Gay Marriage: For or Against?

[crait]

"Marriage" is not "from the Bible", it's from social constructs that existed before Christianity itself existed. -DarkPacMan77-

Prove it please

They talk about marriage in the Old Testaments. Anything in the Old Testaments is before Christianity.

[BKFraiders7]

"Marriage" is not "from the Bible", it's from social constructs that existed before Christianity itself existed. -DarkPacMan77-

Prove it please

They talk about marriage in the Old Testaments. Anything in the Old Testaments is before Christianity.

Your wrong.

@ QUE

Other Translations of 1 Samuel 20:30

New International Version (©1984)
Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?

New Living Translation (©2007)
Saul boiled with rage at Jonathan. "You stupid son of a whore!" he swore at him. "Do you think I don't know that you want him to be king in your place, shaming yourself and your mother?

My defense points

Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou* son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?

*You are always contrary to me as your mother is.

20:30 Thy confusion - Men will conclude that thou hast no royal blood in thy veins, that canst so tamely give up thy crown to so contemptible a person

Thou...: or, Thou perverse rebel: Heb. Son of perverse rebellion

30. Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman-This is a striking Oriental form of abuse. Saul was not angry with his wife; it was the son alone, upon whom he meant, by this style of address, to discharge his resentment. The principle on which it is founded seems to be, that to a genuine filial instinct it is a more inexpiable offense to hear the name or character of a parent traduced, than any personal reproach. This was, undoubtedly, one cause of "the fierce anger" in which the high-minded prince left the table without tasting a morsel.

now for more translations of 1 Samuel 20:17

New Living Translation (©2007)
And Jonathan made David reaffirm his vow of friendship again, for Jonathan loved David as he loved himself.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life.

and my defense pints

And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.

20:17 Swear again - Heb. and Jonathan added or proceeded to make David swear; that is, having himself sworn to David or adjured David, in the foregoing verse , he here requires David's oath to him, by way of restipulation or confirmation. Loved him - Because he had a true friendship for David, he desired that the covenant might be inviolably observed through all their generations.


and yes i do admit it sound very weird on the surface lol. thats my counter =)

[crait]

"Marriage" is not "from the Bible", it's from social constructs that existed before Christianity itself existed. -DarkPacMan77-

Prove it please

They talk about marriage in the Old Testaments. Anything in the Old Testaments is before Christianity.

Your wrong.

Which part was wrong?

the old testiment is "back story" to the new testiment. but still has values and laws that carry over IE 10 commandments.

so it is and isnt before christianity. it was the begining of it.

@ QUE

Other Translations of 1 Samuel 20:30

New International Version (©1984)
Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?

New Living Translation (©2007)
Saul boiled with rage at Jonathan. "You stupid son of a whore!" he swore at him. "Do you think I don't know that you want him to be king in your place, shaming yourself and your mother?

My defense points

Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou* son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?

*You are always contrary to me as your mother is.

20:30 Thy confusion - Men will conclude that thou hast no royal blood in thy veins, that canst so tamely give up thy crown to so contemptible a person

Thou...: or, Thou perverse rebel: Heb. Son of perverse rebellion

30. Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman-This is a striking Oriental form of abuse. Saul was not angry with his wife; it was the son alone, upon whom he meant, by this style of address, to discharge his resentment. The principle on which it is founded seems to be, that to a genuine filial instinct it is a more inexpiable offense to hear the name or character of a parent traduced, than any personal reproach. This was, undoubtedly, one cause of "the fierce anger" in which the high-minded prince left the table without tasting a morsel.

now for more translations of 1 Samuel 20:17

New Living Translation (©2007)
And Jonathan made David reaffirm his vow of friendship again, for Jonathan loved David as he loved himself.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life.

and my defense points

And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.

20:17 Swear again - Heb. and Jonathan added or proceeded to make David swear; that is, having himself sworn to David or adjured David, in the foregoing verse , he here requires David's oath to him, by way of restipulation or confirmation. Loved him - Because he had a true friendship for David, he desired that the covenant might be inviolably observed through all their generations.


and yes i do admit it sound very weird on the surface lol. thats my counter =)

what scripture do atheists have to quote and prove themselves true? how can you deny that? I thank you tyler for going out of the way to prove what right and wrong.


if i had more rep to give today, youd have it.

[DarkPacMan77]

"Marriage" is not "from the Bible", it's from social constructs that existed before Christianity itself existed. -DarkPacMan77-

Prove it please

BKF please go read my first post I made in this thread on page 2 which clearly cites history predating Christ about the Roman and Greek ancient civilizations. In there, I clearly mention how marriage between gays existed LONG before Christianity.

-DarkPacMan77-

[DarkPacMan77]

what scripture do atheists have to quote and prove themselves true? how can you deny that? I thank you tyler for going out of the way to prove what right and wrong.


if i had more rep to give today, youd have it.

Umm... Atheists don't follow the scripture? How about that? That's like asking a Christian to cite birth records for people in the Bible. They wouldn't because there is none to support their argument, much like how an Atheist wouldn't support their non-belief with scripture from the Bible. Honestly, you shouldn't be allowed to post in this thread when you say stuff like that.

-DarkPacMan77-

[crait]

Just like how no one, athiests or Christians, can prove that Mozart actually existed.

[DarkPacMan77]

Just like how no one, athiests or Christians, can prove that Mozart actually existed.

LOL that's hilarious. I won't even comment other than that.

-DarkPacMan77-

what scripture do atheists have to quote and prove themselves true? how can you deny that? I thank you tyler for going out of the way to prove what right and wrong.


if i had more rep to give today, youd have it.

Umm... Atheists don't follow the scripture? How about that? That's like asking a Christian to cite birth records for people in the Bible. They wouldn't because there is none to support their argument, much like how an Atheist wouldn't support their non-belief with scripture from the Bible. Honestly, you shouldn't be allowed to post in this thread when you say stuff like that.

-DarkPacMan77-

you obviously misunderstood what i said. what i was saying is chrisitians have a book of events to cite from, whereas what do atheists have? dont be a d*ck cuz im proving a point.

[DarkPacMan77]

lol you're only making yourself sound more stupid tbh, but listen. Here's how it works. While Christians have a book and their faith, those who disbelieve have many ways to disprove religion - not just Christianity. But if you wanted a really quick answer, just read the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" and realize how much of the Bible was actually directly plagiarized from it.

Since I don't believe in religion, I look at other religions to disprove other religions or things that happened BEFORE Christianity to disprove Christianity. Did you know that not a single person in ancient Greece was a Christian? This is because it didn't exist. So if it didn't exist, how could they goto heaven? There were missionaries after a while for the Christian faith but only after it started becoming adopted.

My point here is that if you believed in Norse Gods, you might have had a chance to goto Valhalla, but any Christian will say that Thor or Loki or Gods like that never existed. Why? Because they sound completely make-believe? Well... that seems strangely hypocritical.

EDIT - And for f**k sake people, what Tyler did by citing scripture was NOT PROVING ANYTHING. He showed his interpretation and you guys just blindly followed him because you align yourself with that faith without even considering what I posted afterwards which is, again, two more points of scripture that are even MORE revealing which lead to show that Jonathan and David could have been gay or homosexual, as per MY interpretation. He, nor I, in any way "straightened out any factual evidence because the Bible itself is NOT "factual" evidence. If you claim that it is then you have to believe that EVERYTHING is factual in the Bible and it talks about some PRETTY CRAZY S**T.

IF you cite scripture, you are never proving "fact" - ever. IF Biblical literature could be proven, Christians would cite EVIDENCE to prove it, but there is none, which is why it's called "faith".

faith  [feyth] Show IPA
Use faith in a Sentence
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

And no, I'm not "coming down on Christians", but I'm getting seriously pissed off with how many people don't have a f**k vocabulary here. It's like talking to an uneducated youth...

er... well nvm. That seems accurate.

-DarkPacMan77-

[DarkPacMan77]

Double post but I'm thinking of making it an official rule that any discussion of religion is prohibited because ONLY 3 people on the forum seem to know HOW to discuss religious topics appropriately and none are younger than 20.

-DarkPacMan77-