New Legal Definition of Marraige.... (humor, satire, or serious, you choose)

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Nitro Owners Forum

Help Support Nitro Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Tony Payne

Tony Payne

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2002
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
0
This from Protestants for the Common Good (http://www.thecommongood.org/) on a comprehensive Constitutional Amendment built firmly on Biblical sources



The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government." This is true.



Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles:



A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)



B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)



C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)



D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)



E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)



F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)



G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
 
Dang Simmy..Ain't touchin' that one:) I like the "one shoe" fine....Probably would be a lot of guys walkin' around with one shoe.

TEE
 
aww, c'mon guys...



I was sent this, and I found it rather humerous... most people that say we must have a "biblical" definition are oblivious to some of these examples...and that serves as the "serious" side of the post.



It's meant in good fun, and if a real conversation comes out of it, great...



If any are truly offended, I will gladly edit/remove it.



(BTW, I am not advocating the views expressed... I am happily married to a wonderful woman!)





 
For the life of me, I can't figure out why a man would want more than one wife...
 
No need to get married just find a woman that hates you and buy her a house.. In the long run it may be cheaper..

BF
 
Mr. Sim, That was Good!









Now, go take Mrs. Sim fishin'!

And if ("when" LOL!) she outfishes you....

.....It was "for better or for worse"!
 
me!, She outfishes me nearly every trip... the last couple of trips we have traded out pretty darn even...



I wouldn't trade her for all the bass in the world.



Hopefully we'll get to meet you at the rally... we're still trying to make sure we can be there...I hope to atleast drive us down for Saturday regaurdless of the rest...
 
It will be a real pleasure to meet the two of you, Mr. Sim!



If you just drive down for Saturday, be sure to stay for dinner!



Please let me know what you decide so I can make any needed adjustments to the numbers!
 
Ya know Simmy..me and mine have been on the "Who has the bigger fish" gig for the last couple years since she's got a few good uns' under her belt and that big ol' head starts swellin' a little and then.....You drop the BOMB on em' and SHOW EM'WHO'S BOSS!! :) hehe(Big fish of course)

Seriously it's good clean fun and get a kick outta' ribbin' each other. My wife and I have actually become even closer(if that's even possible) over the last 5 years or so. Not sayin' we're perfect...we defintely bump heads once in a while...don't we all?:)

Later,

TEE

BTW...Dude! Uncle just sent me an e-mail from the Fish Hatchery at Dale! We now have INSIDE INFO!!:) Stay tuned....
 
TEE and Mr. Sim -



For comments like those, I think your wives should buy you guys a bouquet of flowers!



You tell 'em I said so!



me!
 
Hahahahaha...Jealous?:) It's when she forgets my beer that it becomes a REAL problem!
 
The LAST thing I want is my wife in the boat with me!! She'd be re-arranging all my tackle, dusting the lockers and tyin air freshners to the "Oh ****" handle, besides making me tuck in my shirt and not lettin me have a cigar.....Not to mention being a left seat driver!! Boy am I glad she doesn't fish!!



TOXIC
 
Yeah Tox, but when I want a new reel, rod or just any other crankbait or new fangled plastic concoction, I get no argument from the wife... I just have to buy 2 of them!



We clean and organize the boat together... she does accuse me of hiding the "good stuff", but we have a grand time together.. I wouldn't have it any other way!
 
Yeah, I kinda wish the wife was into fishing but when I do it as a business, she keeps pretty close tabs on my expenses and can concentrate on the things that she wouldn't if she were out in the boat. Besides, I don't need the competition..LOL!!



TOXIC
 
Sim - I liked it. Had seen it before and laughed then and now. It is very true.



david.....
 
Ain't that the truth Simmy! Heck I thought mine was gonna' flip out when I asked if I could buy a boat:) And yes..I don't get that crap most get when you spend $100 every so often at BPS...most of the time she's definitely helpin' spend it:)

TEE
 
OK i'll wade into this a bit. Personaly I find it VERY funny! I personaly think the State/Federal governments have ZERO right to infringe on any one's personal lifes. If your church does or does not want to recognize same or different sex/race/haircolor/boat brand marriage that's their choice but NOT the governement. IF our consitution is changes for this what's stopping someone from pushing through an ammendment that ONLY Christians marraiges can be recognized by the governement? What about only Aluminium boat owners can marry?? I do support people's choice to live their lives ANY WAY they wish as long as it does NOT infringe on my right to life, libery and the pursuit of happyness! A gay marraige (OR for that matter a Heterosexual marraige) does NOT effect ANYONE's constitutional rights PERIOD!!



I know some of you have VERY strongly held religious beleifs on non-heterosexuals and I completely respet that. Heck some of your religions have VERY strong views/beliefs on Jews! But in this democratic republic free society we live in the U.S.A. your views are respected along with mine. But what I can't figure out, and maybe (in the sake of learning and exchange) someone can post WHY they feel it is in the interest of Governement to legislate what TYPE of people get married? Any thoughts??
 
Go Michael - I'm with you. And I work in the insane asylum. (don't make policy though)



david....
 
I don't want to seem argumentative, but would like to state my opinion on the matter Trep mentioned above.



Until our most recent history, marriage has been unilaterally defined as a union (whether religious, legal, etc..) between a man and a woman. In my family's viewing of the recent turmoil over this issue, it seems to me that both sides of the argument are debating the use of the word, "marriage". I do not see that as a pertinent point of either side's argument. If this same rationality was applied to anything else, it would be ludicrous. I.E.: If I were a part of a very minute group of individuals demanding that a horse be called a chicken from now on by the rest of society, I would understandably be laughed off the planet.



I do believe that our constitution should protect their (homosexual) union with the same voracity, laws, and benefits that other married (heterosexual) individuals are entitled to without changing the definition of such an accepted term as marriage. Call it whatever is deemed socially agreeable, but do not change the overwhelmingly accepted description of the word. As a happily married man, I do not want the, "Are you married?" question to be needed with the follow-up, clarifying question, "To a Man or a Woman?" I don't mean to come accross as uncaring, for I do care about my family's sacred traditions and the history of which my country was founded on. IMHO
 
Dan - I can respect that view, though not 100% agree. How about no government recognition at all of "marriage" but of the "union"? That if 2 adults (OK, in West Virgina, Alabama and KY that would be anyone over the age of 13 LOL) want to commit and have the legal standing/tax/estate benefits off we go!!
 


Some things change definitions with time... that, to me, is one of the obvious things about the starting post... a marraige in "bible" times was much different than we see it now.



"Marraige" is a religous/social term, and that is where the true "debate" is... call it what you will, a "civil union" or whatever, but the government needs to stay out of personal lives other than to gauruntee equal rights for all.



Sexual discrimination, like racism and religous discrimination needs to be a thing of the past.



Remember, that racism, slavery, religous discrimination (the entire reason that our "seperation of church and state" was created) were all once fully accepted and supported by "the church".



Times change.



 
Trep - I understand and agree with the intention and practice of equal protection under the law. However, changing the grammatical text of the word "marriage" to satisfy the few is an apalling precedence and creates much of the tension within the issue. (IMHO) Changing the definition of the word fails on the same principals that created the minor movement to establish "Ebonics" as a seperate language. (Just one example.) The (English) language and the descriptive term of the word, "marriage", pre-dates either cause. (I believe both homosexuals and people with bad grammer have been around equally as long.) The issue should be decided solely on the merits; equal representation (benefits, soc. sec., etc.) for all, regardless of race, religion, or sexual preference. Call it a "union" or whatever fits the intent without changing the context of the word accepted by the majority for thousands of years. That is the only problem I have with it.



It's only my opinion and worth (barely) the paper it's (not) written on. (LOL!)
 
Trep,

I'd like to add my opinion here if I may. What's going on here is a very scary thing to a Christian who relies on the Bible for his authority on moral issues. And by the way Sim, although your post was kind of funny, I hope you realize that just because people did things that were documented in the Bible, doesn't mean that God approved of them. As a matter of fact, you forgot to post the part where He destroyed two entire cities because of their moral downfall, and their homosexual ways. Anyway, enough preaching.....Trep the problem I have with the Homosexual marriages, and why I think the government should step in, is because of the landslide of issues that are sure to follow. Once this is made a legal, normal thing, it will be taught as normal to our children in school. It will be included in our textbooks as a normality. I'm sorry but that isn't right. What a person chooses to do in the privacy of his or her own home, SHOULD NOT be regulated by the government, I agree, (as long as it doesn't harm another person) but when it begins to affect my children I draw the line. Also, you stated that if a church or organization doesn't want to accept or recognize these marriages that is there right, but thats not true. The time will come where if you are a minister and you refuse to marry a gay couple because they are gay....they will sue you!! And if you don't let gay couples join your church, they will do the same. If you don't think that time will come, you are sadly mistaken. Please don't get me wrong, as a Christian, I do care about these people even though I don't agree with what they do. I just think if we continue to turn our heads and let them dictate what is right and what is wrong, and accept everything for the sake of "tolerance" that we are in for some very, very sad days as Americans.

Thanks for letting me ramble,

God Bless,

Ed
 
Ed,



You're welcome to ramble anytime...



Now, I haven't researched every entry in my original post, but most of the "rules" were attributed to the "heros" of the bible, and not to the punished ones. This is specifically why The bible cannot (in and of itself) be used as the only test... it is inconsistent unto itself as well as being abit out of date as to current customs.



I did not "forget" the story of Soddom and Gemorah, that was not the point of the post. The point of the post is a "biblical definition" of marraige, not the acceptance of homosexuality.



The bible is a "two edged sword" where anyone sufficeintly skilled can find support for his/her position within its pages.



 
Sim,

I'll have to disagree with you on a couple of points.



First, and most importantly, the Bible is the only authority we need to know right from wrong. As a matter of fact, its the only thing we can trust to be a consistent, absolute truth in a world where noone seems to want to admit that there is in fact absolute truth. Yes, I'll agree there may have been some customs in early times that we don't adhere to nowdays, like having more than one wife. But, even those things back then, God did not give his approval to, He merely allowed the people to have a free will to do what they chose, just like He does us today. And yes, you may find places in the Bible where it seems to contradict itself, but the problem occurs when you try to take one specific passage and let it stand alone. You must understand that passage in its complete context and realize why it was written. I don't believe God is in the business of trying to confuse us by saying one thing one time, and saying something totally different the next. He wants us to know what is right and wrong, so we can live accordingly.



Secondly, (and I know your original post was not just about the acceptance of homosexuality, but it is relevant to the sanctity of marriage)you stated that "anyone sufficiently skilled can find support for his/her position within its pages" referring to the Bible. I challenge anyone to find support for a homosexual lifestyle, or adultry, or premarital sex, or murder within the pages of God's Word. If it's there I've sure missed it.



Thanks again for listening,

God Bless,

Ed
 
This could get really scary very soon...i really did not intend to start a bible debate, I respect your choices on the matter.



however, a few relevant statements:



The "crusades" and the "inquisition" were both championed by Christians using the bible as thier guide.



Murder is sanctioned by example througout the Old testament. How many stories of war do you need recounted?



Adultry, wasn't it Lot who offered his wife up to the townspeople of Soddom? Was Lot punished for this?



There are plenty of people/stories out there where preachers debate the homosexual aspect that you describe, and they all use elements of the bible to back them up. While one can certainly say that it is not specifically "allowed" and certianly there are examples of "Gods" judgement on them, there is also the side of "Do unto others" and "judge not" that carries sufficeint weight on the other.



The "sanctity" of marraige is not about the sex of the partners, but the trust/love and commitment the two make to each other.



Biblically speaking, When adam "ate of the fruit of knowledge of good and bad", he gave us each one the ability to determine right from wrong, no "book" needed.





Also you said:

<i> I don't believe God is in the business of trying to confuse us by saying one thing one time, and saying something totally different the next. He wants us to know what is right and wrong, so we can live accordingly.</i>



Well, unfortunately all we have is what is "revealed" to man via the bible... you accept that as God's word. It is man's interpetation of that bible, and continued re-interpetation that causes the issue. In fact, it could be said that the mere creation of the bible (by man) was a way to gain power over other men, to fit what one group of people thought was "right and wrong".



If God wanted us to know "right from wrong" he would've developed within us that ability without any external guidance needed.



Again, I respect your opinions and your choices, I think you would find that we agree more than we differ on the "spirit" of such things, while we may differ more than we agree on the source of those agreements.
 
Actually, I want to rephrase a part of the previous post...



I do not want to appear overly confrontational on this subject.



It is not the bible itself that causes the issue, it is man's use of the bible at various times throughout history that causes the issues.



The bible is a fine piece of literature, has many redeeming qualities, and, for some, provides a level of comfort and direction that they cannot find elsewhere.



However, Not everyone sees the "bible" as we do. The bible to one group of people may meen the koran, the "protestant" bible or the Iching. Others do not see the need for any "revealed" religion to be enforced upon others. These are largely cultural in nature, but are also learned as a person get's wiser.



In the end, most all of them are in agreement in spirit. What's right is obviously right, what's wrong is obviously wrong. Then there is the grey area that the society (local or global) has to decide upon.



Sometimes we justify doing what is obviously wrong for the greater good.



I did not intend to start debating the bible or belief systems, nor do I wish to continue it. It is far to an emotional topic for many, and I do not wish to offend anyone.



-- sim



 
Oh well..... From the "other" side.....



Personally, I couldn't care less if the term "marriage" is reserved for heterosexual relationships and a term such as "union" would be used to describe gay or lesbian relationships. I simply demand that gay and lesbian relationships be given the same protections and rights under the law. Words are just words.



I have two very dear lesbian friends here in Missouri who have been together almost 30 years. Kay has terminal cancer. If it had not been for the fact that they had enlisted the services of a lawyer years ago to name each other as exclusive beneficiaries and set up powers of attorney, etc, Valerie would have no rights under the law to make any decissions with regard to Kay's care or property when the time comes.....



By the way..... Only about 30% of couples - heterosexual, gay or lesbian - ever draw up wills, living wills or powers of attorney. This can be devastating to families. So, as Donnie would say, "Git 'er done."



I have seen the courts take children away from a divorced mother simply because she became involved in a lesbian relationship. I find this appauling. The children could have been brought up in a household practicing love and tolerance; instead they were sent into an atmosphere of intolerance.



And, while I'm on my soapbox..... I was getting my nails done today by a young lady (late 20's?) of Vietnamese decent. She was born here and has never been to Viet Nam. We were discussing issues of tolerance and acceptance. She mentioned to me that her father, who works in a warehouse, is often harrassed as if he had been the cause of the war..... How anyone can do that to another person, simply because they were born with different features, is beyond my understanding.....



I could go on and on.....



I am so glad that topics like this are finally being discussed openly.

I am so glad our society is becoming more tolerant.



God Bless All of You!

me!
 
Dan First - If we then agree to take marraige out of the governments view completely and leave it to a church/temple thing then we're OK. I'm with you and me! on the equal protection under the law, that is my ONLY concern. It's like was said above slavery, religeous persecution.. have all been defined/approved by governements in the past (some the US). I am too very tired of the politicaly correct language, but i am also a libertarian in politics which means show me where there is government value in legislating the morality of the few or the many.

I guess my other question/point historicaly (I may be wrong tell if I am, i'm no religious scholar) that Catholics didn't-don't recognize (or is it only used in rare circumstances) the world DIVORCE! So if that is not recognized in a large church should should the US government? Should we all call it Annulment? Point being it's not the 1st century, we have computers that never existed, medical changes/abilities we never dreamed of...



Ed - Gotta run to take my son to TaeKwonDo, will post more tonite.



I do like these "safe" discussions so we can all learn and share whether we agree or not!!



By the way didn't ANYONE pick up on the What about "only Aluminium boat owners can marry?? " LOL

 
Trep -



You are quite right, the Catholic church does not recognize divorce.



My parents were married for about 25 years then got divorced in 1973. My father remarried 2 years later. Then, about 4 or 5 years ago, he decided he wanted to have his new marriage recognized by the church so he had to have his marriage to my mother - and the mother of his 4 other children - annuled. He let us know that we were all about to be bastardized.



I wrote him a note.....



"Facing God on your deathbed.....



"'Really, Richard. Did you think that you could hide your marriage to Sue from Me by bastardizing your children? I would never do that to My Son.'"



Between that, me becoming "Staci" and other family stuff, my father doesn't speak to me anymore, doesn't accept my letters and my e-mails are blocked - that's why I asked all of you to wish him a happy 80th birthday for me a few months ago..... (I said with tears in my eyes.....)



me
 
Interesting.



A few random thoughts.



The word "marriage" has several definitions according to the major English dictionaries, including a generic description of "close union" as well as "the union of a man and a woman." Nothing will change in the English language by applying the word to homosexual relationships. "Close union" works as a definition.



The word marriage appears in untold numbers of laws and court cases in our legal system. For homosexual unions to enjoy the same legal standing as heterosexual marriages, I believe they must be called marriages as well, for the sake of equal legal treatment.



Ed, the Bible is the truth to a minority of people on this planet. There are hundreds or even thousands of other versions of "truth" out there. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights say you are entitled to practice your version. It also says that you are not entitled to dictate other people's versions. It also says that the government shall make no law regarding religion. Given that the Bible is a Judeo-Christian text, using it as the basis for denying a portion of our society certain rights enjoyed by others is a direct violation of the civil rights of homosexuals, as well as a clear violation of the separation of church and state.



As for your kids: It's your job to teach them your version of right and wrong. To expect our government to bend to your morals so that job is easier, is, well, not the government's problem to solve. As a matter of fact, it's the government's problem to make sure you have the individual sanctity in your home to do so, and everyone else has the same thing, as well.

 
Ed-- you stated there will be a landslide of issues that will follow if homosexuals are allowed to marry.So far I have not seen one stated by you or anybody else.



You stated that kids will be "taught" that it is ok to be gay.Who are you to say that it is not?

Just because your religion tells you it's bad,does not make it bad for everybody.

I will teach my children what I believe is right and wrong,I don't need anybody else to do it.



There is no legal reason why two same sex couples should not have the same benifits under the law as an opposite sex couple.Anything else is crossing the line between law and religion,and that is wrong.



 
Rich-you said it alot better than I did.



And alot quicker.



To each his own.
 
Ed - Your concern about getting the government involved when it effects your children is valid to a point. If you read your bible or someone elses what about the OTHER sinners? Drinkers (me not me! included), Adulterers (our former president included), thiefs (a LOT of politicians and others) but you teach your kids the RIGHT and WRONG not the government! What about the literal interpreters of the bible (new testiment, not old) that Jews MUST be converted to Christianity, should the governement mandate that too? I see the pendulum going the OTHERWAY IF we regulate morality like WHO can/Can't Marry. Like I said what if a MAJORITY of this country decide Jews, or other religions should NOT Marry as THAT is continuing to breed sinners, WAY too scary for me!



Again I respsect your views but do not enforce your religious interpretation on my family and kids. Thats MY JOB :)
 
Not to discount any of your views or values. The only thing that bothers me the most is that the whole thing is not about love or marraige, it's about money. Insurance,property rights and the like. The conversation here has been very informative and based on opinions of the members here. We as a group have agreed to respect each opinion with out changeing our own. The thought of the goverment or our church forceing an opinion on me does not sit well. While hideing from my X I happened upon what has been labeled as a lesbian bar?? Now I feel safe there and have no problem with any of the other patrons. I can go have a beer or 2, shoot pool, listen to the jukebox and then go home.. It's not the people or there choices that are the problem it's the people that want to make our choices for us.. Hope thats OK

BF

God Bless
 
Bruce F... well said, but I would like to comment on one item:



<i>The only thing that bothers me the most is that the whole thing is not about love or marraige, it's about money. Insurance,property rights and the like.</i>



Love and marraige they already have, in the truest sense of the words. What they don't get is the <i><b>legal benefits</i></b> that heterosexual couples get due to the current set of laws. This is truly what the fight is about... equal rights under the law... for everyone. Love/Marraige/partnership they can have regaurdless of the law.







Rich S. You said what I was trying to say, only much better.



 
"Love the one you're with"...(sounds like song lyrics!!)

Mac,Rosie,and Lucky
Lucky_sc_valentine.jpg
 
Very good, Mac! Love your sense of humor!!



A follow-up to Bruce and Sim.....



Yes! Gay and Lesbian couples have been having "Commitment Ceremonies" for years! These cerimonies are usually sponsored by sponsored by sympathetic churches. Unfortunately, these ceremonies give the couples no legal rights or protection.



There is a non-denominational group of churches throughout the US called the Metropolitan Community Churches set up specifically for Gays and Lesbians. The one in St. Louis has two services each Sunday. Each one fills the church with individuals there to worship God! The church holds about 500 to 600 people. I was absolutely amazed the first time I walked in - I have never been in any church where the congregation was so close-knit and so willing to love each other! And it wasn't just adults! Many Gays and Lesbians have been married to the opposite sex; they have children from those marriages or, in many cases, they have adopted children. The children are at those services! The Minister doesn't preach fire and brimstone, she preaches LOVE! Now, I'm am not a church-goer but, if I were, whether straight, gay or lesbian, I would find this a wonderful place to worship!



Bruce - The first time I went into a lesbian bar was almost 20 years ago when I was about 35. I was amazed at how "safe" I felt! I got this immediate sense of "community" - that everyone cared for and watched out for everyone else! They welcomed everyone - straight, gay, lesbian, black, white, yellow, red, tall, short.....



me!
 
Oh yeah.....



Don't forget - "We" are everywhere!



We are your friends and neighbors. We are your co-workers. We are your fishin' buddies! We are even your sons and daughters, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers.....



You can't tell by looking at us. We are no different than you.



God Bless!

me!
 
Uh....Mac, Rosie's supposed to be BIGGER than Lucky!! LOL I been fishin for the wrong one!!



TOXIC



"Feelin' Lucky"...I ain't touchin that!!
 
Me!



Everywhere you say! Gasp! Great, now I got to go home and tell the wife I caught the "Gay".



Rich D



(The above statements were not meant to offend, insult or otherwise cause harm to any individuals or groups. They are just an attempt at humour by a slightly strange individual.)
 
Rich,..like so many other hetero men...you're really just a lesbian trapped in a man's body!! Deal with it!!! LOLOL!!
 
LOL!!!



Wait, what does that make my wife?
 
I generally avoid political discussions but since I have been on both sides of this issue have something to add.



For starters, Sim I liked the post and do not find it offensive. I see the same thing here as I do on many other message boards in that the majority of individuals who have posted do not have a problem with homosexuals having the entitlements that would equal marriage benefits, however, the word "Marriage" seems to be the sore spot for some. My position is that if in our PC world giving it a different name would ease some peoples mind then name it something else.



On the religious side of this topic the one thing that stands out to me is that no matter what religion an individual follows, Judgment day comes once we leave this earth and anyone that feels they have the right to pass judgment on others and does so they too will have their day in front of their maker. To me, any other religious rhetoric is moot.



I would like to thank those that have shared their opinions and feelings on this very serious issue it
 
LOL with you, Rich!







A serious note to that..... None of us would ever want you to catch what we've got. We don't want to convert anyone. We would never want anyone to have to go through what we've gone through if it weren't for the fact that they were that way from birth.
 
Guys,

I can see I am greatly outnumbered here. Thats ok, the Bible said it would be that way. I guess the one statement out of all that bothers me the most is Rich's statement where he said "Ed, the Bible is the truth to a minority of people on this planet". Rich,the problem with this statement is.....YOU ARE RIGHT! The Bible doesn't really mean much to people today. It is just a good book with some good things in it to most. And most people just want to pick and choose the good things that don't offend them. That's sad to me.



If I sounded like I was trying to "force" my religious views on you I apologize. I don't believe "religion" is whats important, but I do believe that what the Bible says is more than just some good advice. Anyway, those are my views and I respect yours. You guys are never mean or harsh when you disagree with someone. The majority of you that have posted, disagree with me for the most part, but you have done so with dignity. I appreciate that.



You are a great bunch of guys, and you all share two of the same passions I share. Bass boats, and Fishing!!! I hope that nothing I have said here has offended, and I plan to still enjoy this board every day. I don't apologize for my views, because to do that would mean they don't mean anything, but I do respect what each of you believe and I wish you all the best! I have to admit, I am the Youth Pastor at my church, and I enjoy sharing my faith with others. I consider you all friends here, and if there is ever anything I can do for any of you, please let me know.



I promise I will try not to "preach" too much in the future. This is just something that has been bothering me, and I took the opportunity to share my thoughts. Rich,

thanks for the board, its a great place to come.



God Bless,

Ed
 
Ed -



I value your thoughts, your religious views, your values and your willingness to post them here! I could never be offended by the way you have expressed them! Thank you, Sir!



You are Good People!



God Bless!

me!
 
Ed, since you promise not to preach I promise I won't take personal offense to repeated references to "guys". LOL



Cass
 
Ed - Good thoughts all around. By the way, i'm one of the resident Jews :)



The one parting religious thought i'll add (beside in the future only Aluminium Boat owners can Marry!!! LOL) is related to Cass's comment that "Judgment day comes once we leave this earth". I agree 100%, the bible (yours, mine, and anyone else's) is a human's written interpretation of events that none of us ever saw or experienced. Each of us take on "faith and belief" in our own religious practices for different reasons. I think Rich's comment about "the Bible is the truth to a minority of people on this planet." is not related to "The Bible doesn't really mean much to people today."



I teach a confirmation class at my Temple to High Schoolers, one week we looked at the religious populations of the earth and specific countries. What I found (like below) is that of the worlds population as of 2000, yes Christians were the largest group but only 33% of the population. So the question i've always had is until you die how do you KNOW the other 67% are not right?? It's not a numbers game it's a personal belief and faith that leads you down the right (or left :-0) path.



Muslim's are the 2nd largest group and THE ONLY group growing!



So there you have it.



Trep
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
 
Ed,...the "majority" of people on this planet are NOT Christians....they're Muslims...Hindu's and Buddhists...so those of us that do "believe" in the bible from a Christian perspective are deffinitely in the minority,..purely from a population standpoint anyway.
 
And I'm a PK and SOB :) You figure it out.



david....



is it spring yet??!
 
Guys and Gals, (i'm learning Cass) :)



Thanks for the replies. Trep, I hear ya about the Muslims being the only group growing. Us Baptists have to GET TO WORK!!! We're slacking.



I do have to say....you're on the verge of offending me though Trep. You can talk about my religion, and you can talk about my mom......but DON'T TALK ABOUT MY GLASSSSSS!!!

I'm sure the Bible says there will be NO TIN IN HEAVEN!!

Sorryyyyy!!!

Ed
 
David,

Does that mean you're a Southern Baptist Preacher's Kid??

Just a wild guess!

Ed
 
Mac - Read my post, Christians ARE the largest (but loosing ground to Muslims) on the planet, but not a majority.



Ed - Sorry, but gotta call a Glass a Glass!!! LOL



Now this is gonna get me KILLED by a lot of you BUT I personaly don't CARE which group grows or shrinks, heck look at the link I posed Jews are .2% of the worlds population! If more folks want to be Muslims, that's GREAT! As Long as it's not RADICAL ISLAMIC MUSLIMS!! Those folks, sorry to be non-PC need to be irradicated from this earth! Any religion faction that preaches heavenly salvation by killing others because the do not believe their way, have no use to me!
 
I think Ed hit the nail on the head. Dave you have been outed!! LOL



Cass
 
Ed is only partially right. Pk is right, but, keep trying on the SOB.



david....
 
I have been called an SOB plenty of times, but I am thinking for a different reason...

 
Dave....

Sick of Baptists??....Strung out Baptist??....Silly old Baptist???...Sick of Boats??...ummmmm....well..then...there's the obvious...but I won't say that. LOL

I GIVE!!

 
Michael, that link to the table with religious group populations and percentages is very useful, but very poorly researched:



Anyone putting together numbers for research like that should have 1651 individuals listed as NTOWists.
 
Ed, Son of a Bishop. He just doesn't talk about me much. No - actually he and his father were my fishing mentors for a long time.



I love posting from work - only time for short posts.



david.....
 
David,

Cool! Thanks for clearing that up. I was still going through the letters trying to think of something else.



Rich- NTOWist IS in the dictionary....isn't it??



Oh yeah....here it is....and it has a picture of a GLASS BOAT beside it!! Wooo Hooooo I knew it!!!
 
Reality check folks... only wooden boats are allowed... after all, there is only a couple of boats mentioned in the "book" and they were both made of wood.



Trep, any/all extremist groups that are willing to kill innocent people and/or break the law (in a violent destructive way) to make a point should be outlawed... this includes many groups in the US today (some anti abortion groups, PETA, etc), not just " Radical Muslim Extremists"... Unfortunately, outlawing them won't do any good, since they feel that "God is on thier side".



I'm just happy that the overwhelming majority of members of all religions see these extremists as a problem, not a solution.

 
Great, one of those wood freaks are in our midst... someone get the stones!
 
Careful, Rich D.....

Stern is building one in his basement!







(How the heck is he gonna get it outta there when the floods come??)
 
Sim - I stand corrected and you are 100% correct!!! "any/all extremist groups that are willing to kill innocent people and/or break the law (in a violent destructive way) to make a point should be outlawed"



Hmm Noah's ark was Wood, Rich S. is building a Wood boat, The new NTOWSism,... Maybe Rich Stern knows something WE don't!!! LOL



Hey i've got wood in my decking and probably my transom, so WOO HOO i'm in the club!!!
 
Trep said he's got WOOD!!.bbwwaahhhaaaaaaa...bet he wishes it was "Forrest L. WOOD"...
 
I sat down to read what was so exciting about this post and I learned alot from you. Most importantly I reaffirmed what a great group of people reside here, and I can't wait to meet some of you at the rally.



My views on this topic are probably moot because I wouldn't marry a man or a woman. It's just not something I feel the need to do. Maybe someday something or someone will change my mind but I doubt it. So, I am pretty much living in sin all the way around by not sealing the deal. HA!



As for everyone else, I wish for you to love whoever you want to love and I hope you take good care of them; gay, straight or otherwise. If our legal system doesn't naturally permit it, then take care of your wishes with a lawyer. I think the idea of traditional marriage has come and gone for alot of people. Instead of tell death do us part, it's until I get pissed at you or find greener grass. Not all marriages end this way but more than I would like to see. My parents were married for 20 years and divorced. If I put up with someone for 20 years, I damn well deserve to collect their life insurance. HA!



I would like to see the term "marriage" stay defined as a man and a woman. I have no problem with that. I think the point is that all people want the right to celebrate their love for their partner and want the best for them in the long run. If using a different term means equal rights and opportunities, then call it whatever you want. Gay people don't "choose" to be gay (IMHO). I think it's one of the hardest lives to lead. Who would choose that? A person's sexual preference is such a small part of their being. Why not get to know all of someone instead of knowing one part and shutting them out? Face it, we are never going to like everything about everybody. If you don't focus in on one item, you'll end up with alot of wonderful people in your life.



Ed or others, you might think that gay people shouldn't "choose" to act on their feelings but how happy of a life is that for someone who knows what is in their heart. What if you couldn't choose to love your wife or your husband? You would probably be miserable. I appreciate your views and they were expressed gracefully. As were all other views on this topic.



In my eyes, God will see me and you on judgement day. I hope I have done enough good in my life to make it in. That's between me and him I suppose. The Bible is a guide but it is also not written by Christ. To me, that leaves room for error. So today and thru life, I try to live each day to be happy and to make others happy, treat people like I want to be treated, and not pass judgement on those that are different from me.



And Cass.....Best Buy is having a sale on toaster ovens....LOL!
 
I got wood under my dash somewhere in my boat....



david....
 
I have been following this thread with intrest for a couple of days now and everytime I thought I had something to add someone else said it better. So I'll just slide in real quick and say that I believe that ALL people (except Ranger owners) should have equal rights under the constitution. They deserve the right to have a voice in the way they live their life and not have to explain themselves or hide or make excucses for who they are or what they belive in and unless you are willing to submit yourself to the rules of the people you don't moraly agree with then don't try to make them live by YOUR moral code.

In regards to my religous belief, I had to memorize a poem when I was in the eighth grade and there has hardly been a day since that I didn't recite it in my head. Here it is.



Harpo





Abou Ben Adhem(may his tribe increase!)

Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,

And saw within the moonlight in his room,

Making it rich and like a lily in bloom,

An Angel writing in a book of gold:

Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,

And to the Presence in the room he said,

"What writest thou?" The Vision rased its head,

And with a look made of all sweet accord

Answered, "The names of those who love the Lord."

"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay not so,"

Replied the Angel. Abou spoke more low,

But cheerly still; and said, "I pray thee then,

Write me as one that loves his fellow-men."



The Angel wrote and vanished. The next night

It came again with a great wakening light,

And showed the names whom love of God had blessed,

And, lo Ben Adhem's name led all the rest!



-James Henry Leigh Hunt
 
I wish all those Legislators who are spending so much time and money struggling with what they should do with this issue (in an election year) would simply read this thread.....
 
Staci - See that's the problem with legislators (most of them) they don't care what's right based on the constitution and rule of law, all they care about is what will give them more special interest $$ or votes. It's gotten to be that our elected officials, most of whom still have not held a real job outside of politics, do everything to "work the system" not represent the interests of their constiuents.



Alas, but that is for a different thread!!! LOL
 
Hmmmmm, campaign finance reform, my favorite subject that no elected offical wants to discuss but is one of the biggest problems that this nation faces.





Harpo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Seriously-Can Muslims be good Americans?
Replies
10
Views
1K
fatrap
fatrap
D
Friday Funnies
Replies
0
Views
632
Dennis Hamer
D

Latest posts

Back
Top