On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Lev Lafayette <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:

On Sat, November 8, 2014 8:06 am, Michael Scott wrote:
> 1st Corinthians 6:

Great, so you don't believe they'll inherit the kingdom of God; from the
same book of Paul which says women must be silent in church.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked which
(apparently because it needs repeating)

"So why can't your church/denomination/whatever have their own marriage
requirements and just leave everyone else alone? Why is that your
definition of marriage has to be enshrined in law?"

>> http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

Ahh, so it's subject to interpretation and context. Well, how about that?
So why is it that the interpretation and context that you think is right
is that one that must be enshrined in civil law?

Any other part of the Bible you'd like me to interpret for you? Don't expect me, not a Bible scholar, to justify to you every passage you'd like to put in front of me. Just to justify your cause. I can probably justify every one, but I'm not a Bible scholar and you're simply plucking passages for your convenience. Remember that the Old Testament was written probably between 2-4000 years ago.

> Slaves, as an example, didn't have Centrelink. They could be slaves or
> starve. It was economically better for them to be slaves. Please don't
> plead context and deliberately comment out of context.

Apart the slave issue being complete nonsense (slaves were typically the
spoils of conquest.. they could go home you know), I am mocking your
selective use of context. Sometimes you seem to think that a biblical
marriage is absolute and sometimes you appeal to context.

You brought up slavery...am I not allowed to use something you brought up?

I can't answer for ancient marriage practices. I don't know what the traditions were in Jewish life. Whether those traditions were acceptable to God is another thing. Throughout the Old Testament God despaired at the sinful acts of the Jews.
The Slavery issue was just an example of context and how modern views can fog ancient customs.
 
It's rather like this guy..

http://technoccult.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/leviticustattoo.jpg

(For those who don't get the joke, a couple of pages later in Leviticus is
a prohibition on tatoos)

Despite all this you have no justification on why your religious version
of marriage is the one which everyone else has to live with.

No, all I said was I Can't SUPPORT your version of marriage.  
> Jews are of Israeli heritage, whether of the Jewish faith or not.

What? Can you explain to me the ethnic Israeli heritage of the Ugandan Jews?

No, I'm not a scholar of Jewish heritage. They also found their way into Eastern Europe. I can't explain that either. Neither is it relevant.
 
You know, I think mDNA studies might disagree with your assertion.

> I have made my position quite clear on this. As a Christian I cannot
> SUPPORT same sex marriage. I support their legal rights as much as any
> others.

So you agree to the legal establishment of same-sex marriage, but you
don't support it yourself?

So you CAN read English. It's what I asserted right from the start, what I've insisted since, what i've tried to make you understand, what you've been blinded to for some reason. 

Well that would be good of you. It would show that you're capable of
distinguishing between secular laws which apply to all of us, and are
based on available evidence, and heavenly laws which belong to particular
sects in accordance to their beliefs.


--
Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech
Mngmnt) (Chifley)
mobile:  0432 255 208
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

_______________________________________________
luv-talk mailing list
luv-talk@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk