Gay judge refuses to marry straight couples. no joke.

MLD Woody · May 15, 2016

Having a moral code is only tied to religion?

Yes because religion invented morality. It wouldn't exist without religion, specifically Christianity.

LogicIsForSquares · May 15, 2016

Yes because religion invented morality. It wouldn't exist without religion, specifically Christianity.

I guess I am the only atheist alive with a moral code.

calfoxwc · May 15, 2016

Having a moral code is only tied to religion? Logic

********************************************************

no, they are often two separate things... that's why I used "and" inclusively, of both.

There's morals based on one's principles without religious basis, and morals based on Biblical teaching.

I just included both.

MLD Woody · May 15, 2016

I guess I am the only atheist alive with a moral code.

Pretty much. I'm immoral as shit. Good for you

Clevfan4life · May 15, 2016

Cal, the judge was taking a moral stand. Logic

*********************************************

ah. Lemme think about that for a sec.... I think the judge was taking a hateful stand.

Davis rejected, on moral and religious grounds, the redefinition of Real Marriage.

The judge rejected Real Marriage, because it hadn't been redefined yet, and that made

the judge spiteful..... ?

Except it wasnt her place to do so. she should have quit her job

calfoxwc · May 15, 2016

How can you say one was standing on moral ground and one wasn't? Hell, the people against interracial marriage were standing on moral ground as well.

**********************************************

I already explained that. There is no legit moral basis to racism, Biblical or otherwise. The gay pervert judge

doesn't believe in Real Marriage? only Gay civil whatevers? Nope. The judge is acting out on revenge,

not a moral basis to deny all marriage til the law gives that gay judge what they want. I see no morality in that.

**********************************************

People don't care about religion near as much as they used to. Using the Bible as defense to be against gay marriage is a lame excuse. Those against gay marriage still have no real argument. "The Bible says" isn't an argument.

**********************************************

You are equating religion to Christianity. We are very Christian, but we don't go to church, and are not

religious at all. We've been through church splits, and decided it wasn't worth our time anymore. But God IS there.

It's lame in your opinion. I don't care. It isn't lame at all. Yes, they have a very real argument(s), you just don't like them.

***********************************************

Historically? How much did you pay your wife's father when you married her? How is your property holding up? Need to trade her in for a younger model? I assume no romance was involved, correct, because that would be disgraceful. Hell, Christianity didn't even start marriages, they joined the game after they had already been around for a while.

***********************************************

Historically, referring to the existence of MEN and WOMEN, as compared to the Biblical creation of Adam and Eve by God.

You just insulted my Wifie's Father. He would never have asked for a doury. My property? You are getting smart ass,

here, to try to "win" your weak argument for gayness, transness, and whatever else... sheep humping maybe?

You just changed the subject to several areas that have nothing to do with the subject.

*************************************************

Times change. Views change. If you were a business that openly advocated against interracial marriage today, how do you think that would go? If you're social ideals are outdated you either adapt or die out.

***************************************************

I just explained that - there is no justification for racism. There is plenty of justification for REAL MARRIAGE = MAN and WOMAN

and that is the second time you've recently referring to me dying. That is not discussing the merits of a stance on an issue.

I believe every single poster on this board sees that.

****************************************************

Hahaha, I can handle opposing viewpoints just fine. You just take any post that oppose your opinion as an insult. Any post that posts sources and facts showing why you're wrong as a personal insult. I haven't personally attacked you once since that reset, so you're manufacturing insults and playing the victim so you can go back to insulting me. I knew it was just a matter of time. Go for it.

*****************************************************

No, those were personal insults. You have insulted others, too, with personal insults. PE and Steve recently....

*****************************************************

You astound me sometimes. Your last sentence in that post describes you perfectly, but you're using it to describe me. It is amazing.

******************************************************

I think you don't understand that personal antagonism is not justifying your disagreement on subject matters.

You don't see what you are doing. I don't have this problem with anybody else on the board...well, maybe Cleve

once in a while, but I can overlook that. You get very angry about opinions you don't share.

***********************************************

LogicIsForSquares · May 15, 2016

Having a moral code is only tied to religion? Logic

********************************************************

no, they are often two separate things... that's why I used "and" inclusively, of both.

There's morals based on one's principles without religious basis, and morals based on Biblical teaching.

I just included both.

If a religious person and a non-religious person are capable of moral codes then they can take moral stands.

I think you should always do your job. If you can't fulfill the duties of your job for whatever reason, leave the job or the state should replace you. The judge and Davis both did not fulfill their job duties. It isn't their job to interpret laws as they see fit.

One Post · May 15, 2016

I guess I am the only atheist alive with a moral code.

I don't care if you're an atheist but what I can say is you don't preach atheism to give out a bad decision if someone of the faith that has doubts.

Clevfan4life · May 15, 2016

I dont understand how someone can characterizevwhat kim davis did as some sort of loving and respectful reticence to do herbfucking job but the judge was clearly being a hateful power dyke whore. How do you that cal?

Kim davis would not allow anyone in her office to sign the marriage liscences, so that goes a bit further than simply recusing yourself from a situation you are against right? The judge at least referred people to other judges but i feel that is wrong as well just as fyi.

If you seek govt employment than be prepared to service the entire population of the U.S thst is in accordance with U.S law. End of discussion. Being employed by the state is not tje same as in the private sector. There should be some leeway on some things which is where you refer to other people but thats a very shaky area. If theres no one else than you suck it up and do it, period end of discussion. What cannot be allowed is for the head of a dept or agency to dictate his/her personal objections through everyone working for or under them.

As president i would personally gone to see kim davis at her office so i could have told her to gather her things shes fired. And the judge i would have put on notice that if she incinvenienced an american citizen even sligjtly her dyke ass was gone too.

Westside Steve · May 15, 2016

Clevfan4life · May 15, 2016

Awww they look so cute together

MLD Woody · May 15, 2016

How can you say one was standing on moral ground and one wasn't? Hell, the people against interracial marriage were standing on moral ground as well.

**********************************************

I already explained that. There is no legit moral basis to racism, Biblical or otherwise. The gay pervert judge

doesn't believe in Real Marriage? only Gay civil whatevers? Nope. The judge is acting out on revenge,

not a moral basis to deny all marriage til the law gives that gay judge what they want. I see no morality in that.

**********************************************

People don't care about religion near as much as they used to. Using the Bible as defense to be against gay marriage is a lame excuse. Those against gay marriage still have no real argument. "The Bible says" isn't an argument.

**********************************************

You are equating religion to Christianity. We are very Christian, but we don't go to church, and are not

religious at all. We've been through church splits, and decided it wasn't worth our time anymore. But God IS there.

It's lame in your opinion. I don't care. It isn't lame at all. Yes, they have a very real argument(s), you just don't like them.

***********************************************

Historically? How much did you pay your wife's father when you married her? How is your property holding up? Need to trade her in for a younger model? I assume no romance was involved, correct, because that would be disgraceful. Hell, Christianity didn't even start marriages, they joined the game after they had already been around for a while.

***********************************************

Historically, referring to the existence of MEN and WOMEN, as compared to the Biblical creation of Adam and Eve by God.

You just insulted my Wifie's Father. He would never have asked for a doury. My property? You are getting smart ass,

here, to try to "win" your weak argument for gayness, transness, and whatever else... sheep humping maybe?

You just changed the subject to several areas that have nothing to do with the subject.

*************************************************

Times change. Views change. If you were a business that openly advocated against interracial marriage today, how do you think that would go? If you're social ideals are outdated you either adapt or die out.

***************************************************

I just explained that - there is no justification for racism. There is plenty of justification for REAL MARRIAGE = MAN and WOMAN

and that is the second time you've recently referring to me dying. That is not discussing the merits of a stance on an issue.

I believe every single poster on this board sees that.

****************************************************

Hahaha, I can handle opposing viewpoints just fine. You just take any post that oppose your opinion as an insult. Any post that posts sources and facts showing why you're wrong as a personal insult. I haven't personally attacked you once since that reset, so you're manufacturing insults and playing the victim so you can go back to insulting me. I knew it was just a matter of time. Go for it.

*****************************************************

No, those were personal insults. You have insulted others, too, with personal insults. PE and Steve recently....

*****************************************************

You astound me sometimes. Your last sentence in that post describes you perfectly, but you're using it to describe me. It is amazing.

******************************************************

I think you don't understand that personal antagonism is not justifying your disagreement on subject matters.

You don't see what you are doing. I don't have this problem with anybody else on the board...well, maybe Cleve

once in a while, but I can overlook that. You get very angry about opinions you don't share.

***********************************************

In each instance they believed they were standing on moral grounds. You don't get to decide what morality is.

What is you "Very real argument" then? If it has anything to do with the phrase "Adam and Eve" then its not a "very real argument".

Dude... I didn't insult your wife or your wife's father. Obviously you didn't do any of the things I posted. THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT. The "definition" of marriage has changed over time. The items I listed used to be the norm for marriage, and they aren't now. I wasn't ever changing the subject, I was making a point.

"Plenty of justification for REAL MARRIAGE"... alright, like what? Tell me all of your justification. Let's see what you actually have here...

Oh god, did you actually take that as me referring to you personally dying? Ugh... come on dude. Don't be so sensitive. Use the people against interracial marriage. They either adpated or they died out over time, and so did their beliefs. Or those that wanted blacks as slaves. Or those that thought women shouldnt vote. Etc etc etc. Do you see the connection here?

I still have not "personally insulted" you. PE? Probably. Steve, a little bit, but he does the same back. Never at the level you did though and I know we're mostly just joking. He wasn't starting multiple threads just to throw insults my way. Either way, the point remains, I haven't said shit to insult you yet. You're just grasping at straws like I knew you would...

I get angry? Hahahaha. Alright Cal.

jbluhm86 · May 15, 2016

...God created Man and Woman to be together.

Now, if you don't believe in God... okay...but there are still two sexes, Man and Woman.

And humans would not exist if the man and woman didn't get together, as naturally, they did,

So, Biblically, Real Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. Historically, since humans

came to be in existence....marriage/common law getting

together sexually/ etc.... is between a Man and a Woman.

Rape, incest, polygamy, forced marriage, child marriage ...

...all acceptable at one point or another in the Bible.

So, i'd be a little iffy throwing my lot in with the Bible being the "moral" authority behind ideas of marriage.

calfoxwc · May 15, 2016

rape - not true at all.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/26/fact-check-does-the-bible-really-support-rape-and-polygamy-theblaze-explores-atheists-critiques/

FAITH

Fact Check: Does the Bible Really Support Rape and Polygamy? TheBlaze Explores Atheists’ Critiques

Jul. 26, 2013 1:22pm Billy Hallowell

1.7KSHARES

Share This
Tweet This

This is the first installment of a special series TheBlaze is running called “Inside the Bible.” We will be exploring controversial issues as they are framed in the book to better understand their context and meaning. This week’s subject is marriage.

TheBlaze’s Carly Hoilman contributed to this report.

–

Atheist activists and Biblical critics often delve into the scriptures and rely upon proof texts to make a variety of claims that in their view debunk — or at least cast doubt — upon the holy book. From contentions that its contents condone rape to the notion that the scriptures tout polygamy, there is no shortage of faith-based controversy.

The latest such controversy came in early June, when three professors with intricate knowledge of the Christian scriptures came together to pen an article in the Des Moines Register meant to challenge some traditional perceptions. In short, they sought to refute the claim that the Bible restricts marriage to one man and one woman. But were they correct in their insinuations? That’s just one of the questions we’ll look at in this installment of the series.

Considering the importance that the institution of marriage has to society — and to the contemporary sociopolitical debate — TheBlaze reached out to our expert faith panel to seek their advice on the professors’ claims and, more generally, on issues pertaining marriage. These thinkers and leaders tackled controversial subjects like monogamy, polygamy, rape, divorce, celibacy and a number of other associated subjects.

Below, we tackle these discussions one-by-one:

–

Does the Bible Speak of Monogamy?

The primary question when considering the Bible and marriage is whether the holy book endorses monogamy — that is, a marriage in which there are only two individuals (traditionally speaking, one man and one woman)? Most of our experts agreed that the book does, indeed, advocate for this type of relationship.

Pastor Phillip Dennis of New Hope Christian Church in Monsey, N.Y., noted that the Bible must be read with a certain frame of mind — one that takes into account its four main parts: creation, fall, redemption and re-creation. He argues that these elements help one to properly understand the entire Bible and, thus, the complex issues within it (like marriage).

AP

For Dennis, it all goes back to the creation story. Genesis, in a sense, is what he believes God wanted for mankind, however the story ended up changing as human beings exercised their free will.

“In the beginning, God created all things good. As part of the good order inherent in the created world, God made man and woman and gave them to each other in monogamous heterosexual marriage for the purpose of mutual love, companionship, partnership in the task of cultivating the world’s potential, and for propagating the race through childbirth,” Dennis explained. “The pattern of creation shows us the way things are meant to be, the way things would be if they were still very good, as they were at the end of the creation account in Genesis.”

Rabbi Aryeh Spero, author of “Push Back: Reclaiming Our American Judeo-Christian Spirit,” added to this notion of a natural connection between men and women, noting that “male and female united brings about completion of the human species, a wholeness derived from the disparate biological and emotional elements found only in male and female, combined to achieve full humanhood.”

This essentially means that, in his view, the united nature of man and woman creates a oneness that is uniquely God-ordained. He noted Biblical references as well of man and woman coming together as one. According to Spero, marriage is more than a mere partnership that exists for business purposes.

He continued: “It is a sacred union between man and woman. The Old/Original Testament, known as Torah, labels it kidushin, which means sanctified. The attachment of male and female is the ultimate and only sanctified human union. It is sanctified because God himself created and thereafter blessed it, as is seen in Genesis. It is an endowment from God and the culmination of His Creation.”

Author R.P. Nettelhorst, too, noted that the Bible is clear in 1 Corinthians 7:1-33 that a husband’s body belongs to a wife and vice versa. In this scripture, he noted that wife is always singular, which is an “apparent assumption of monogamy.”

Continuing with the Genesis theme, Rabbi Moshe Averick, an Orthodox rabbi who has taught theology for more than 30 years, noted that the first two chapters of B’reisheet (Genesis) make it clear that the first human being who was created “with a godly soul and who could be described as being in the ‘image of God’ contained both male and female in one being.” Averick said the brief loneliness that existed for man before woman was created hampered the spirit and soul, as he had no one to share his life with.

“With male and female separate they can now relate and give to someone outside themselves. As one of my teachers put it: The mode is one, the method is two,” he added. “Neither a man alone nor a woman alone reflect the full image of God. The true image of God is only found when a man and woman are united physically and spiritually in marriage.”

Averick continues, explaining the importance of the unity of woman and man: “When they achieve this total unity they reflect Godliness in a number of ways, the most obvious being that they create life itself. In an ultimate sense the joy, love, passion, and ecstasy of the male-female relationship is the experience of oneness and Godliness. The obsessive drive that God planted in human beings to seek out these relationships is an indication of how central marriage is to the whole purpose of our existence.”

These experts clearly agree that man and woman should be united in monogamous relationships with one another and that these values are predicated upon and inherent in the Bible.

So, What About Polygamy?

Many critics point to perceived inconsistencies in the scriptures, singling out polygamy references to claim that the holy book doesn’t limit relationships to two parties. But there may be some elements surrounding the issue in the Bible that atheists and other critics are overlooking.

As Dr. Darrell Bock, a New Testament expert and professor at Dallas Theological Seminary noted, these individuals are not wrong to highlight that polygamy existed in the Bible. But their failure to put it into context is often problematic.

“They are right that polygamy is described in several [Old Testament] texts, but they ignore that it never turns out well with jealousy and divisions resulting and that by the time of the New Testament it is rejected as an option,” Bock told TheBlaze.

AP

Rabbi Spero added that while the Old Testament clearly confined marriage to one man and one woman, it was neutral and silent, in his view, regarding the notion of having more than one spouse. Some of the elements surrounding polygamy, though, were likely cultural, he argues.

“Some biblical figures had more than one wife at a time and kings often did; some biblical figures had mistresses,” he said. “Great as they were, biblical figures lived by some of the cultural norms of their time.”

Providing additional rabbinical views on the matter, Rabbi Averick added: “Within Jewish Law and Torah, polygamy is perfectly acceptable. Abraham and Jacob had more than one wife as did King David. However, polygamy has been forbidden to Torah observant Jews by Rabbinic decree for over a thousand years. Ostensibly this is because, although not inherently immoral, from a practical standpoint it was not working anymore.”

The “Bible Answer Man” Hank Hanegraaff holds a starker viewpoint and claims that polygamy was never part of God’s plan, despite being culturally acceptable at various times in human existence (and, even today, in some cultures). Hanegraaff goes as far as to say that the Bible actually condemns polygamy, noting that this is the case in Deuteronomy 17:17 (it reads, “He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.”)

“The New Testament, in like fashion, says that elders and deacons are called to be the husband of but one wife (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6),” Hanegraaff told TheBlaze. “Just as the requirements for church leaders set the standards of morality and maturity for all believers, so the admonition against polygamy for the kings of Israel demonstrates the danger of this kind of practice.”

Hanegraaff argued that Solomon’s “legacy of faithfulness” was compromised because of non-monogamous behavior. The great king, renowned for his supernatural wisdom, ended his peaceful, prosperous reign in scandal and civil strife.

But could all of this chaos be attributed to polygamy? It would appear so. According to the Bible, Solomon’s wives turned his heart towards pagan gods (1 Kings 11:1–3 reads, “King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites.2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love.3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.”).

How Does Divorce Fit Into the Discussion?

Divorce is an extremely common phenomenon in today’s world, even among those who embrace Biblical teachings. One wonders what the holy book really says about ending these cherished relationships — and how this can be applied to contemporary society, if at all.

Dennis believes that this also can be traced back to the creation cycle, which ends in a new and perfect creation. Since humankind is still subject to the imperfections of a fallen world, he claims that the Bible permits divorce in certain cases preceding the consummation of history.

“In Jesus’ teaching on marriage in Matthew 19, he allows for divorce in certain circumstances (a temporary concession) but points people back to the original pattern of creation as the universal norm of human marriage: one man and one woman, one flesh,” the pastor said.

Getty Images

Bock elaborated on this point, offering two possible circumstances in which divorce would be permissible. The first is the case of sexual immorality, as specified in Matthew 19. The second circumstance, described in 1 Corinthians 7:15, is the case of unbeliever desertion, meaning that while it is not okay to divorce because one’s spouse is an unbeliever, if that unbelieving spouse leaves, the other spouse is not “bound.”

Bock explained that, depending on the scenario, the possibility of remarriage “is not automatic nor is it advised,” and that God is capable of discerning the hearts of people (Hebrews 13:16).

Does the Bible Address Rape?

Some atheists and Biblical critics have held up the notion that the Bible condones rape. Across the board, TheBlaze’s entire panel of faith experts reject that the criminal act of rape is upheld in any form in the holy book.

Averick addressed Deuteronomy — the book that is most targeted by biblical critics.

“The ‘rape’ that is talked about in Dvarim (Deuteronomy), is obviously not criminal rape; it is talking about a case where a relationship between a young man and woman got out of hand,” he said. “Sexual relationships in a Torah society are strictly forbidden before marriage — dating is only for purposes of marriage in the Orthodox community.”

Averick also pointed out that in Jewish law, women cannot be forced to marry against her will. If a man does not fulfill his duties as a husband, the woman is “entitled to initiate divorce proceedings.” The “rapist,” or fornicator, is not allowed to initiate such proceedings but is obligated to fulfill spousal duties.

This requirement that a “rapist” marry the violated woman, Bock noted, was enacted in order to protect the woman whom he defiled with his sexual advances.

“His act has rendered her unacceptable as a wife for others,” he explained. “So this law was designed to indicate responsibility in the sex act for the person in a patriarchal context where women had little power and where the women if left to the event would be on her own.”

Nettelhorst acknowledged that in a modern context, the situation mentioned in Deuteronomy “sounds awful,” and it was not ideal at the time it occurred either, but the idea was to, again, protect the woman and discourage sexual immorality. By marrying her, the “rapist” was accepting the consequences of his actions, paying her father a restitution and taking on the responsibilities of a husband to provide protection and security.

Spero added that a rape victim could “opt out” of marrying her rapist if she so desired, for, “if not, men could forcibly bring to altar any single woman he desired simply by raping her.”

calfoxwc · May 15, 2016

polygamy... Nope, not true at all

FAITH

Fact Check: Does the Bible Really Support Rape and Polygamy? TheBlaze Explores Atheists’ Critiques

Jul. 26, 2013 1:22pm Billy Hallowell

1.7KSHARES

Share This
Tweet This

This is the first installment of a special series TheBlaze is running called “Inside the Bible.” We will be exploring controversial issues as they are framed in the book to better understand their context and meaning. This week’s subject is marriage.

TheBlaze’s Carly Hoilman contributed to this report.

–

Atheist activists and Biblical critics often delve into the scriptures and rely upon proof texts to make a variety of claims that in their view debunk — or at least cast doubt — upon the holy book. From contentions that its contents condone rape to the notion that the scriptures tout polygamy, there is no shortage of faith-based controversy.

The latest such controversy came in early June, when three professors with intricate knowledge of the Christian scriptures came together to pen an article in the Des Moines Register meant to challenge some traditional perceptions. In short, they sought to refute the claim that the Bible restricts marriage to one man and one woman. But were they correct in their insinuations? That’s just one of the questions we’ll look at in this installment of the series.

Considering the importance that the institution of marriage has to society — and to the contemporary sociopolitical debate — TheBlaze reached out to our expert faith panel to seek their advice on the professors’ claims and, more generally, on issues pertaining marriage. These thinkers and leaders tackled controversial subjects like monogamy, polygamy, rape, divorce, celibacy and a number of other associated subjects.

Below, we tackle these discussions one-by-one:

–

Does the Bible Speak of Monogamy?

The primary question when considering the Bible and marriage is whether the holy book endorses monogamy — that is, a marriage in which there are only two individuals (traditionally speaking, one man and one woman)? Most of our experts agreed that the book does, indeed, advocate for this type of relationship.

Pastor Phillip Dennis of New Hope Christian Church in Monsey, N.Y., noted that the Bible must be read with a certain frame of mind — one that takes into account its four main parts: creation, fall, redemption and re-creation. He argues that these elements help one to properly understand the entire Bible and, thus, the complex issues within it (like marriage).