....revel in your heresy.

One of my relatives by marriage is a Southern Baptist bible thumper who
is always misquoting or misinterpreting the "old" testament in his
attempts to justify his bigotry. That in itself is funny, because the
"old" testament isn't even really his "big book of religion."

Anyway, he was on same rant about the defense of marriage bull**** the
far-right pushes and tried to quote some religious nonsense about how
the creator wanted marriage to be between one man and one woman.

That's always been a bit confusing because Adam and Eve only had sons.
It also conflicts with Deuteronomy 22:15, where the creator tells a man
with two wives how he should handle the matters that arise when you have
children with two different women. And remember Judges 8:30, in which
Gideon has 71 sons, many, many wives and a concumbine? Well, Gideon's
behavior, what do you expect from a horn player, eh?

Religion...why, it's whatever you want it to be!

On 5/20/12 9:01 AM, X ` Man wrote:
...revel in your heresy.

One of my relatives by marriage is a Southern Baptist bible thumper who
is always misquoting or misinterpreting the "old" testament in his
attempts to justify his bigotry. That in itself is funny, because the
"old" testament isn't even really his "big book of religion."

Anyway, he was on same rant about the defense of marriage bull**** the
far-right pushes and tried to quote some religious nonsense about how
the creator wanted marriage to be between one man and one woman.

That's always been a bit confusing because Adam and Eve only had sons.
It also conflicts with Deuteronomy 22:15, where the creator tells a man
with two wives how he should handle the matters that arise when you have
children with two different women. And remember Judges 8:30, in which
Gideon has 71 sons, many, many wives and a concumbine? Well, Gideon's
behavior, what do you expect from a horn player, eh?

Religion...why, it's whatever you want it to be!




Uh, concubine, not concucumber.

On May 20, 8:01*am, X ` Man

That's always been a bit confusing because Adam and Eve only had sons.

Genesis 5:4

On 5/20/12 9:15 AM, Tim wrote:
On May 20, 8:01 am, X ` Man

That's always been a bit confusing because Adam and Eve only had sons.

Genesis 5:4


This is a family newsgroup...I didn't want to mention the incest angle.

In article , dump-on-
says...

...revel in your heresy.

One of my relatives by marriage is a Southern Baptist bible thumper who
is always misquoting or misinterpreting the "old" testament in his
attempts to justify his bigotry. That in itself is funny, because the
"old" testament isn't even really his "big book of religion."

Anyway, he was on same rant about the defense of marriage bull**** the
far-right pushes and tried to quote some religious nonsense about how
the creator wanted marriage to be between one man and one woman.

That's always been a bit confusing because Adam and Eve only had sons.
It also conflicts with Deuteronomy 22:15, where the creator tells a man
with two wives how he should handle the matters that arise when you have
children with two different women. And remember Judges 8:30, in which
Gideon has 71 sons, many, many wives and a concumbine? Well, Gideon's
behavior, what do you expect from a horn player, eh?

Religion...why, it's whatever you want it to be!

Well, there's always this, too!

Deut. 22:13-21

"If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her,
14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and
says, ?I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a
virgin,? 15 then the girl?s father and her mother shall take and bring
out the evidence of the girl?s virginity to the elders of the city at
the gate. 16 "And the girl?s father shall say to the elders, ?I gave my
daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and
behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find
your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter?s
virginity.? And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the
city. 18 "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise
him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it
to the girl?s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel.
And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20
"But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21
then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father?s house,
and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has
committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her
father?s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you," (Deut.
22:13-21).

In article 1878da96-f90b-48d7-87a0-5edfbfa77c28
@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...

On May 20, 8:01*am, X ` Man

That's always been a bit confusing because Adam and Eve only had sons.

Genesis 5:4

Opps

On 5/20/12 9:29 AM, BAR wrote:
In article1878da96-f90b-48d7-87a0-5edfbfa77c28
@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...

On May 20, 8:01 am, X ` Man

That's always been a bit confusing because Adam and Eve only had sons.

Genesis 5:4

Opps


It's not an oops, moron. The "old" and "new" testaments are full of all
manner of conflicts, not the least of which are those introduced by the
fact that the books were written by different people at different times
and edited by committees.

That's why it is the height of ignorance to say "I take the bible
literally."

I understand and appreciate why many feel the need to believe in a
creator. But to believe in a man-made religion? Nonsense.

On May 20, 8:26*am, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , dump-on-
says...











...revel in your heresy.

One of my relatives by marriage is a Southern Baptist bible thumper who
is always misquoting or misinterpreting the "old" testament in his
attempts to justify his bigotry. That in itself is funny, because the
"old" testament isn't even really his "big book of religion."

Anyway, he was on same rant about the defense of marriage bull**** the
far-right pushes and tried to quote some religious nonsense about how
the creator wanted marriage to be between one man and one woman.

That's always been a bit confusing because Adam and Eve only had sons.
It also conflicts with Deuteronomy 22:15, where the creator tells a man
with two wives how he should handle the matters that arise when you have
children with two different women. And remember Judges 8:30, in which
Gideon has 71 sons, many, many wives and a concumbine? Well, Gideon's
behavior, what do you expect from a horn player, eh?

Religion...why, it's whatever you want it to be!

Well, there's always this, too!

Deut. 22:13-21

"If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her,
14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and
says, ?I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a
virgin,? 15 then the girl?s father and her mother shall take and bring
out the evidence of the girl?s virginity to the elders of the city at
the gate. 16 "And the girl?s father shall say to the elders, ?I gave my
daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and
behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find
your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter?s
virginity.? And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the
city. 18 "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise
him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it
to the girl?s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel.
And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20
"But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21
then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father?s house,
and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has
committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her
father?s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you," (Deut.
22:13-21).

OT (mosaic) law.

And your point?

On Sun, 20 May 2012 06:15:59 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On May 20, 8:01*am, X ` Man

That's always been a bit confusing because Adam and Eve only had sons.

Genesis 5:4

===

"And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred
years: and he begat sons and daughters."

In 800 years a guy could sire quite a family. It does however raise
the delicate issue of incest in the next generation.

On Sun, 20 May 2012 09:26:45 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

"But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21
then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father?s house,
and the men of her city shall stone her to death

===

That must be the Sharia law version. :-)