• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

1 man, 1 woman isn't the Bible's only marriage view

davidtaylorjr said:
Once again, out of context and twisting words.
Click to expand...

Translated: you can't rebut the plain language of the Hebrew Scriptures. I thought not. Fundies seem almost to be blinded by God about it.

From God's lips to your ears:

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Now, gloss away. Try to make it means something else. Wish it to the cornfield. So much for your literalism.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Chuckles said:
If that is your intent I have no real issue with it. It just some people seem to expect these things to create some groundswell of change among adherents
Click to expand...

We all know that's not going to happen. Indeed, the fundies seem almost blinded and cannot seem to even see the plain language of these texts.
 
head of joaquin said:
Translated: you can't rebut the plain language of the Hebrew Scriptures. I thought not. Fundies seem almost to be blinded by God about it.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to rebut in the Scripture, the rebut was to your interpretation of what that means.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
There is nothing to rebut in the Scripture, the rebut was to your interpretation of what that means.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the point is, you can't.

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Let the glossing begin!
 
head of joaquin said:
Yeah, the point is, you can't.

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Let the glossing begin!
Click to expand...

Once again, nowhere does it talk about sex-slaves as you claim.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Once again, nowhere does it talk about sex-slaves as you claim.
Click to expand...

What do you think the references to virgin girls is about? Playtime at the local kindergarten?

Gen 16: Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”

Did anybody ask the slave Hagar?
 
Last edited:
head of joaquin said:
We all know that's not going to happen. Indeed, the fundies seem almost blinded and cannot seem to even see the plain language of these texts.
Click to expand...

you would be surprised. I remember some research (though much more questionable) recently released indicated that the translation for virgins in the hadith about martyrdom was about raisins. Talking to some people about it, you would get the impression that we finally found the trump card not only to deal with islamic extremism, but those in the west who over react to it.

But yes, this thread is going the full direction I expected, though you haven't been labeled a monkey-faced demon, yet
 

Give it time -- I'm sure some denier of polygamy will get to the demon allegations soon.
 
Homer. said:
Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one, so what the bible says doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

God made laws. Didn't you know that?
 
head of joaquin said:
Rubbish.
Click to expand...

Rubbish? What are you, British?



Actually it doesn’t say he would “add more wives”. It says that in addition to all of the things I have given you I would have given you even more if you considered it too little. God was chastising David for his sin but, somehow, I think you already know that.


As I stated earlier, polygamy existed. This was not God’s ideal but he does recognize that it existed. And, as you pointed out, they should not have “too many wives” so that their hearts would not turn away from God.

And that is exactly what happened to Solomon (1 Kings 11).
 

Nope ... This wasn't God's commandent however ... This was a fallable human's idea, and it wasn't blessed by God at all.
 

And you do realize God did not favor that correct? Also, the girls would be brought up in their culture and married later.
 

The gloss. That's all the deniers have. The words always means something other than the plain meaning when they mean something the fundies can't handle -- like God saying kill all the boys and rape the virgins, or David, I'd give you more wives it would help.

That's why fundies and literalists are a joke, if not heretics.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
And you do realize God did not favor that correct? Also, the girls would be brought up in their culture and married later.
Click to expand...

Evidence? Are there ANY passages in which God said, Abraham, you shouldn't be keeping slave and you shouldn't be raping them? Or was God simply being coy about that?

What the fundies are reduced to is claiming that God could make it a sin to mix cotton with linen, but he couldn't bring himself to tell Israel -- "Don't take slaves; don't rape girls". He just couldn't do that, right?

What a strange view of God the fundies have.
 

Wow.

It never ceases to amaze me of all the hate welled-up inside of bigots. The above is a perfect example of a post where there is no room for thoughtful discussion. Only hate, vitriol, bitterness, contempt, maliciousness, viciousness and lies.

head of joaquin said:
That's why fundies and literalists are a joke, if not heretics.
Click to expand...

Actually, it’s pretty clear as to who the joke is.
 

Just quit engaging him. He is only interested in mocking others, not discussion.
 

Translated: you can't provide any passages in these diverse texts that support your view. Instead all you can do is engage in personal attacks. I thought so. That's a fundie for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…