Bitcoin Forum

The Shocking Proportion of Americans Who Believe That ‘Religious Institutions or Clergy’ Should Be Forced to Perform Gay Weddings



A new survey conducted in the wake of the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage last Friday found that 19 percent — or one in five Americans — believe that “religious institutions or clergy should be required to perform same-sex marriages.”

More specifically, 26 percent of Americans under the age of 40 believe that churches and clergy should be forced to preside over gay nuptials.

The survey, conducted by the Barna Group, a polling firm that studies religion, also found that 94 percent of evangelicals oppose legalization of same-sex marriage, with only 2 percent expressing support for the measure. Meanwhile, 86 percent believe that the decision will have a negative impact on American society, with just 10 percent saying that they believe offering marriage rights is morally acceptable.

Sixty-six percent of practicing Christians overall believe that the Supreme Court erred in its decision. More broadly, 49 percent of Americans agree with the decision, with 43 percent expressing disagreement.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/01/the-shocking-proportion-of-americans-who-believe-that-religious-institutions-or-clergy-should-be-forced-to-perform-gay-weddings/

How idiotic. What happened to the US? I thought it stood for freedom of religion.....

The internet happened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/upshot/big-drop-in-share-of-americans-calling-themselves-christian.html?_r=0

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/16/religion_may_not_survive_the_internet/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/religion-america-decline-low-no-affiliation-report_n_2867626.html

I find it disturbing the people are ok with the idea of forcing someone to go against their religion in the name of the law. Especially when the country was supposed to be a place where everyone could practice their various religions concurrently so long as they don't harm another.

And don't give me crap about a priest not marrying a homosexual couple as harming them, when they can perfectly well get married without a church.

One day, if/when Christian ignorance stops hurting and killing others, maybe America will stop cutting away Christianity like a fucking cancer. Don't you get it? It's compassion that's killing Christianity in this country.

Compassion + Internet = Death for ignorance, superstition, perhaps even hatred and violence after enough generations.

Christianity isn't hurting people (and there's no reason why it should). People hurt people on individual cases.

And this has nothing to do with the forcing of someone to go against their religion. It does NOT hurt a homosexual couple if they can't get married by a priest. No one should ever be forced to go against their religion.

In a time where people are purporting to be so tolerant, it's funny that people continually want to strip others of their rights.

Gay couples can always get married by their favorite imam...

Although only 26% supports this measure now, I am sure that the figure will rise in the future, as more and more brainwashing is unleashed upon the younger population. Ultimately, the SSM will be made mandatory for every religious institution. Just like the case in the UK, where a baker was fined for refusing to serve to the sodomites, in future, the bishops, rabbis, imams, and monks will be sent to jail for refusing to permit SSM.

When was the last time you've read anything about the pink mafia defending the rights of their brothers and sisters and in between being butchered in sharia law based societies?

Never. It is kryptonite to them. SSM in a mosque? I can see the pink mafia proclaiming it is time to respect some faiths, as an exceptional gesture or something...

Most present day churches are organized under the IRS 501(c)(3) tax exempt corporation status. However, when you look at the wording in 501(c)(3), you find that the churches are first and foremost other kinds of institutions than churches. They may be organized as churches under whatever kind of corporate institution they are organized. But they are not really churches, legally.

The above means that their leaders, their ministers, their priests, their pastors, must obey any ruling that comes down for organizations that are not churches.

A few churches are organized first as churches. They fall under IRS 508(c)(1)(A) exception from taxes, not exemption. They are a church, first, rather than some other kind of corporation first, and then a church under that corporation. They don't have anything to do with 501(c)(3) corporate status.

As a church first, these true church organizations are within the protection of the 1st Amendment. Their people are not required to obey laws that come down for corporations or 501(c)(3) corporatations.

:)

What's so shocking? Most of roman catholic priests are gay  :P

If two people of consenting age decide to have their union sanctified, because they share the same sex, it does not diminish their right to do so any less than a hetrosexual couple. The priest is there to do so, in the same way as a architect, doctor, lawyer ....... should provide professional support, irrespective of their clients sexual orientation. Next it will be claimed as shocking that a white priest should marry a black couple. Both attitudes are grounded in bigotry

The more people churches exclude the better, gay, black, divorced, single moms, whatever, I say let them exclude as many people as they want, eventually churches will be empty, sadly not fast enough...

At least this wouldn't violate anyone's rights.

It does not diminish homosexuals right, since they can get married.


That diminishes the priest's right to religion.

What the world needs is freedom from religion. Religion has no right to impose any sort of restrictions on what one can and cannot do.

The day the majority of people on Earth no longer irrationally believe in god(s) is the day we as a species truly propel forward.

The priest has no right to be intolerant. Religious views that imposes intolerance should never be adhered to, absolutely disgusting, especially since over 50% of the worlds population is not heterosexual(Blame religion and denial for this not being common knowledge).

Religions make their own rules as long as they don't hurt others, whether you think they're a "cancer" or not. I find it interesting though that Christianity is the religion Americans "pick on" the most often.

That's a joke, correct...? Many religious views and "rules" hurt others. I advise you go look into the various discrimintory and hateful laws found throughout the bible, koran, and torah. Also, it's because Christianity is the biggest reliigon out there so far, largely because most of it's followers had it forced on them. EX: Spain and other Christian countries had Inquisitions, where their residents were forced to turn into Christians, leave the country, or die.

in·tol·er·ance
ˌinˈtäl(ə)rəns/
noun
noun: intolerance; plural noun: intolerances

    unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.


Christians should accept other views, beliefs, or behavior other than their own. Yup! That's what Jesus taught. You are supposed treat others with the same respect you'd like for yourself, and love one another as you would yourself.

Christians should not act in sin, and the priest marrying a homosexual couple would be sinning. That's not intolerance. Christians are supposed to be full of tolerance, but not to sin themselves.

"We hate sin by recognizing it for what it is, refusing to take part in it, and condemning it as contrary to God's nature. Sin is to be hated, not excused or taken lightly. We love sinners by showing them respect (1 Peter 2:17), praying for them (1 Timothy 2:1), and witnessing to them of Christ. It is a true act of love to treat someone with respect and kindness even though you do not approve of his or her lifestyle or sinful choices." (link (http://www.gotquestions.org/love-sinner-hate-sin.html))

Reading comprehension my friend. I didn't say they do or don't; I only said they have the right if they don't. Ya know, like knocking down tall buildings, molesting children, etc. If those "rules" are a part of the relion's dogma, then no, they need to be removed.

Really? So why don't Christians kill adulterers, or stone to death priests that drink wine in church, or stone to death prostitutes and etc?

All of that is found in the bible, so priests sticking to one thing(Not wanting to marry gay couples), but not going ahead and killing adulterers shows just how selective they are. They only listen to some of the things in the bible, not all. Pathetic. This is why religion will inevitably "end". Interesting benevolent god you have there who kills the humans it supposedly loves over menial acts.

Maybe English isn't your first language, but here you clearly said they don't: "Religions make their own rules as long as they don't hurt others"

As an aside, it is my first language.

I wasn't advocating any of the acts of any religion. I was just saying that if there happened to be a religion that has a dogma that hurts no one - leave them alone. If they do, then it's not cool when practitioners act on it.

I'm no theologian, but you can find text that advocates harm to others out of intolerance in most religious texts. Not all, but most I'd venture.

I just like how the media goes the route of "Catholic priests molest children - Catholicism is bad". On the other hand, don't judge Muslims based on the behavior of "a few extremists".

So far the few people on this forum who have said Christianity is evil have come back up with that. You guys seem to ignore what Christianity is.

Christianity is built on Jesus Christ dying for our sins, all sins are equally bad, in that they would lead to damnation. But they are all equally forgivable through the love of Jesus Christ when he died on the cross, now all we have to do is believe in Him, forgive others, and ask for forgiveness for our sins, and then we are blameless. (til we sin again as everyone does)

Some of the old traditions in the OT are not practiced anymore, because they sacrificed animals for their sin, and Jesus is now the ultimate sacrifice for our sin, so we don't need to do those things anymore.

He also brought new commandments, and they are:

"Matthew 22:37-40, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

It is as simple as that! If everybody loved the Lord and each other, like Christ loved us, there would be no sin in the world! There would be no murder, no hate, no bitterness, no adultery, no stealing nor any other kind of sin, if we only loved the Lord with all our heart and our neighbor as our own self!" (link (http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/two_commandments.php))

Old Testament and New Testament are starkly different in the rules department.

That's the point. One section allows for extreme cruelty, the other is about peace. Either "god" in the bible has multiple personality disorder or it's a book full of contradictory bullshit.

I don't really care either way, but Christians probably should have just stuck with the New part, which are the teachings of Christ according to select apostles.

That's my point, but it certainly wasn't your point. Your point was to say Christians follow the OT rules, when they obviously are not supposed to and shouldn't.

Except that christ never rejected the Old Testament's rules, so my point is valid. Stop making up your own version of the bible, because it's wrong.

John 10:30 - I and the Father are one

Then that shows the invalidity of the bible. Such Christians do not truly believe in their own holy book.

Just curious, what's your take on Islam?

As irrelevant and almost as cruel as Christianity(Judaism takes the take for being the "cruelest" as it's entirely OT). The thing that the media likes to use to differentiate Christianity from Islam and put Islam in the bad spotlight, is the strict adherence some "muslims" take to the koran, think isis) and the somewhat redeeming yet contradictory New Testament portion of the bible that Christians listen to, yet seemingly ignore the Old Testament entirely, except when they want to discriminate against homosexuals of course.

Jesus died for our sins. So we are not to sacrifice for sins anymore, because He was the final sacrifice and saved us from those sins. That's one example where things changed due to Him being here.

Second, Jesus gave us those 2 commandments: Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

When people sin, they are now to ask God for forgiveness and forgive others, and then Jesus will forgive them. They are not to ask for forgiveness unless they forgive others as they want to be forgiven. The Lord's prayer shows this: "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." They go hand in and hand, and right along with what Jesus commanded.

Jesus also says this:

Matthew:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbori and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

This clearly shows how Jesus said to ignore the old rule of "eye for an eye" and to move into the new commandments of loving everyone, even your enemy, as yourself. The bible speaks for itself.

Unfortunately all of that has nothing to do with Jesus's views on the Old Testament. The fact of the matter is that the bible is a highly contradictory history/story book and Jesus actually supported the views held in the Old Testament; read below(further adding to the extreme contradictory nature of the bible).

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)


This all holds up to the theory that Jesus didn't want to offend the Jews too much by disregarding the Old Testament all together, was not the son of god, and rather used the anthem of peace to gain a following in troublesome times(Without totally offending the Jews and their belief in the OT).

Is intolerance of intolerance to be tolerated?

Yes, He came to fulfill them.

Instead of humans punishing people for their sin (eye for eye, stoning, etc), they're no need now, because they will either be judged upon death (for not asking for forgiveness for that sin), or they will ask for forgiveness and be given it through Jesus.

That's why He can say He came to fulfill them. He's died, and we have forgiveness now. Instead of a need for punishment, Jesus took the punishment for our sin, all of it, even sin that hasn't happened yet, when He died on the cross. There's no need for us to be hurt by our sin anymore. :)

Again, unfortunately that's all wrong. Him dying and forgiving people of their sins has absolutely nothing to do with the cruel laws and rules provided by "god the father" and his prophets in the Old Testament.

What you're doing, is admitting that Old and New Testament portions of the bible highly contradict each other. It's either "God" has multiple personality disorder of that it's all false.

Why do you think it had nothing to with the laws? It seemed to fit perfectly when I wrote the last post.

Because I already showed that Christ supported the laws in the Old Testament. It doesn't matter what new "laws" he enacted in the New Testament, the fact that he supported the ones in the old show that something is really off with the bible, and it's more likely he simply wanted to gain a Jewish following without off-putting them too much by completely rejecting the OT(which means he wasn't god, but a regular man looking to change the society around him). Noble, but not divine.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I think it was fairly obvious, especially thanks to the quote you put up.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

He clearly fulfilled them through His death for our sins, and I see I'm not going to change your mind here.

You're not making sense. The point is that he supports the laws of the OT. That's the point, get it?

Many laws in the OT made by prophets or "spoken" by god are just cruel and downright evil, get it?

This shows the inconsistency and contradictory nature of the bible, get it?

Therefore, it's either everything is false or god has multiple personality disorder...get it?

K.

God has always wanted there to be a punishment for sinning. (OT)

God sent His only son to take the punishment for everyone's sins (Jesus dying on the cross)

God now lets us ask Jesus for forgiveness (NT), instead of going through the horrible punishments listed in the OT. That is why Jesus went through hell, was treated like crap, and hanged on a cross.

1 Peter 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

He lived by His new commandments (I've already posted), loved and trusted God wholly and did not sin against His neighbor as He would not want them to sin against Him. By fullfilling those commandments, He was able to take all the sin that should have been punished, and it was punished unto Him (then and there). Now there's no need for the punishing of sin for us, as He has already fulfilled it.

Edit: You think God changed His mind, multiple personality, but He put all that horrible wrath upon His only son (Jesus) instead. That's not contradictory. That's His grace.

All of that is irrelevant. I'm not talking about there being a punishment for sinning and etc. Please stop going off-topic.

I get that Jesus is a admirable figure, at least according to the New Testament. But the problem is when you christians selectively choose to listen to some passages in the bible and completely ignore others. You listen to the Old Testament on laws regarding homosexuality etc, but why don't you listen to the other laws saying to stone adulterers to death? See?

Either you listen to all of it, or you don't.

The fact that you think I'm going off-topic clearly shows you don't get it. I also had edited the previous post, you can read that too.

Look, Jesus forgiving the sin of humans Has Nothing to do with him supporting the laws of the OT. What don't you understand? Are you trying to troll or just this confused...?

The point of the matter is that the OT is as relevant in Christianity as the NT, and that Christians ignoring the OT shows that they aren't truly Christians. It's especially pathetic when they selectively choose parts of the OT to listen to, such as about homosexuality, and ignore everything else, such as stoning to death those that commit crimes. So it's either something is truly wrong with these so called "christians" or something is truly wrong with the bible.

EDIT: Also, you interpreting Jesus's dying on the cross as getting rid of the OT rules is entirely wrong, as Jesus himself said the opposite. So you're basically twisting his words.

The whole Bible is relevant for all people.

Those who consider themselves Jews are supposed to obey the whole O.T. forever, or until the Judgment Day, whichever comes first.

The rest of the people in the world are supposed to obey the moral laws in the O.T., especially with regard to not harming other people or damaging their property.

Everyone is supposed to gain wisdom about God and how their lives operate from the O.T.


The N.T. is for clarity with regard to salvation. It is given to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, because the Jews have failed in their mission to remain the pure nation that God wants.

The biggest part of the New Testament has to do with the peace between mankind and God through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The whole N.T. has to do with peace among all people because there is peace with God.


:)

Ok nice selective reasoning /s. You either obey all the laws in the bible, including the cruel/evil ones, or none. You BADecker, are not a true christian.

I have and am obeying all the laws in the Bible that apply to me. Since I am not a Jew (although I might have some Jew in my ancestry), I am not required to obey all the laws of the O.T. - only the moral ones.

Since I am obeying the only important N.T. law - to believe in Jesus as my Savior - the good works of Jesus are being applied to me. Though I make mistakes in a practical sense, it is as though I didn't, because Jesus' righteousness covers them.

:)

I know that the OT is necessary reading for Christians. Like I said, I read it all (except working on Psalms). You do have to get a feel for the whole bible to understand how everything fits. Because otherwise you get people who think God is multiple personality like you. I think we've had different ideas of "rules" which is causing you to be frustrated.

I didn't say he got rid of all of the rules (in the sense you mean). There's just no reason to sacrifice for our sins, because Jesus did already. Homosexuality is still a sin. The sins back then are still sins, but if there is anything that's in the OT that is not in the NT that says we have to do something in order to get grace, we don't.

But the rule of stoning someone is out, because we are to love each other, and God is the one who has the rights to punish, not us. If you would like to ask about specific rules, feel free.

Romans 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

You also didn't mention my edit. God sending Jesus to die for our sins in the horrible way He died, was what you might call torture of the worst kind. That is the NT, it's not like God seems more kind in the NT more than the OT torturing people for sins. This means He did not suddenly change His ideas on the dealing with sin. He always has believed that sin required torture/beating/sacrifices, etc. He just decided to step in and take it for us in the NT.

This shows that the Old and New Testaments are really woven together and pieced together wonderfully, not in the black or white contradictory manner you say it is.


Which are the cruel evil ones in your opinon?

It doesn't matter if you're a Jew or not, Jesus supported the laws in the OT. Therefore the OT and NT are equally relevant, by you not following the OT, you're not truly following Jesus. You are not a true christian.

Again, the OT has cruel/evil laws, Jesus supports them. They are equally as relevant as the commands given by Jesus in the NT(love thy neighbor, god).

Step 1: Go to your nearest Bible

Step 2: Open it up and look inside

Step 3: Go to this site, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/, or any other site detailing the atrocious acts and laws by god and his prophets in the OT, and look in your bible for them.

"God the father" and his prophets promote; rape, pedophilia, mass murder, incest, and more.

A person who believes in Jesus salvation DOES obey all the laws, even though in a practical sense he might not. He obeys because any and every mistake he makes is covered by the righteousness of Jesus. Thus, he is essentially as though he had not sinned, had not broken any laws, even though he does.

If you want to accept that the Ceremonial Laws of the O.T. which were for the Jews apply to you, go ahead and do them. Really, they don't apply to anyone except the Jews and those who say they are Jews.

:)

Feel free to list any laws we are supposed to be following currently. There was definitely mass murder in the bible in the OT of those who were sinful, again those who are sinful now, just ask for forgiveness and it's given, because Jesus already died for those sins.

So you're admitting that you don't truly believe in Jesus. The fact of the matter is that Jesus supported the OT, making the OT as relevant as the NT. If you obey the NT's laws, then obey the OT's laws. If you don't obey both, then you are not a true christian, just a superficial "believer".

No, God in the OT allowed for the rape of young women, the murder of babies, children, and the elderly. I assume that babies and children are supposed to be innocent by default, correct?

Every single one of those laws are supposed to be followed, since the OT is as equally relevant as the NT.

If God promoted it, then it is right and good and not evil.

Go to your nearest Bible and see the ways that God promoted anything. If the things He promotes apply to you, then obey. If they don't, then don't. But don't consider God evil.

Everything in the universe and beyond belongs to God, and you are badly mistaken when you say that He is evil. If you say such, then you are pushing yourself against God, the Maker and Owner of everything. It will wind up being you that are evil by opposing God.

:)

So then "god" promoting the murder of babies, children, the raping of young women, the murder of the elderly, the murder of adulteres, the murder of his own priests, means that, "it is right and good and not evil."?

You are the most delusional, pathetic man I have ever met. I'm done here. Now everyone can see why religious people are the bane of this world, we need freedom From religion.

EDIT: You're now on ignore BADecker, I don't talk to delusional sheep.

In the context that a true god actually exists, the "god" your following now BADecker would actually be Satan, just so you know. Stupid man.

The ceremonial laws were for the Jews and nobody else, except non-Jews living among the Jews. It has always been that way. There is no evidence anywhere in the O.T. where God applies the Jews' laws to anyone else, except for the moral laws. Such doesn't exist.

:)

No, it is you who are mistaken to think that God promoted such things. But, even if He did, He is God and Owner of everything. Why are you setting yourself up against God?

:)

EDIT: What's the matter? You place me on ignore because I have answers you can't resist. Consider what you are really doing. You are placing yourself on ignore with regard to the truth. You would rather sleep in your ignorance than wake up and look at reality.

Murdering those who sin, is seen everywhere, and as I said is not done anymore. But it was done because those who were killed were evil (the Lord knew), and he didn't want His people to sin.

It doesn't say women were raped in the bible. Here are a couple of references discussing what some say was rape:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html

"Weren't the virgin women raped?

There are two parts to this objection: did God instruct or permit the soldiers to rape the women, and did the soldiers actually rape them?

It's clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women, but rather to take them captive. The law God had given to the Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt 22:25-27). Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their captives (31:19), and rape (or consensual intercourse) would have violated this command (Lev 15:16-18). In the rest of the chapter, the women are usually referred to as people (using the masculine adam), not women or virgins, underscoring the notion that they were seen as captives rather than sexual objects." (link (http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html))

Unfortunately, your interpretation of the bible is wrong, as there are passages that explicitly show otherwise. There are numerous cases of rape being promoted in the bible. Numerous cases of innocent babies, children, and the elderly being killed because of god's orders. Your god is a evil god, there is no "ifs" or "buts" about it. I advise you go read through the OT portion of the bible carefully. EX: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her - (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)


And as I said before, children and babies are surely exempt from "sin" and cannot be compared to Adults in the matter of sinning. Therefore, your god killing innocent babies and children just proves my point, your not worshiping "god the father", you're worshiping "satan".

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children.  "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."  Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
 
    The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.  But there were not enough women for all of them.  The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel.  So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead?  There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever.  But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
 
    Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem.  They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes. (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

Because the bible is evil christian institutions should be forced to perform ssm.

The church should do it as... a punishment?

Reading the above says, that if someone rapes someone, he is supposed to pay her father money (for the sin he's committed) and then marry her and take care of her because he violated her. Which means rape is a sin and the man is supposed to repay for his sin.

"Together, these passages clearly state that if a man has sex with a virgin who is not betrothed (regardless of whether or not it was rape or consensual) he is obliged to marry her. He should have sought her father's permission first, negotiated a bride-price, and taken her as his wife. Because he did not, he is punished for this—he now must pay up (he can't opt out any more) and marry her (which could be a major punishment in itself if this was a foolish, spur-of-the-moment act and she really wasn't the right woman for him!).

Also note that "he may not divorce her all his days" – this initially doesn't seem significant but is actually a major punishment. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (restated more clearly in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9) allowed for divorce, but only in the case of sexual immorality (the word "uncleanness" refers to this and was translated as such in the LXX). This man now may not divorce his wife even for this reason, but is obliged to continue to support her all his life whatever she does.

But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all.

The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 - the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says." (Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist? (http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html))


Just because you think children and babies are innocent from sin, doesn't mean it's true. According to the bible, there are generational curses, which means children have to pay for the sin of their mother/father. But this explains it pretty well, he was trying to save those who believed in Him, and keeping those who didn't, who would sin with no regret from passing it on and "infecting" others with that sin, thereby showing love:

"In regard to the Canaanites, God commanded, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites — as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). The Israelites failed in this mission as well, and exactly what God said would happen occurred (Judges 2:1-3; 1 Kings 11:5; 14:24; 2 Kings 16:3-4). God did not order the extermination of these people to be cruel, but rather to prevent even greater evil from occurring in the future.

Probably the most difficult part of these commands from God is that God ordered the death of children and infants as well. Why would God order the death of innocent children? (1) Children are not innocent (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). (2) These children would have likely grown up as adherents to the evil religions and practices of their parents. (3) By ending their lives as children, God enabled them to have entrance into Heaven. We strongly believe that all children who die are accepted into Heaven by the grace and mercy of God (2 Samuel 12:22-23; Mark 10:14-15; Matthew 18:2-4)." (Why did God command the extermination / genocide of the Canaanites, women and children included? (http://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanites-extermination.html))

Hello surveyor I've never fucking heard of before, out of dozens I know of! What next, "a survey conducted by the Anrab Group, a polling firm that studies racism, found 1/5 Americans support the genocide of anyone with light skin"?

Generational curses. Wow, so you're admitting that "God the Father" in the bible is an evil god, since he kills innocent children and babies because of acts that there father or grandmother, or great great grandfather might have committed.

Look, your entire argument makes no sense and you're standing up for cruelty and evil here. Absolutely fucking pathetic, not that I can expect much from the likes of yourself. I'm done with you. Why don't you go try getting yourself raped and see how it feels, and just have the man pay your father as if you're a ride at the carnival.

Why should gays be forced to go to church?

See... a lot of sodomites are dying every year due to HIV/AIDS, Syphilis, Gonorrhea.etc. So there is a real need to recruit new people, so that the LGBT community could survive. The churches might be one of the most attractive places to find new recruits, as most of the attendees will be middle-aged and not very aggressive. They should start with the Westboro Baptist Church.  ;D

I hope USA gets nuked before they pollute Europe too. Those sodomites must be stopped!  :o

You ignore the fact that a generational curse can only happen if someone in the family did evil, and children of such families can break them in the name of Jesus nowadays.

You also totally ignored that the bible does not condone rape in anyway.

2 Samuel 13:14 "However, he would not listen to her; since he was stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her."

Violated is not a good word, so that rape was not condoned.

Deuteronomy 22:25-29 "But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. "But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.

So the man who rapes should die, so that rape was not condoned.

Also, the bible is full of verses were people are only supposed to be with their wife. So any sex out of marriage is wrong.

Again, all you're doing is showing that "God the Father" is a malevolent, hateful being who does not forgive. Nice god you worship there /s.

As I shown before, the OT portion of the bible promotes rape, mass murder, etc. Please stop denying what's clearly written. It's childish.

It's not clear from that Deuteronomy 22:25-29 quote that the killing of the rapist is mandated at all times, or just in self-defense, as they're in the act of committing the rape. Also, killing a serial rapist in self-defense stops any more women from being victimized by them.

What's your take on these?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.   (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.   (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)


    They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.   (Judges 5:30 NAB)

I'm sorry, but the bible promotes all the horrors that our society seeks to avoid, such as rape, murder, and the like(Same for the Torah). It's just one big mess and that shows the invalidity of it, there's some moments where laws entirely contradict each other, so it was clearly not inspired by "god".

God gave people plenty of time to ask for forgiveness, they didn't. He forgives when you ask nowadays too. He wiped evil from the world. That's what He does. He doesn't want evil to be running around and affecting those who love Him and give Glory to Him.

As for the quote, I saw no mention of rape.

"1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-Gilead (Judges 21. 10-24): First off I would like to ask a simple question: Where was the rape? It never says it outright in the verse, and therefore requires some very large assumptions from EvilBible in order to make this work for them, which they do without a thought. EB uses this syllogism: "The virgin's relatives were killed. The men who killed them took the virgins in. They got married, so it must have been equivalent to rape (notice EB also assumes the marriage was forced)" Syllogisms do not contain perfect logic, for example "fish can swim. I can swim. I must be a fish." Therefore, there is no reason to believe that this actually contained rape, let alone repeatedly. There were even regulations for how to deal with said regulation. Give them a peace offer (Deut 20.10-14). This verse even goes on to show how war captives were to be treated, as follows:

    Provide them with housing (taking them in)
    Allowing them 1 month to mourn.
    Then allow marriage
    If they divorce, no mistreatment.

Where's the rape? You should know by now."

(Debunking evil-bible (http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-in-bible.html))

The bible does not condone rape, and says not to do it.

Please, read below, the bible promotes rape. It explicit says it, go open up your bible and look before posting again...Thanks.

It says that God will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle. Then it talks about what will happen. That does not necessarily mean to say He wants it all to happen. It says in the bible a lot of things He never wanted to happen, but do because of free will and evil. Even if it means rape (versus marriage/taking care of those who weren't killed), it doesn't say they should ravish women, just that they will be ravished (or another definition of the word used is violated).

Or it could just be another translation problem. It may have just meant men would lie with their wives after they got married. Shakab (http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/shakab.html)

The bible is against rape.

In the first book of the bible...

Genesis 34:1 And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. 2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. 3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel. 4 And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife. 5 And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter: now his sons were with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace until they were come. 6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him. 7 And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter: which thing ought not to be done.

Also:

Deuteronomy 22:25 "But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die."

Why would God want His men to rape people when He believes men should die for raping someone?

Because the bible is inconsistent and contradictory. Some parts promote rape, some are "against it". Ugh, this has already been stated, the below shows that the bible allows for rape. Please open up your nearest bible and go read it.

Guess what? The bible is written and rewritten by HUMANS, who 1) have the capacity to lie 2) are incapable of being perfect. It's a waste of bandwidth to discuss it as if it's "the word of god" - only as a philosophical text.

I've read the passages.


Selling someone as a slave doesn't mean the person she is enslaved to is free to rape her.

"Back than, it wasn't uncommon for poor families to give their children up to slavery. Slavery wasn't as bad as we think of it today. Instead of families letting their children starve or die from sickness, they would send them to be maids or farmers under a boss so that they could receive food, water, shelter, clothing, income, and more. These "slaves" were treated more like servants or workers contract rather than our definine of slaves.

Now, in this particular passage, it is discussing the treament of female "servants" in specific. Women were highly protected under the Jewish law due to the fact that they were highly vulnerable in society. This is why we see so many extra laws of protection revolving around women. If a father gave up his daughter, than the 'boss' would have to take on the duties of a father. He was not allowed to sell her to foreigners (as that would endanger her life). If he was unpleased with her abilities to work, she was simply set free from the contract. He also wasn't able to just get rid of her when her time working was up. The men could simply be let free, because they could get jobs. Women couldn't back than, so the boss was not allowed to just let her leave, and end up in a life of poverty. Often times they would arrange marriages for these women (arrange marriages were common back than). The woman had many extra rights in this marriage that most other women didn't get.... for example, she could divorce him in a multitude of cases! If he mistreated her in any way she had the right to leave and she didn't have to give him anything (whereas a woman in todays society may have to give up half of her belongings to her ex after divorce). " Christians: can you explain this verse Exodus 21:7-8?  (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120430072818AAxaUgg)

And taking a damsel, doesn't mean they're free to rape them, versus rescuing them and allowing them to live. It's also another instance where people are saying that others are taking damsels, not that God is telling them to do so. Are there any examples in the bible where God tells someone to go rape someone? I don't think we've hit on one, and He does say to kill those who would rape others.

Yes of course that's why this passage explicity says ," Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.   (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
"

I guess "women ravished" doesn't mean "rape" in your language. Hint: It does.

Also, while we're at it, here's a few passages from the bible that depict women as being second-class citizens to men. Hope your happy with the laws "God the father" gave that oh so treats women fairly /sarcasm.


"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."- 1 Corinthians 14:34

"But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven." 1 Corinthians 11:5

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ..." - Ephesians 5:22

So it seems "God the Father" is a mass murderer And a sexist.

Time for God is outside of this universe as well as inside it. Why? Because God made this universe. And before He made it, He had his own form of time which was probably some form of eternity.

In Ezekiel 28, we see that the angel who became the devil and Satan, walked with God before he became wicked and evil. He walked right in the places where God walked, "among the fiery stones." His job was to guard the newly created race of mankind. Read Ezekiel 28 and see the glory God gave to His partner-angel, Satan, before Satan fell.

Satan fell because he became conceited regarding his great glory and beauty that God had bestowed on him. While his exact thought processes might not be easily interpreted or known, Satan probably figured that he was so much greater than mankind that why in the world should he have to be a guardian for this stupid, little race of human beings? And since God gave him such great glory, and then assigned him the task of guardian over stupid, weak, little people, God, Himself, must be flawed in His thinking. Therefore, who would be better than he, Satan, to rule the universe and Heaven itself?

Now, let me give you a great piece of understanding, something that you will find almost nowhere else. Here it is. Regarding this wonderful universe that God created, God created everything except for one thing. The only thing left in this universe that could be created (because God hadn't created it) was destruction. So, to be like God (creating something) and to start the destruction of God (so that he, Satan, might take over) Satan created destruction. Even the Revelation in the Bible N.T. calls Satan, Destroyer, in two languages, Hebrew and Greek - "Abaddon and Apollyon." Satan did this by turning on the people in the Garden of Eden that he was supposed to protect, by tempting them into sin, the exact opposite of the thing he was supposed to do.

It was only after Satan did this that he began to find out exactly how strong God is. God is thorough. God is powerful beyond imagination and belief. Satan found this out when he couldn't turn Jesus-God into a sinner, even though Jesus is man (as well as God).

The point is, God isn't the One Who is doing the evil. Rather, it is mankind at the direction of Satan who are doing evil, right along with Satan.

At the same time, recognize that God doesn't let anything move completely out of His control. Satan created destruction. People acknowledged and accepted destruction. But now that it is here, God controls it better and more thoroughly than Satan or people could ever hope to. And God, just to retain His complete control even over the themes and the essence, is controlling destruction in righteous ways that are beyond the greatest thinking of both Satan and mankind.

So, what are you going to do? Are you going to continue being on the side of Satan and destruction by attributing evil and wickedness to God? Are you going to go down the path with Satan to the destruction of himself by his own creation, and of all who follow him? Or are you going to turn and humbly accept the wisdom of God in Jesus, His Son, Who is bringing all godly people (those on God's side and in favor of God) out of destruction in the wisest, best way that it can be done?

You are badly mistaken in your thinking. Turn to God and be on His side, in favor of Him, before there is no more time for you, and you are destroyed right along with Satan and all those who follow him.

:)

The point is, God didn't actually tell people to rape. It could have just been sinful people going and doing the rape, if in fact it did occur. (I never argued ravished didn't mean rape, but that they may have mistranslated "ravished" instead of another word "violated" which maybe stood for something else). But the point is God didn't say to do it.

This is a pretty good page, Sexism in the Bible: Is Christianity Sexist? (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html)

The thing that is going to shock many Christians even more is the fact that there is no Mother Earth for them. Saint Paul says in Galatians 4.26:
:)

I don't know about this arguing about the bible, seems pretty pointless. On the other hand one thing that is very simple: You do not take the rights of one person to protect the rights of another. Case closed.

Very simple, and very true.

I don't care (as in it's good if they are free to) if homosexuals can marry. I do care when people are more than happy to take away rights from others when they are not hurting anyone.

I don't want to raise my children in a society that is non-Bible. Why? Because it is hard enough to get them to be good people living in only a Bible society. Letting them live among ardent sinners makes it really difficult to raise them properly.

:)

I'm all for gay marriage, but if it violates a religions beliefs it should not be forced in anyway. A church is a place of worship for a certain group of people to believe in whatever they believe in and no one has the right to step all over their beliefs.

Amen!

 8)

Yup.

Here's an article about it today:

Kansas governor's order shields clergy on same-sex marriage (http://news.yahoo.com/kansas-governors-order-shields-clergy-same-sex-marriage-215922001.html)

"TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas' governor told state government agencies Tuesday that they can't punish ministers or religious groups for opposing same-sex marriage, and critics said he is sanctioning discrimination even as the state extends new benefits to gay and lesbian couples. Gov. Sam Brownback issued an executive order in response to last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage across the nation. Brownback's order said the "imposition" of gay marriage could lead to "potential infringements" of religious liberties."

Did he shield imams too?

Sounds like he shielded every religious group from performing SSM, but I think it's only for Kansas, lol.

"they can't punish ministers or religious groups for opposing same-sex marriage"

Freedom for the people who give us the most money
Debt Slavery for the rest

AP Poll: Sharp divisions after high court backs gay marriage (http://news.yahoo.com/ap-poll-sharp-divisions-high-court-backs-gay-120451180.html)

Notice the name of the article is sharp divisions after courts back gay marriage, but the poll is not about gay marriage being legalized, it's about whether or not local officials should be forced into issuing a SSM license.

Those who are against SSM based on their religion can be perfectly fine with others being allowed to do it. They are not the same thing.

"The poll also found a near-even split over whether local officials with religious objections should be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with 47 percent saying that should be the case and 49 percent say they should be exempt.

Overall, if there's a conflict, a majority of those questioned think religious liberties should win out over gay rights, according to the poll. While 39 percent said it's more important for the government to protect gay rights, 56 percent said protection of religious liberties should take precedence.

The poll was conducted July 9 to July 13, less than three weeks after the Supreme Court ruled states cannot ban same-sex marriage."

The article discusses more results from the poll too.