Monday, June 13, 2016

Does Obergfell mean we can marry whoever we want?

No.

The question of the number of people you can marry, and the age of the person you can marry, is still restricted. NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association, wants to eliminate the latter restriction. The Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints wants to eliminate the former restriction. 

27 comments:

JaredMithrandir said...

Your Marriage is Anti-Biblical if you get permission from the Government at all. We are told to be separate from the Wold-System that Satan rules. When you involve the state you engaging in Pergamy.

Joe Hinman said...

unbiblical? ever read the OT? David, Jacob Solomon. Not that I'm advocating it.

Victor Reppert said...

Jared seems to be right, marriage in the OT did not involve governmental agencies.

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16558/is-there-any-account-of-a-religious-marriage-ceremony-in-the-scripture

Ilíon said...

^
1) Neither did "helping the poor" ... but you "liberals" can't seem to stop trying to equate to biblical commands to (personally) commit charity with statist commands to submit to confiscatory taxation under the guise of "helping the poor".

2) In most of the time period of the OT, there *wasn't* a government, not as we think of the term. But, there were communities, and a marriage was very much the business of the community. For, even in those days, people were born, and people died.

Chad Handley said...

Didn't God, in Leviticus and in various other places in the Old Testament, command Israel - as a nation, not as individuals - to leave some of their crops unharvested so the poor could have them?

This was a command that was issued right there with the other statutes of the nation. It wasn't an admonition to be personally charitable; it was a law.

Chad Handley said...

Deuteronomy 24: 19-22:

"When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this."

Again, this is from a section of Scripture where the laws of Israel were being delivered, not one where God was giving anyone any personal, individual admonition. What you have here is a tax on farming; pure, God-commanded redistribution of wealth to the poor, as a matter of enforceable law, not as a matter of individual choice.

Legion of Logic said...

I think there's a difference between leaving out food that you know is going for a good cause, and being forced by some retarded progressive administration to give huge chunks of income to anti-biblical causes since you have no idea where your money is being sent.

Chad Handley said...

We weren't talking about anti-Biblical causes. We were talking about poverty. And clearly, there's nothing anti-biblical about nations being commanded to give, rather than individuals.

Ilíon said...

me: "1) Neither did "helping the poor" ... but you "liberals" can't seem to stop trying to equate to biblical commands to (personally) commit charity with statist commands to submit to confiscatory taxation under the guise of "helping the poor"."

some "liberal" who refuses to comprehend his own proferred example: "Didn't God, in Leviticus and in various other places in the Old Testament, command Israel - as a nation, not as individuals - to leave some of their crops unharvested so the poor could have them?

This was a command that was issued right there with the other statutes of the nation. It wasn't an admonition to be personally charitable; it was a law.
"

This command is one example of exactly what I was talking about.

But, notice, Gentle Reader, how our intellectually dishonest "liberal" tries to change the meaning of what I said from what I *actually* wrote: "biblical commands to (personally) commit charity" to something quite different: "admonition to be personally charitable"

This command, and others like it, was indeed given to the nation -- as individuals; it was *not* given to the nation as a society. Obviously, this is a difficult distinction for "liberals" to wrap their delicate minds around.

Contrast this command with the command to investigate and punish murder. In case of murder, there are rules to establish jurisdiction -- including the finding of the corpse of an unknown person -- and there is a prescribed punishment to be imposed by the relevent authorities -- execution (*gasp*). In the case of manslaughter, there are rules to militate against revenge and blood vendetta.

But, concerning the command to landowners to leave behind any grain that should escape from or be missed by the sythe, and to allow it to be gleaned by the poor, who are the authorities/magistrates commanded to punish the landowner who violates the command? Why, no one but God himself and the landowner's own conscience (and care for his reputation in the community) -- and if the people-as-a-whole should violate this and like commands, then God promises that he shall punish the nation.

Joe Hinman said...

) Neither did "helping the poor" ... but you "liberals" can't seem to stop trying to equate to biblical commands to (personally) commit charity with statist commands to submit to confiscatory taxation under the guise of "helping the poor".


wring, right wings can't read the Bible they impose upon the Bible the crap they need to justify murdering the poor. Israel's policy passed to them by God involved government helping the poor .they've taxed land owners to do it!

leave the corners for the poor to glean. that's tax poliocu.\\
"KAY BIT UP FOR YUORSELVES TERASJURES ON EARTH: carl mARX? WHAT VIVIOUS COMMIE SAID TAHT?

Joe Hinman said...


But, notice, Gentle Reader, how our intellectually dishonest "liberal" tries to change the meaning of what I said from what I *actually* wrote: "biblical commands to (personally) commit charity" to something quite different: "admonition to be personally charitable"


what we have here gentle reader" (wreeeeeech) is typical obfuscation of the murderers of the poor. It's command to be personally charitable not for the government tov do it. this is from the genius bible scholar who says you are going to hell if you vote Democrat. you are going to hell if you oppose me politically. real Christian approach. it;s a commando be personally charitable. well SO ARE TAXES!!1

YOU PAY TADX. YOU MUST BE HCARITIABLE. I'S A CHNCE TO BE PERSONALLY CHAITIOWBLE.

but right wingers would murder the poor.

they did cut off girls head in Nicaragua to makes them fear supporting FSLN, you called me a liarIca n prove it genies. I have the do unmutes..

Joe Hinman said...

Contrast this command with the command to investigate and punish murder. In case of murder, there are rules to establish jurisdiction -- including the finding of the corpse of an unknown person -- and there is a prescribed punishment to be imposed by the relevent authorities -- execution (*gasp*). In the case of manslaughter, there are rules to militate against revenge and blood vendetta.


so topical of the right wing murderers of the poor to impose their categories to assume that the whole world s qued into their categories, so the Bible le really cares about the distinction between government and personal. They didn't have socialism they didn't have that distinction, They had n federalism. they didn't have state's rights they had no tax revolt.

But, concerning the command to landowners to leave behind any grain that should escape from or be missed by the sythe, and to allow it to be gleaned by the poor, who are the authorities/magistrates commanded to punish the landowner who violates the command? Why, no one but God himself and the landowner's own conscience (and care for his reputation in the community) -- and if the people-as-a-whole should violate this and like commands, then God promises that he shall punish the nation.


more imposition of their categories on they unisex. ike is up there in heaven thinking: I must prevent taxes, I must redeem man from having his wealth potential blockaded by Satan's liberalism.

they elevate the whole struggle to the level of the gospel. it'snot just that their rich masters demand more money they have holy crusade taxes evil it's the preincip-le of something or otter. the rich mutsjurvive! be a good little slave now yiur might letr you gget rich too, are yo building sv wall? are youbuilding a wall?:

Joe Hinman said...

hey Idion are voting for Trump now that he's the anointed of the Holy God party?

Ir are you one of Cr8uz' commandos. he's more sneaking than you think.

Ilíon said...

Since "liberals" love to appeal to the Law of Moses in a false attempt to justify the confiscatory taxation they love (*), let us consider another Law, that of establishing a national government: Deuteronomy 17:14-20 --
"[14] When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," [15] be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. [16] The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." [17] He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. [18] When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. [19] It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees [20] and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel."

(*) they love confiscatory taxation because the violently extorted monies tend to pass through the (sticky) fingers of themselves.

Most of these provisions are actively violated by those who rule over us, either in the letter (when the letter of the law is directly applicable to our situation) or in the spirit (when the letter of the law is not directly applicable to our situation), and "liberals" are not just fine with that, they *demand* such violations.

"Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite" -- in our situation, this would be *both* "do not place a foreigner over you" *and* "do not place a non-Christian over you". Yeah, the "liberals" really want to see America live by that rule, don't they?

"He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold" -- In our situation: "The government must not heavily tax the people" ... but "liberals" turn this into "the government must constantly spend more monies than it gathers through taxation, so that your descendants may be long live indebted in the land"

Ilíon said...

"The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself ..." -- In our situation, "the government must not maintain a large standing army" ... but for "liberals" (and far too many not-really-conservatives), the military is just one more way to spend tax monies so as to bribe-and-corrupt the citizens with their own (violently confiscated) money.

"When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees ..." -- In our situation, "All the magistrates are to *know* and abide by and uphold and enforce the provisions of the Constitution in particular ... and of the moral law in general" Yeah! The "liberals" are all for that, aren't they?

"... and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left." -- In our situation "That your "public servants" not consider themselves a superior class who lord it over the citizens, nor deviate from the law of the land or from the moral law." Right!

"... Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel." -- In our situation "Then you and your posterity will long live in this republic I have given you."

Ilíon said...

Here is another -- and very important -- point to keep in mind concerning the OT command to landowners to leave the gleanings of their harvests for the poor -- it was the responsibility of the poor *themselves* to then go and do the gleaning.

Contrast this to the perfect "liberal" welfare State ... where "the poor" sit on their (increasingly) fat asses and *do nothing* to provide for themselves or their children.

"Liberals" are like the Pharaoh during the Exodus, commanding the Hebrew slaves not only to maintain their brick-production quota, but also to gather the needed straw -- Hey you productive members of society, not only must you "contribute" "your fair share" to "feed the poor", but you must also pay us handsomely to deliver the "food" to them.

Legion of Logic said...

"We weren't talking about anti-Biblical causes. We were talking about poverty. And clearly, there's nothing anti-biblical about nations being commanded to give, rather than individuals."

What nations are commanded to give? Or are we simply cherry picking the Mosaic law and applying it to the explicitly unrighteous government of the secular United States trying to justify a union between Christianity and the political left, which despises Christianity?

Joe Hinman said...

Since "liberals" love to appeal to the Law of Moses in a false attempt to justify the confiscatory taxation they love (*), let us consider another Law, that of establishing a national government: Deuteronomy 17:14-20 --

Rules to live by (and do politicos) the murderers of the poor are convinced that the whole world moves according to their cantoris. they are ideologies, they have ideology. ideology says one idea explains the world. So they gave to explain every thing in the simple principle that wealth is the only valid thing and government is evil is a logical consequence of that since governments compete with the rich for power..





"[14] When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," [15] be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite.


That means Obama. he's a secret African Muslim. In their twisted view the president is the King because everything is OT. There is no modern world for them. America is Israel. they are "Christian" like.


Joe Hinman said...


What nations are commanded to give? Or are we simply cherry picking the Mosaic law and applying it to the explicitly unrighteous government of the secular United States trying to justify a union between Christianity and the political left, which despises Christianity?

what nation wAs the Mosaic law written for?

why kis America a continuation of Israel/ THIS IS NOT Christianity IT[S
GODANDCOUNTRY. the murderers of the poor could not care less about Jesus.

Joe Hinman said...

we are not living n ancient Israel and we are not under the law. America is not Israel. this is not the OT.

Israel is not a blue print for government, these are all fallacious concepts started by people like Doopeywired and his son in law,

Chad Handley said...

What nations are commanded to give? Or are we simply cherry picking the Mosaic law and applying it to the explicitly unrighteous government of the secular United States trying to justify a union between Christianity and the political left, which despises Christianity?

I was merely disputing the supposed principle that requiring giving of nations rather than individuals was anti-Biblical.

Illion's protests to the contrary not withstanding, I believe we have the clear Biblical precedent, in many places, that God can command nations to give as nations. And Romans 13:1 makes it pretty clear that God can authorize nations to mandate this as God's intermediaries.

That would mean that we would have to examine individual nations and their tax mandates to ascertain whether they were Godly. As you say, some taxation for some purposes in some countries might be so ungodly as to not qualify. But it would not be the case, as Illion continues to ineffectively argue with increasing implausibility, that the Bible rules out a collective, state-wide, state-mandated giving as such. It could still be consistent with Biblical principles for a righteous, Godly state government to make progressive taxation for he benefit of the poor mandatory.

Satta M. said...

I know why you put atheists in scare quotes, because you don't think they exist. But what's with the scare quotes on "Liberals" and "the poor"?

Chad Handley said...

Sorry, that should have said: "And Romans 13:1 makes it pretty clear that God can authorize governments to mandate this as His intermediaries."

Joe Hinman said...

Chad Handley

I agree with you that there is ample biblical precedent for supporting governments that help people. I am serious when I say taxing is an opportunity to be charitable and should be taken as such.\

I would also argue that the idea that Israel is some prototype for all governments and it's some kind Holy politics)(GOP God's own party) is wrong headed and just not Christian.

Ilíon said...

Satta M: "... But what's with the scare quotes on "Liberals" and "the poor"?"

Because, when the word 'liberal' is used correctly, I am the liberal. But no one uses it correctly.

Because, poverty is relative, and in America, "the poor" whom the leftists claim (at election time) to be so concerned with helping are not all that poor.

Joe Hinman said...

Because, poverty is relative, and in America, "the poor" whom the leftists claim (at election time) to be so concerned with helping are not all that poor

*right and the dead infants who are 5x more likely to die n the first year because they are under the imaginary line are just faking dead. they are just trying get out of work.

*children without fathers 5xmnore likely to go to prison get hooked on drugs, become alcoholics or prostitutes the fathers slit because they get a more money if there is no father.

*sure no you say they ought to work, most poor people work three jobs. it's under employment, most poor people work much harder than most Republicans ever thought about working

Joe Hinman said...

I think there's a difference between leaving out food that you know is going for a good cause, and being forced by some retarded progressive administration to give huge chunks of income to anti-biblical causes since you have no idea where your money is being sent.

I', sure most republicans don't complain about building nuclear weapons but that's pretty unbiblical loop holes on capital gains is totally un-biblical. I beg you don't care about that.