HitsRus;1738774 wrote:The bible is a historical document dating back thousands of years. That is indisputable.

It's a fairy tale story dude. I'm not one of those religion bashers but come on...

HitsRus;1738774 wrote:The bible is a historical document dating back thousands of years. That is indisputable.

Its no more a historical document than the Song of Ice and Fire.

Hell for all we know the Dinosaur fossils they've found are actually Dragons.

Are people really denying that the bible has been longer than the US Government?

If your objection is that it is not a historically accurate document, that is irrelevant. There is no doubt that it has been around for thousands of years, people have lived their lives according to its precepts which forms the basis of our morality and relationship to one another and our laws. Over 80% of our citizens believe in God, and their ability to have a relationship with their God and the free exercise of their religion is guaranteed by the Constitution.

superman;1738783 wrote:Are people really denying that the bible has been longer than the US Government?

No, we're saying it's fiction.

Automatik;1738790 wrote:No, we're saying it's fiction.

I think we have discussed this ad nauseum on this forum... and again, it is irrelevant.

HitsRus;1738774 wrote:The bible is a historical document dating back thousands of years. That is indisputable.

it is not indisputable, in fact the Bible is often in conflict with itself on innumerable issues.

HitsRus;1738791 wrote:I think we have discussed this ad nauseum on this forum... and again, it is irrelevant.

Ok, what is your ultimate point here?

HitsRus;1738771 wrote:"My argument" is nothing that you portray it to be. I have no problems with same sex unions and feel all people have a right to state sanctioned unions( if the state is going to sanction unions). I am concerned that the momentum of same sex unions does not trample the rights of religious people to their own beliefs. Since they have historical evidence of the origin of the term " marriage" being a union between a man and a woman, we should be sensitive to that.

An religious freedom has been used as a subterfuge to disguise bigotry. As the Bob Jones case showed, the college used the Bible to justify a ban on interracial marriage.

isadore;1738792 wrote:it is not indisputable, in fact the Bible is often in conflict with itself on innumerable issues.

Exactly how is that relevant to the free exercise of religion?

HitsRus;1738798 wrote:Exactly how is that relevant to the free exercise of religion?

what is the Bible is far from indisputable, Bible quotes can be used to justify all kinds of bigotries and abominations, then justified as someone practicing their religious freedom.

Automatik;1738790 wrote:No, we're saying it's fiction.

Doesn't matter if you think is fiction. The bible defined marriage thousands of years before the US Government existed is the point.

The Bible defined and said a lot of things we no longer follow, whys everyone so caught up on this one?

Because we still have marriage.

superman;1738805 wrote:Because we still have marriage.

We still wear clothes as well, but per the Bible you can't wear more than one fabric.

HighRoller74;1738806 wrote:We still wear clothes as well, but per the Bible you can't wear more than one fabric so.....

A concept that existed only in the Old Testament. Marriage between a man and a woman existed in the old and New testament.

superman;1738807 wrote:A concept that existed only in the Old Testament. Marriage between a man and a woman existed in the old and New testament.

How do you explain the fact that the new testament forbids women from speaking in the church?

Also, slavery.

HighRoller74;1738808 wrote:How do you explain the fact that the new testament forbids women from speaking in the church?

The early church used the same model as the Jewish Synagogue, men on one side, women on the other. Paul was talking to the church in Corinth about keeping order in the church. He basically was saying, "Don't scream across the aisle in the middle of the service."

superman;1738810 wrote:The early church used the same model as the Jewish Synagogue, men on one side, women on the other. Paul was talking to the church in Corinth about keeping order in the church. He basically was saying, "Don't scream across the aisle in the middle of the service."

But if we're following the bible verbatim in regards to Gay Marriage, why is everything else open to interpretation instead of following exactly what it says?

HighRoller74;1738811 wrote:But if we're following the bible verbatim in regards to Gay Marriage, why is everything else open to interpretation instead of following exactly what it says?

You have to use context to understand anything. There was a special circumstance regarding the women speaking in church. Homosexual behavior being considered wrong is universal throughout the bible.

superman;1738812 wrote:You have to use context to understand anything. .

Only when it fits your narrative*

HighRoller74;1738811 wrote:But if we're following the bible verbatim in regards to Gay Marriage, why is everything else open to interpretation instead of following exactly what it says?

It's not about the secular state "following" the bible,... there is to be no state sanctioning of a religion.... It's about the rights of religious people to the term " marriage", a term that they have historically defined.

HitsRus;1738816 wrote:It's not about the secular state "following" the bible,... there is to be no state sanctioning of a religion.... It's about the rights of religious people to the term " marriage", a term that they have historically defined.

Just because it was "defined" thousands of years ago in a looney tune book doesn't mean it needs to be "the rule" today. Things can be tweaked if the general population believe it to be the right move. And most people think it's silly to prevent two men the right to marry. The only ones who don't are you religious whackjobs. Notice how I didn't say religious people. Religious whackjobs. I have plenty of catholic friends who are 100% for gay marriage. It's you outliers who are so out of touch with reality that you choose to follow a story tale book written thousands of years ago that says shit like "thou shall not boil a kid in his mothers milk" over logical thought.

Edit: sorry, since you're all about the New Testament make that last line that you wish To seek prayer over doctors, that it's a sin to marry a divorced woman, or if you lust you should gouge out your own eyeball.

Bible this bible that. The bad parts of the bible need to be taken out of context but this one rule about marriage is set in stone for eternity. I bet they used the slaves were in the bible argument when slavery was legal. Just cause you can't comprehend that you are wrong, doesn't mean we shouldn't evolve and ignore the bible when it comes to something that is clearly against human rights.