Polygamy

DeafCaroline said:
Ah...you see, if Reba were to say "I believe men and women are meant to be together because that's what the bible says" then fine, I would have left it alone but no, she stated it as this "men and women are meant to be monogamous" - that I took issue with because she's stating it as if it's a fact. I will always challenge that.
Click to expand...

I think we all knew that she said that because that's what the b.... Bible says. ;)
 
Daredevel7 said:
That was my point. If one were to "prove" that humans were NOT meant to be monogamous, all I can think of is to prove that they have temptations or compare them to animals. I don't see what other proof there would be. And you DO accept that humans have temptations, it's just a matter of not giving in.

Everyone is talking about showing proof. I am just questioning the purpose of giving proof in the first place.
Click to expand...

Reba would like to back everyone in a corner with her ideology. If you gave her "proof" she would not accept it, because the only real "proof" she believes in are the bible passages she happens to like.
 
Daredevel7 said:
That was my point. If one were to "prove" that humans were NOT meant to be monogamous, all I can think of is to prove that they have temptations or compare them to animals. I don't see what other proof there would be. And you DO accept that humans have temptations, it's just a matter of not giving in.

Everyone is talking about showing proof. I am just questioning the purpose of giving proof in the first place.
Click to expand...

You made a good point! there are many good reasons for monogamy, won't contest that at all. Just saying that given that a high percentage of men, including married men, cheat on girlfriends and wives, (and yes, there is a percentage of married women who cheat too) that true monogamy is almost more of a romantic ideal than a reality.
 
Reba said:
Well, my source is the Bible. Now, this thread will probably get locked. I'm sorry about that. I tried to avoid contributing to it's being locked but I also don't like seeing only one viewpoint given as though that's it.
Click to expand...

Me neither.
 
Aleser said:
Reba would like to back everyone in a corner with her ideology. If you gave her "proof" she would not accept it, because the only real "proof" she believes in are the bible passages she happens to like.
Click to expand...

Back everyone in a corner? One person vs what? 10 of us on this thread?

Hmmm... don't think so? More like shes the one in the corner using the Bible as a shield. Everyone once in a while, she will yell out "That's not true! That's not what it says!"
 
DeafCaroline said:
Me neither.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think we can all just default assume What Reba Would Say on... well, anything. Just assume a generic American Christian viewpoint, pick only the parts of the bible that don't make out deviants to be good, and exclude any parts of the bible that prohibit what she does, and we're all set!
 
DeafCaroline said:
You made a good point! there are many good reasons for monogamy, won't contest that at all. Just saying that given that a high percentage of men, including married men, cheat on girlfriends and wives, (and yes, there is a percentage of married women who cheat too) that true monogamy is almost more of a romantic ideal than a reality.
Click to expand...

I think you can even find evidence of that in the Bible!
 
Daredevel7 said:
I think we all knew that she said that because that's what the b.... Bible says. ;)
Click to expand...

But that would be called jumping to conclusions. That's why PFH asked her for her source and she totally circumvented that question by deflecting. If she didn't want to drag the bible and religion into this thread, then she shouldn't have brought up her religious beliefs in the first place.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Ah...you see, if Reba were to say "I believe men and women are meant to be together because that's what the bible says" then fine, I would have left it alone but no, she stated it as this "men and women are meant to be monogamous" - that I took issue with because she's stating it as if it's a fact. I will always challenge that.
Click to expand...
Why do I need to add a disclaimer if no one else does?

If it makes you feel better, I will state, "I believe a man and a woman are meant to be monogamous because it's a fact that God established that relationship in the Bible." (Not the "bible"--I don't know which book that is.)

Besides, whether or not I state something as a fact doesn't mean you have to believe it. Lots of people post lots of stuff here at AD as "facts" which I don't believe.

People here don't even agree on the "facts" of A/C for vehicles, or how to train dogs. That's fine.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Back everyone in a corner? One person vs what? 10 of us on this thread?

Hmmm... don't think so? More like shes the one in the corner using the Bible as a shield. Everyone once in a while, she will yell out "That's not true! That's not what it says!"
Click to expand...

Nobody has misquoted the bible- in fact, my only reference to it was sites with direct quotes!

We simply refuse to read it as a scientific text, which she apparently does.

She comes into threads inserting her radical christian viewpoint. She's hardly being followed around and -asked- to say her ignorant and intolerant venom.

:roll: But look, it isn't intolerance if you just don't tolerate people not embracing the christian veiwpoint of Jesus and believing in the bible, okay. :roll:
 
Aleser said:
Nobody has misquoted the bible- in fact, my only reference to it was sites with direct quotes!

We simply refuse to read it as a scientific text, which she apparently does.

She comes into threads inserting her radical christian viewpoint. She's hardly being followed around and -asked- to say her ignorant and intolerant venom.

:roll: But look, it isn't intolerance if you just don't tolerate people not embracing the christian veiwpoint of Jesus and believing in the bible, okay. :roll:
Click to expand...

Radical? Conservative maybe, but I don't see ignorance and intolerance on Reba's part.

I don't remember ever reading anything positive coming from any of your posts. Just random visciousness.
 
Reba said:
Why do I need to add a disclaimer if no one else does?

If it makes you feel better, I will state, "I believe a man and a woman are meant to be monogamous because it's a fact that God established that relationship in the Bible." (Not the "bible"--I don't know which book that is.)

Besides, whether or not I state something as a fact doesn't mean you have to believe it. Lots of people post lots of stuff here at AD as "facts" which I don't believe.

People here don't even agree on the "facts" of A/C for vehicles, or how to train dogs. That's fine.
Click to expand...

they don't proclaim some imaginary being says this or that about A/C for vehicles either.

But fine, I won't contest your beliefs anymore but next time you write your beliefs as if they are facts, I will challenge them.
 
Daredevel7 said:
That was my point. If one were to "prove" that humans were NOT meant to be monogamous, all I can think of is to prove that they have temptations or compare them to animals. I don't see what other proof there would be. And you DO accept that humans have temptations, it's just a matter of not giving in.
Click to expand...
Of course people have temptations. That isn't comparing them to animals. Animals don't make moral judgments but people do.

The Bible does say that all people experience temptation but that they don't have to give in to it:

I Corinthians 10:13

"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."

Everyone is talking about showing proof. I am just questioning the purpose of giving proof in the first place.
Click to expand...
Got it. :)
 
Aleser said:
Reba would like to back everyone in a corner with her ideology. If you gave her "proof" she would not accept it, because the only real "proof" she believes in are the bible passages she happens to like.
Click to expand...
No, I don't want to back anyone into corner. I prefer not to be confrontational at all. That doesn't mean I'll sit back and let false statements be made about my God and the Bible without challenge.

II Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

Not just passages that I happen to like. :)

Of course, your "bible" might not be the same as my Bible.
 
Reba said:
No, I don't want to back anyone into corner. I prefer not to be confrontational at all. That doesn't mean I'll sit back and let false statements be made about my God and the Bible without challenge.

II Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

Not just passages that I happen to like. :)

Of course, your "bible" might not be the same as my Bible.
Click to expand...

False statements? oooooookay. I won't accept people using the bible as a source of facts either. so, you and I are alike that way, just opposite ends of the spectrum.
 
Bottesini said:
Radical? Conservative maybe, but I don't see ignorance and intolerance on Reba's part.

I don't remember ever reading anything positive coming from any of your posts. Just random visciousness.
Click to expand...

Same with another Christian or Religions Forums Sites. I see them being vicious when they comes to debate or discuss. There is nothing positive in their posts when it comes to various religious topics and throw insults toward religious people. Even they insult Wiccans and me, myself as a Wiccan.

So, if we are religious and/or conservative then we must be not good people to them. =/
 
Aleser said:
To be fair, I think we can all just default assume What Reba Would Say on... well, anything. Just assume a generic American Christian viewpoint, pick only the parts of the bible that don't make out deviants to be good, and exclude any parts of the bible that prohibit what she does, and we're all set!
Click to expand...
:confused:

"deviants to be good"?

"prohibit what she does"?

I don't know what "bible" you're referring to. Certainly not the Holy Bible.

How did this thread turn into "all about Reba" anyway?

:topic:
 
By the way, I know it is a bit of off topic. What is your opinion on the cousin marriage? I'm curious.
 
DeafCaroline said:
False statements? oooooookay. I won't accept people using the bible as a source of facts either. so, you and I are alike that way, just opposite ends of the spectrum.
Click to expand...
I don't use the "bible."
 
Back
Top