), and marries C. A is still not married to C, because his marriage to B was not properly ended. Thus, C is still unmarried, and A is commiting adultery with her, according to Jesus. Thus, married men can commit adultery with unmarried women, according to Jesus. And there's still the issue of the Greek word used. It's not the Hebrew definition, it's the ancient Greek one, which had no spouse specification. Even if the above passage wasn't clear, we still know that this is what Jesus and his followers taught, because they used the Greek word that conveyed that idea. If they didn't want to convey that idea, they would have used a different word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTerps26 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 WHO CARES holy ****. Gay is not contagious. Give them the same rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Yet adulterers can get married in the United States of America. That's true. When the government decided to encourage certain social structures, they chose not to discourage adulterers from getting remarried. So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Your position requires ignoring other words of Jesus himself, as well as John, Paul and others. You just have to throw those out the window, especially Paul.Sometimes people like to do that with Paul, but what you are telling me, then, is that you, 2000 years later, know more about what Jesus meant than Paul, who was around at the very beginning, and who coordinated his message with James, Peter, and the other apostles. You know more than John, who was the Apostle probably the closest to Jesus. Come on. That's not my position at all. I'm saying that your reading of what is said about grace is wrong. Grace, is what gave all of humanity a savior and gave us the possibility of salvation at all. Faith is what shows us the path to salvation. Works is how you walk that path. You think that faith will make you walk. I disagree. As clearly stated belief and faith in christ isn't the end, it's where you START. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 How many times was the bible transcribed before Gutenberg came along? Just wondering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 How many times was the bible transcribed before Gutenberg came along? Just wondering... Lots of times, which is nice, because scholars can compare the thousands of manuscripts, compare them, and come to solid conclusions as to the exact wording of the originals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTerps26 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 How many times was the bible transcribed before Gutenberg came along? Just wondering... don't get techboy started on this edit: too late lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 don't get techboy started on thisedit: too late lol Just playing Devil's advocate, literally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NattyLight Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 How 'bout this: times have ****ing changed since 500BC-33AD, especially when referencing circumstances from Mesopotamia and Northern Africa to the United States of America in the year 2009. It's ridiculous. These people weren't even alive when Sammy Baugh was alive. Sure, principles of being a good human being still stand, but the elements of society and countrymen shall ever evolve. Be a good person. Be a good countrymen. And frankly, a Bible is not a requisite to accomplish this. Is it a good tool? Surely. But just cause you can turn a Phillips head screw with a flat edge driver doesn't mean it's that optimal tool for the ultimate objective. God I want to open mouth kiss a dude right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 don't get techboy started on this Oh, it won't take me long at all to cut and paste the evidence, if anybody wants to see it, and it shouldn't take you long to scroll past it. Anyway, for the record, the New Testament stands at about 98% certain, with about 1400 words (out of 130,000 plus) still a difficulty, and no doctrine effected. I'll let it go at that unless somebody asks for back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 God I want to open mouth kiss a dude right now. :applause: Oh wait? that's not funny, oh sheet, I'm going to hell for sure now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Lots of times, which is nice, because scholars can compare the thousands of manuscripts, compare them, and come to solid conclusions as to the exact wording of the originals. Oh, it won't take me long at all to cut and paste the evidence, if anybody wants to see it, and it shouldn't take you long to scroll past it. Anyway, for the record, the New Testament stands at about 98% certain, with about 1400 words (out of 130,000 plus) still a difficulty, and no doctrine effected. I'll let it go at that unless somebody asks for back up. So God created light, heaven, earth, all the creatures, Adam and Eve, all the forests, and all the oceans. In 7 days. So why can't he publish a bible that doesn't have to be pored over and argued about for centuries? It doesn't make a lick of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 So why can't he publish a bible that doesn't have to be pored over and argued about for centuries? It doesn't make a lick of sense. Ask 10 lawyers about a contract they wrote, and you'll get 11 different answers. Is it really so surprising that finite, limited creatures can't perfectly understand the will of a infinite, perfect God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Sometimes I get a sense of the surreal reading tailgate threads that is relatable only to my watching Rod Serling's Twilight Zone when I was a very bright six year old. I was trying to figure out what, if you were a very bright six year old, happened to you, but then I remembered that many programs that cause IQ gains in young children frequently see those gains disappear by the time the child gets older, so perhaps that explains it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NattyLight Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Maybe I'm slow, here. So techboy, do you not like homosexuals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Maybe I'm slow, here. So techboy, do you not like homosexuals? Where did you get that idea? I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, to be avoided, just as premarital heterosexual behavior is a sin, to be avoided. That's what the Bible says. I don't dislike any group of people, though, and I tend to follow the example of Jesus, who hung out with tax collectors, prostitutes, and others in various wretched hives of scum and villainy. I do, after all, go to the ES/RR Tailgate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.