Polygamists to be allowed to legally marry soon

[pknopp]

That was Paul. And that verse is in reference to food offerings to false idols, that were then sold for profit…

Where did Jesus condemn it? That is the argument you used.

 

[Couchpotato]

Only within Muslim and Mormon sects.

Abraham’s first son wasn’t with Sarah.

 

[Vastator]

Where did Jesus condemn it? That is the argument you used.

Wrong. Nice try though. Jesus wasn’t in Corinth. Jesus wasn’t teaching the Corinthians about the acceptability of eating that which had been offered to false gods. That was your very poorly chosen example…

 

[pknopp]

Wrong. Nice try though. Jesus wasn’t in Corinth. Jesus wasn’t teaching the Corinthians about the acceptability of eating that which had been offered to false gods. That was your very poorly chosen example…

Doesn't matter. He didn't condemn it. That was the argument you used and so can I.

The OT calls for stoning as punishment for adultery. Jesus did not call for that. His words allowed her to walk free.

You dismiss that by stating he didn't specifically condemn stoning for adultery. Hence I can use the same argument.

 

[Vastator]

Doesn't matter. He didn't condemn it. That was the argument you used and so can I.

The OT calls for stoning as punishment for adultery. Jesus did not call for that. His words allowed her to walk free.

You dismiss that by stating he didn't specifically condemn stoning for adultery. Hence I can use the same argument.

The Torah is the Law. Jesus is the Law made flesh. He is the embodiment of the Torah. His existence is the condemnation. Neither jot, nor tittle…

 

[pknopp]

The Torah is the Law. Jesus is the Law made flesh. He is the embodiment of the Torah. His existence is the condemnation. Nether jot, nor tittle…

Well he can ignore the law, so can I.

 

[Vastator]

Well he can ignore the law, so can I.

Who told you he ignored the law?

 

[pknopp]

Who told you he ignored the law?

Rinse, repeat.

 

[Votto]

Libertarians will argue that the government has no place being involved in marriage in the first place.

Government does not have any business being in a lot of places. But like marriage, they insist on having control

That is why voters insist on getting morons like Pelosi to agree for certain marriages, like gay marriage, but a thumbs down for a multiple marriage arrangemnet

I mean really, does anyone value what the moon bat thinks?

LOL.

Democrats insist the government remain in the bedroom as they tell you if your "sexual preferences" will get state perks.

Pure insanity.

 

[Canon Shooter]

It started with letting gays get married. At the time most didn't care and hand waved it. But every time you let some fringe groups get there way and it becomes normal and once it becomes normal the next fringe groups steps up the plate and then they become normalized. So we went from gays, to trannies and now that trannies are becoming normal now they are trying to normalize tranny kids, next up is kid banging. All thanks to People's hand waving and saying "chill out. It's not the end of the world".

One does not cause the next.

Should we ban heterosexual white couples from adopting children who aren't white? After all, before long they're going to want to start adopting other people's children, right?

Should we ban inter-racial marriage? After all, before long people will want to marry horses. That's a fair concern, isn't it?

So we'd better nip it in the bud now...

Have fun with double alimony when you all get divorced.

Seriously, what is your fear in allowing someone to have more than one wife or husband? It will never have an impact on you; not even a remote one...

 

[Vastator]

Rinse, repeat.

So… one sees when they read, and understand the scriptures, and understands the Law; it was the Pharisees who in this instance were the Lawbreakers. And god detests Lawlessness. Jesus was openly calling the Pharisees out. Amongst each other, and amongst the public. For her partner in the alleged crime was not present, and also being punished according to the Law. Nor did they fulfill the legal requirements of the law God had lain out clearly. The requirement of 2, or 3 witnesses. This story is much less a story of forgiveness, and more appropriately a story of Jesus rebuking the Lawlessness of the Pharisees…

Deuteronomy 19:15
King James Version
​

15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

“A single witness shall not appear in a trial against a man for any wrong or any sin which he has committed; [only] on the testimony or evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be confirmed.”

 

[pknopp]

So… one sees when they read, and understand the scriptures, and understands the Law; it was the Pharisees who in this instance were the Lawbreakers. And god detests Lawlessness. Jesus was openly calling the Pharisees out. Amongst each other, and amongst the public. For her partner in the alleged crime was not present, and also being punished according to the Law. Nor did they fulfill the legal requirements of the law God had lain out clearly. The requirement of 2, or 3 witnesses. This story is much less a story of forgiveness, and more appropriately a story of Jesus rebuking the Lawlessness of the Pharisees…

Deuteronomy 19:15​

King James Version​

​

15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

“A single witness shall not appear in a trial against a man for any wrong or any sin which he has committed; [only] on the testimony or evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be confirmed.”

Jesus said none of that stuff. All he said was "those without sin, cast the first stone".

 

[Vastator]

Jesus said none of that stuff. All he said was "those without sin, cast the first stone".

Yes. That was the challenge he issued, as the Pharisees were acting outside the law, “sinning”. Daring them to commit to said sin in the open, amongst each other. In view of witnesses). While he had them dead to rights. That is why they threw no stone. For they would have then themselves been subject to punishment for Sin. Acting outside of Gods Law.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Slippery slope: New York City judge argues the 'time has arrived' to legally recognize polyamory relationships | Blaze Media

A recent decision in New York City's eviction court has come down squarely in favor of recognizing legal rights for polyamorous relationships. Trial court Judge Karen May Bacdayan concluded in the case of West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same...

www.theblaze.com

But only because 3 gay guys want to get married in New York City.

My great grandpa had 3 wives

 

[pknopp]

Yes. That was the challenge he issued, as the Pharisees were acting outside the law, “sinning”. Daring them to commit to said sin in the open, amongst each other. In view of witnesses). While he had them dead to rights. That is why they threw no stone. For they would have then themselves been subject to punishment for Sin. Acting outside of Gods Law.

None of that is in the Bible.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

America is a young country but we skyrocketed to the top of the food chain. We did so because we

We did so because of the geography of our country...almost unlimited space and resources. We did not have a dozen other established countries trying to take our land for theirs.

 

[The Original Tree]

Slippery slope: New York City judge argues the 'time has arrived' to legally recognize polyamory relationships | Blaze Media

A recent decision in New York City's eviction court has come down squarely in favor of recognizing legal rights for polyamorous relationships. Trial court Judge Karen May Bacdayan concluded in the case of West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same...

www.theblaze.com

But only because 3 gay guys want to get married in New York City.

So I can have a dishwasher and a washing machine?

 

[bripat9643]

We did so because of the geography of our country...almost unlimited space and resources. We did not have a dozen other established countries trying to take our land for theirs.

Nope. We did so because we had freedom. Russia, China and Brasil all have unlimited land and resources.

 

[Vastator]

None of that is in the Bible.

It’s right there in black and white. Whether, or not you understand what it says, and therefore what it means… that’s up to you. Deuteronomy has been in every Bible I’ve ever read. As for the story of the woman to be stoned? Yup. That been in all of them too. To understand why it shook out the way it did; you have to understand the Law. The Torah. When one understands the Law, Gods Law; it becomes quite obvious why it went down the way it did.

 

[pknopp]

It’s right there in black and white. Whether, or not you understand what it says, and therefore what it means… that’s up to you. Deuteronomy has been in every Bible I’ve ever read. As for the story of the woman to be stoned? Yup. That been in all of them too. To understand why it shook out the way it did; you have to understand the Law. The Torah. When one understands the Law, Gods Law; it becomes quite obvious why it went down the way it did.

Your back story is in no Bible.