It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bible and Marriage

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I actually stumbled upon a passage today that kind of made me chuckle. I am highly anti religion but am open to the fact that god may exist. I'm very anti bible as well. Now I have read this passage before:

Leviticus 20:13King James Version (KJV)

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Clearing saying it is wrong for two men to have sex or be gay. Note this isn't my opinion just putting out my interpretation of the bible. I can see why people who follow the bible would be against gay marriage.

Then I saw this passage:

Deuteronomy 22:13-21New International Version (NIV)

Marriage Violations
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

I oddly have never seen this one before. In summary...if you get married and are not a virgin you deserve death...according to the bible.


So how many people out there follow the bible are against gay marriage yet they got married when they were not virgins?

I'll be honest I'm throwing this out there cause of my position being against religion but I do also appreciate insight to scripture and alternative meanings....I probably wont agree but you know never know.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

They'll probably come by and say that all that crap no longer applies due to Jesus fulfilling some laws while others were specifically addressed to the Israelites...

...Still doesn't stop them from cherry-picking verses from the old testament for their own personal use though.

¯_(ツ)_/¯


edit on 26-1-2015 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

Oh I fully suspect ill hear the "it wasn't the words of jesus" but i'm hoping for some insight anyway....i enjoy a good religious debate. Of course they all end the same but like I said....im always open to new answers and translations for kicks.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
No we are against gay marriage because God said marriage is between a man and a woman and Jesus doubled down on that.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you are gay. Obviously a marriage cannot be blessed between two men or two women.

Even then, if you wanted to have the state put a contract in place for such arrangements, fine, but then you call it marriage and want to force us to call it that too. It goes against belief.

However I suppose you are against the idea of allowing people to be conscientious objectors? I'm sure you must be ...



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Conscientious objection is when someone doesn't participate in an activity. If you don't like gay marriage, conscientiously object all you want, don't participate, just don't ruin it for everyone else in the process.
edit on 1/26/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Its easy enough to get married without a church or any involvement in religion...

Would that me ok?

Or is marriage only for the religious?




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Don't worry about a lot of the stuff you'll find in the OT...

These are people that didn't have a clue who God was until Jesus came...

They made up laws to keep things they feared or things they disagreed with out of their tribes...




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
The ten commandments are in the old testament so either all of the OT still applies or none of it does.
Even the bible itself says:


1 Corinthians 14:33New International Version (NIV)
33 For God is not a God of disorder ...


it would be disorderly and confusing if some of the OT still applied and some of it didn`t.
There is a lot of crazy stuff in the OT so I can understand why Christians don`t want to embrace all of the OT but rather cherry pick from it.

for example:
if a woman is raped in a city then both the man and the woman have to brought to the city gate and be stoned to death. The rape victim has to be stoned to death because it is assumed that she didn`t call out for help,if she had called for help someone would heard her call and came to stop the rape.
but, if a woman is raped outside of a city than only the man is to be brought to the city gate and stoned to death because it is assumed that the woman called for help but there was nobody around to come and save her.

Deuteronomy 22
www.biblegateway.com...

and who could possibly forget this old favorite, of insanity, from the OT:



Deuteronomy 22:28
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

Conscientious objection is when someone doesn't participate in an activity. If you don't like gay marriage, conscientiously object all you want, don't participate, just don't ruin it for everyone else in the process.


Cool! So I don't have to make your cake or take photos of it?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ketsuko

Its easy enough to get married without a church or any involvement in religion...

Would that me ok?

Or is marriage only for the religious?



You can call your ceremony whatever you like. I'll probably call it whatever you like, but I may not consider it to be what you call it.

My sister and brother-in-law are "married" but it isn't exactly what I consider a marriage since they didn't say the vows before God. They have a civil union IMO, not what I consider a marriage. And if my marriage certificate was repealed tomorrow by the state. I said my vows in front of a minister before God. His authority is higher than the state, so it can bite me.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Nope, not at all! If you're a baker who has to bake a cake and you refuse to make a gay wedding cake and get fired, it was your decision. No one says conscientious objection doesn't come with its own problems.

If you don't want to take pictures of a gay wedding, no one is forcing you to.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So God is only before ministers when getting married? Why the middle-man? God knows your heart whether a minister hears it or not.

Marriage is a man-made tradition and is no more valid than any other man made tradition. If there is love between two people and they decide to spend their lives together, God knows it whether they get married in front of a minister or not.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ketsuko

Its easy enough to get married without a church or any involvement in religion...

Would that me ok?

Or is marriage only for the religious?



You can call your ceremony whatever you like. I'll probably call it whatever you like, but I may not consider it to be what you call it.

My sister and brother-in-law are "married" but it isn't exactly what I consider a marriage since they didn't say the vows before God. They have a civil union IMO, not what I consider a marriage. And if my marriage certificate was repealed tomorrow by the state. I said my vows in front of a minister before God. His authority is higher than the state, so it can bite me.


So marriage is only for the religious...

You could have just said that you know....

No need to give examples of your bias


edit on 26-1-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




So God is only before ministers when getting married? Why the middle-man? God knows your heart whether a minister hears it or not.


Right?

In my day, a while back now, when they said that a couple was "married in the eyes of God" it meant something completely different than they were married by a church minister.

LOL



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

There actually is an alternative translation of Leviticus 20:13. It's made by the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA), so they do have a vested interest, but they say they have translated from the original Hebrew and instead of "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman...", it says, "And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman..."

If that is correct, it's not a condemnation of homosexuality itself, but only where the act can be performed.

Religious Tolerance



In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam."
...
J. Nelson: "It is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man 'as with a woman' insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property."
...
They state that a word-for-word translation of this verse from the original Hebrew is:

"And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them."


But, of course, religious people know the mind of God and can tell you exactly what it means, even after many translations by many people (with agendas) over many years.

Another interesting point:



In most English translations, these verses seem to utterly forbid all forms of male-male sex. However, the verses are not actually that general. If it was general, why is the phrase "as one lies with a woman" present in both verses? Why don't the verses just say "You will not lie with a man", or "You will not lie carnally with a man"? (See Leviticus 18:20 in the KJV.)


www.inherit-the-kingdom.org...


originally posted by: ketsuko
Even then, if you wanted to have the state put a contract in place for such arrangements, fine, but then you call it marriage and want to force us to call it that too.


No one wants to force you to call it that, too. You can call it anything you want.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
No we are against gay marriage because God said marriage is between a man and a woman and Jesus doubled down on that.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you are gay. Obviously a marriage cannot be blessed between two men or two women.

Even then, if you wanted to have the state put a contract in place for such arrangements, fine, but then you call it marriage and want to force us to call it that too. It goes against belief.

However I suppose you are against the idea of allowing people to be conscientious objectors? I'm sure you must be ...


Ok then what about the virgin part? Are you against non virgins getting married?

And by conscientious objector are you referring to the military? Like people who do not wish to participate in war. I'm not against that at all...in fact I was on the front lines myself and certainly wouldn't want someone next to me who was having second thoughts in the middle of the #! Sorry if I misunderstood that last part but I was assuming that is what you meant and I absolutely support that and not sure why you assume Id be against it.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Personally I find the Old Testament to be just that "old" and in line with much of the Quran. I even have issue with the New Testament because the apostles were always questioning Christ and never seemed to get what he was saying.

But it is what we have written on JC's words, I'd rather just go with the red letter parts, ie. Christ's words.

I must admit that their are many religions and marriage ceremonies, so, as pointed out here earlier, you obviously don't need a single religion to marry, or even any religion at all. Not to mention that divorce was available to the ancient Jews, so obviously, if you remarried, that kill the non-virgin stuff goes out the door.

People have to realize that the Old Testament is the "inspired" word of God, so naturally it can't all be God's actual words, therefore, if Christ is God, then his words are actually the words of God. Remember cast the first stone? I don't think JC would approve of much of the old testament in that regard.
edit on 26-1-2015 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Typo

edit on 26-1-2015 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Another typo



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

You are quoting the OT, the Levitical laws.

Nope, we don't stone people anymore, that doesn't mean that God intends for the law to be done away with. Yes, there are Christians who have done that, be promisuous, but does that justify anyone else for condemnation or judgment of Christians, when it was the old custom in those ancient days?

That custom was found in other cultures.

But what about the Kama Sutra that gives explicit details about how to get a girl drunk and rape her? How about let's condemn that one as well.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

There actually is an alternative translation of Leviticus 20:13. It's made by the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA), so they do have a vested interest, but they say they have translated from the original Hebrew and instead of "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman...", it says, "And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman..."

If that is correct, it's not a condemnation of homosexuality itself, but only where the act can be performed.

Religious Tolerance



In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam."
...
J. Nelson: "It is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man 'as with a woman' insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property."
...
They state that a word-for-word translation of this verse from the original Hebrew is:

"And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them."


But, of course, religious people know the mind of God and can tell you exactly what it means, even after many translations by many people (with agendas) over many years.

Another interesting point:



In most English translations, these verses seem to utterly forbid all forms of male-male sex. However, the verses are not actually that general. If it was general, why is the phrase "as one lies with a woman" present in both verses? Why don't the verses just say "You will not lie with a man", or "You will not lie carnally with a man"? (See Leviticus 18:20 in the KJV.)


www.inherit-the-kingdom.org...


originally posted by: ketsuko
Even then, if you wanted to have the state put a contract in place for such arrangements, fine, but then you call it marriage and want to force us to call it that too.


No one wants to force you to call it that, too. You can call it anything you want.


Oh, that organization. That's another Gospel, another god and another Christ that is not familiar to the rest of Christianity.

Lie down in beds of women, what a way to twist scripture to justify going against the very God they claim to believe in. Nope, THAT is Ba'alism, they worship and serve Ba'al.

I say if people want to live however they want and be religious, find a god that is approving of their lifestyles. Ba'al is just one of those gods. Ba'al won't judge you though, so be free and open and acknowledge that Ba'al is who is served.

Just don't say THIS God of the Bible is who you follow, because you aren't.

Enough of that, go on with the rest of the condemnations against Christianity.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



My sister and brother-in-law are "married" but it isn't exactly what I consider a marriage since they didn't say the vows before God.

This is a curious concept to me, because I believe God is Omnipresent. So, WHEREVER they said their vows, they said them before God... in my belief system. (I am not dissing your view, please understand.)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join