b doesn’t believe there is a verse in the Bible that says “one man, multiple marriages.” However, if there is b would certainly appreciated knowing where it is.

June 19th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

“Thy silver and thy gold is mine; thy wives also and thy children, even the goodliest, are mine.” 1 Kings 20:3

Again, I will continue to pray that you educate yourself about the Bible and the many things that are in the Bible. You truly need the help.

Wasn’t AIDS identified in the early ’80’s?

How did AIDS enter the population?

–
Come on. I don’t wish to treat you without respect but viruses have been mutating and jumping species for millenia. This is just stupid

The Bible also says “one man, multiple women” are marriage. Bitbit seems to ingore this verse in the Bible.

b doesn’t believe there is a verse in the Bible that says “one man, multiple marriages.” However, if there is b would certainly appreciated knowing where it is.

Christ certainly doesn’t say this when he quotes Genesis 2 in Matthew 19 to show that the Creator intended that a man and a woman would be “one flesh.”

The Bible does record that there were men in the Old Testament who took more than one wife, but the Bible never says it was a good or a desirable practice or a thing that a man should do. The Bible simply records that it happened, and what commentary the Bible provides on the practice is usually negative. For instance, the Old Testament says that Solomon’s many wives turned his heart from God.

Interestingly the Bible records the name of the first man to take two wives. His name was Lamech and he descended from Cain. This is recorded in Genesis 4.

Why do you hold up certain portions of the Bible as sacrosanct, but completely ignore other verses that are inconvenient to your prejudices, including the many contradictions and falsehoods that are in the Bible?

This suggests to b that DS doesn’t really believe the Bible anyway so what’s the point her?

Since it’s not clear to b exactly what it is DS believes, or to whom DS would be praying, please don’t pray for b.

“Wasn’t AIDS identified in the early ’80’s?

How did AIDS enter the population?”

June 19th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Yes, AIDS was identified in the early 80’s. It was passed by people who had multiple partners with no regard to safety.

Where did AIDS originally start? Why are the vast majority of AIDS cases wordwide among heterosexuals?

If DS is correct that bit “glosses” over certain scripture, then bit is simply wrong.

June 19th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

I agree, you ARE wrong in holding up one verse of the Bible over other verses. You are simply allowing your prejudice to you ignoring the many verses in the Bible that are not “convenient” to your pre-concieved ideas.

I will continue to pray for you, Bitbit. You seriously need the help.

How did AIDS enter the population?

Funny how you seem to gloss over those particular laws, but I’m not too surprised. Pick & choose, pick & choose.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:19 am

Obviously DS wants to gloss over the fact that Christ himself said that the Creator’s intended sexual expression was to be between a man an a woman in a marriage. This is statement very emphatically in Mathew 19. Further, DS appears to want to gloss over the fact that Christ himself said that a mans attitude was as important as his action as far as sexual sin is concerned. Christ says in Matthew 5 that one can look at a woman to lust after her and commit adultery in his heart and that is sin. This is a standard of sexual purity that is in the stratosphere.

How could the Savior who warned about sexual purity regard homosexuality as anything but sin?

bit doesn’t gloss over these laws but bit also knows that the Apostle Paul made it clear that one didn’t have to be a Jew to be a Christian. The Apostle Peter was a harder sale, but he came to understand that a Christian was not required to be a Jew first.

Further, nothing DS said in his post changes anything the Bible says about homosexuality. If DS is correct that bit “glosses” over certain scripture, then bit is simply wrong. Nonetheless, bit doesn’t perceive that DS is trying to correct him.

bit being wrong doesn’t change anything that scripture says about homosexuality.

“The Law to which he refers would be the Law with the extensive prohibitions against deviant sexual practices – including homosexuality.”

June 19th, 2008 at 9:58 am

Ironically enough, it ALSO includes the laws against eaing unclean animals, how to sacrifice to God, when women are “unclean” and to burn anything they touch during that time of the month, and when one should kill your children for disobeying you.

Funny how you seem to gloss over those particular laws, but I’m not too surprised. Pick & choose, pick & choose.

What does this Bible verse mean to you?

Something tells bit that it doesn’t mean anything to you but a convenient club with which to swat at Daryll.

If the one you quote does mean anything to you perhaps the one bit quotes will mean something?

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults2.php?passage1=Matthew+22&book_id=47&version1=31&tp=28&c=22

Matthew 22
36″Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

What does this one mean to you?

bit believes that this scripture means that you can’t do the second command without doing the first one.
Further, Jesus says that these two commands are necessary in order to follow the Law and the teachings of the prophets.

The Law to which he refers would be the Law with the extensive prohibitions against deviant sexual practices – including homosexuality.

Oh — and sex through the rectum isn’t what’s “high-risk”. Having sex with somebody with AIDS is.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Wasn’t AIDS called GRIDS – gay related – when it was first discovered?

if you buy the logic that STDs are punishment for sin.

Well, the best advice in this area is one man one woman forever. This is a short description of a monogamous – faithful – heterosexual relationship, like in a natural marriage.

This arrangement avoids both the sin and the disease(s).

Daryll only “picks & chooses” specific verses of the Bible that support his prejudice! Daryll is to Christianity as the GOP is to the “Constitution”: only certain portions are important, the rest can be thrown away.

Dear Darryll,
You keep insisting that AIDS is some sort of punishment for “sin”… if it’s a homosexual that has it. Should that be the same reasoning for heterosexuals, too? Because of their “sin” they too, should be punished…?

Now, let me extrapolate your theory for you with one simple…
Q U E S T I O N:
What children did Jesus say to punish?

.

What does this Bible verse mean to you?

oh come on, haven’t you gotten the memo? The Gospels are tainted with liberal bias and not to be trusted…;-)

One, there have been examples of editors with principles quitting the paper over moonie influence saying that the so called “independence” is a sham.

If you have not watched this panel discussion with three very conservative former editors of Moon’s media, you likely do not know how Moon uses his media. This is a much watch – informative and even humorous at times: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9008719207533458404&hl=en

One former member attested that he personally saw long time Moon follower, Josette Shiner the managing editor of the paper for many years, taking orders directly from Moon on what he wanted done with the paper. There are also examples of Moon bragging about using the paper to “influence America” and to gather intelligence for his organization.

But Moon does not have to come in and tell them what to write. His operative’s do the hiring and firing of the top management of the paper and they have simply hired people like Pruden to run the paper. Moon is not just a right wing extremist but a rampant homophobe. He doesn’t have to tell someone like Pruden what to write. The paper is on auto pilot.

The paper also gives Moon huge face around the world. Astonishingly, many people who have or currently work for the paper still do not see how they empower Moon’s “messianic” mission.

Some on the “independent” WT:

http://cellwhitman.blogspot.com/2004/10/independent-washington-times.html

And then assuming that a large number of that 30% might be people involved in prostitution (either providing it or using it) or IV drug users—which of course has nothing to do with sex at all—I don’t really think someone who thinks that AIDS is a punishment for “sin” is going to be forced to question their notions about the disease that much.

According to this article in The Independent, http://tinyurl.com/6fwtxz , now the World Health Organization says that among heterosexuals, the disease mainly effects conservative Republican politicians (OK, well they actually said the disease mainly effects drug users and people who have sex with prostitutes—but that pretty much describes the modern GOP, right?).

June 18th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
_____

Actually, the wages of life is death. Non-sinners die, too, you know.

curmudgeon Says:
Hey Daryll –

According to Jesus in Matthew 7:1-2 (NIV) —

1?Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

What does this Bible verse mean to you?

Interesting you should bring that up, curmudgeon — earlier today, Daryll was quoting that very same verse.. Yet in the very same thread, he was judging others.

Now, what you have to understand about Daryll is that he’s not really a biblethumper. He’s really a blog performance artist acting the character of a biblethumper.

He’s really quite good, about the best fake troll we’ve got here. Is great about staying in character, inventive in his routine… but every once in a while, like all great artists, he overreaches. Falls prey to unintended irony.

At least — I think this is unintended.

If Daryll actually meant to play hy[ocrisy, I’ll be disappointed in him. He’s better than that. Hypocrisy is so easy to play.

C’mon, Daryll! You can do better!