One in five Americans: “Religious institutions Should Be Forced to Perform SSM"

[BADecker]

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.

I've read the passages.

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".

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?

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.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

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.

I've read the passages.

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".

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?

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.

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?

The Christian Church is female!

This is going to come to a shock to most non-Christians (and maybe even some Christians), but God's people are referred to as female, not male. In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion." 32 The Church or body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ 33 and God is said to be our "husband." 34 Whenever referred to by sex, the Church is described as "she" or "her."35 In addition, the Greek word for church is a feminine noun.

The essence of biblical equality can be summed up in Paul's letter to the Galatians:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

[BADecker]

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.

I've read the passages.

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".

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?

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.

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?

The Christian Church is female!

This is going to come to a shock to most non-Christians (and maybe even some Christians), but God's people are referred to as female, not male. In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion." 32 The Church or body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ 33 and God is said to be our "husband." 34 Whenever referred to by sex, the Church is described as "she" or "her."35 In addition, the Greek word for church is a feminine noun.

The essence of biblical equality can be summed up in Paul's letter to the Galatians:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

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:

But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

[TECSHARE]

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.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

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.

[BADecker]

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.

[miki77miki]

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.

[Wilikon]

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!

 

[MakingMoneyHoney]

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.

Yup.

Here's an article about it today:

Kansas governor's order shields clergy on same-sex marriage

"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."

[Wilikon]

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.

Yup.

Here's an article about it today:

Kansas governor's order shields clergy on same-sex marriage

"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?

[MakingMoneyHoney]

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.

Yup.

Here's an article about it today:

Kansas governor's order shields clergy on same-sex marriage

"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"

[freedomno1]

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

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

[MakingMoneyHoney]

AP Poll: Sharp divisions after high court backs gay marriage

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.