Split Thread Signs of the End Times

[Foster Zygote]

We are still in holy matrimony.

That isn't what I asked. I asked if you two are still living together. By your given definition of holy matrimony, a married couple who divorce are still considered wedded for life. By your definition, even if your wife had divorced you and remarried someone else, you could still say that the two of you were "in holy matrimony".

Does your wife still live with you?

 

[halleyscomet]

Once more you show how ignorant you are concerning my commission—you are just guessing.

Then clarify.

If you don't want people to make assumptions answer the questions clearly and succinctly. Nobody is going to take your protestations seriously or even care about them if you refuse to clarify.

Are you familiar with Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch? You often remind me of it.

Why would I want to take revenge on any one--besides it is stated--Rom_12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

Mic_5:15 I will take vengeance in anger and wrath upon the nations that have not obeyed me."

So I will leave it to Yahweh

That's why you're projecting your revenge fantasy onto your preferred deity. It lets you distance yourself form the revenge fantasy, to engage in with with plausible deniability.

You're using God as your patsy, and God is having nothing to do with it. That's why you're a false prophet and not a prophet.

 

[halleyscomet]

But the time will come for all to fear---Luke_12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

So what?

So what if we may one day fear a vengeful God?

That same God has told us to NOT fear you.

Deuteronomy 18:22
If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.

You're a failure as a prophet, rejected and proven a fraud. You can yammer and bleat all you want about God's vengeance, but it's not yours to control. Far from it. You've borne false witness against God by lying about being a prophet and lying about having a special insight into scripture. We simply deny he exists, you lie about him and claim intimacy that you do not actually enjoy.

Whatever fates God has in store for us, yours will be far, far worse. If anyone in this thread has reason to fear, even be terrified of, God, it's you.

 

[halleyscomet]

Another dodge. That was not what was asked. According to you, that would apply to me and my ex-wife also, despite the fact that she is some 6 years removed from my life. And before you ask the obvious, I have had relations since with other women and very nice they were too. As for my ex-wife, maybe she has or maybe she hasn't. I neither know nor care. It is not my business.

I'd suggest you not read between the lines on those posts. As I learned from past discussion about his wife, he seems to be baiting us into violating forum rules. We're never going to get a straight answer into if he's still living with his wife and any pressing we do on the topic will result in a moderator report. At that point the moderators will have to enforce the rules in as impartial a manner as possible. While his marital status and living arrangement are VERY relevant to his arguments and positions, it's also an invasion of privacy to badger him for this information when he's repeatedly refused to provide it.

Please, stop badgering him about if he's still living with his wife.

 

[halleyscomet]

That is a narrow minded way of explaining using the Scriptures that the term virgin when applied to men is only found in this one script.

When we apply the situation today, the true meaning will be presented.

Reiterating your claim when you've been asked for evidence or clarification is not a debate tactic, it's a dodge and a tacit admission you HAVE no argument beyond your own say-so. Since the very Bible you preach about has explicitly told us not to trust you, your say-so is without value.

 

[halleyscomet]

All virgins have a hymen, so it is possible that certain activities can rend the hymen.

Nope. While not a common variance women can be born without a hymen.

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001497.htm

http://health.howstuffworks.com/sexual-health/female-reproductive-system/hymen-dictionary.htm

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/2008/12/the-hymen-breaking-the-myths/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymen#cite_note-McCann-6

You would have them stoned to death.

 

[Slowvehicle]

That is a narrow minded way of explaining using the Scriptures that the term virgin when applied to men is only found in this one script.

I am sorry for you that you do not understand the facts of lexicography. The word "virgin", means "a person who has not had sexual congress", every time it is used in the "scriptures". It is not "one script[sic]", but every time the word is used. What you are doing is tantamount to claiming that "sometimes, when the word "up" appears in the 'scriptures, it really means 'down'..."

It may seem a minor point, but it is a topical exposure of the lack of respect you accord your own "scriptures". As with your bizarre claim that "scripture" says that people with dark skin are inherently inferior because your 'god' has "cursed" them for eating monkey meat, you pretend that your scriptures "really mean" what you, personally, want them to, no matter what words are actually used.

When we apply the situation today, the true meaning will be presented.

In other words, you admit that to you, your "scriptures" mean what you want them to, no matter what they actually say. Please see above.

Marriage is honourable, so it will not exclude married men who have not defiled themselves by committing adultery.
It will also include men who want to remain celibate.

Which has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the actual term, "virgin", no matter how much you want it to. You continue to interpret your "scriptures" according to what you wish they said; to what you need them to say, rather than dealing with what is actually there. You cannot even get your own myths right...

But thank you—we must stay true to the truth.

The only thing to thank me for is pointing out to you that you do continue to err in claiming that "virgin" really can mean a sexually active person. What was once correctable error has come to look very much like dishonesty.

Your claim for "scriptural" support for your bigotry, racism, and misogyny is part of the same tattered cloth.

It would be a relief if you would, in fact, stay true to the actual truth of reality.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well if it your satisfies curiosity--I am married to the same woman who was a virgin when we got married.

Mazel tov!

 

[Border Reiver]

All virgins have a hymen, so it is possible that certain activities can rend the hymen.
In this case a mother will have to intervene to record this event.
Besides there is honesty when the two plan to marry, this can be presented.

But today I understand that there is hymen restoration—but that will constitute dishonesty.

The hymen, while usually present is not always present. that being said, your thoughts on the requirement for there to be a hymen to "prove" virginity are archaic at best.

Furthermore, the requirement to have a hymen and to bleed in order to prove virginity will inevitably lead to dishonesty. Why would a potential husband accept the explanation of the hymen's absence as being innocent? What proof would he have that his potential wife really was a virgin? The girl's family is obviously lying to thwart Yahweh's laws by not stoning her, and if the poor boy accepts her family's lies then he is committing a mortal sin by engaging in adultery.

A virgin who is raped will be exonerated by having the rapist put to death. I never said she must marry the rapist—she is forced into a situation, so the laws of the land must protect her.

Only in certain circumstances can she be so exonerated. If the rape occurs in the country, and the rapist is caught, then only the rapist is killed (Deut 22:25-27). If the rape occurs within the city, then she is to be killed also unless she cried out (and was heard) (Deut 22:23-24). Now the option exists for the rapist to get away with it. He can pay Daddy an agreed on sum and take her for his bride, because the consent of the victim should not play a role in this.

Calling this an exoneration reveals that the authors of Deuteronomy don't consider rape to be a "true crime" as for no other crime do we require the victim to be exonerated. We don't exonerate the victims of theft, nor do we require assault victims to prove that they cried out to avoid that they be punished as well as the offender.

The laws of the land aren't protecting the victim, the laws will further punish the victim unless the victim can prove that she either resisted, or that the rape took place in the countryside and that the rapist isn't wealthy enough to pay the bride price.

But because I say that sex is marriage, there is no consent on the virgins’ part that is why it is called rape.

Here is a situation where a brother honoured his sister---

Prior to this is another occation--Gen_34:26 They put Hamor and his son Shechem to the sword and took Dinah from Shechem's house and left.

The brothers took revenge for the rape of their sister.

The problem here is that Hamor had paid the bride price for Dinah, so that Shechem could marry her (why would he need to since, in your interpretation they were already married). Jacob had agreed to the price and Hamor had paid.

Jacob's sons had committed murder, not carried out an execution. And in addition had far exceeded the bounds of justice, as they not only killed Shechem, but also all the males of that village and then took all the women and children, and livestock as plunder.

Deut_22:25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.

Obviously Dinah's brothers were unaware of this as they killed not only the rapist, who had paid the bride price called for in Deuteronomy and should therefore be considered to have paid for his crime and became the husband of Dinah, but also all the men of the village.

Now the problem arises because men have changed the law of God that protects a virgin.
Rapist must be put to death to exonerate the victim.

What if the rape victim wasn't a virgin? The laws of Deuteronomy are silent here. Should they be interpreted to include non-virginal victims, or should they be interpreted to mean that non-virgins cannot be raped?

 

[halleyscomet]

In other words, you admit that to you, your "scriptures" mean what you want them to, no matter what they actually say. Please see above.

I have to wonder why he's so determined to insist the term "virgin" can refer to a sexually active male. It's a stupid claim with no basis in any of the languages involved. It accomplishes nothing theologically, unless of course someone whose religion requires he was a virgin at the time of his marriage is trying to make a lame "but that time doesn't count!" argument.

OMFG! Does this mean "Paul Bethke" was a Technical Virgin when he got married? That's the only explanation I can think of that makes any sense.

Anyone know if "Paul Bethke" has similar "but it doesn't count!" loopholes for gay sex? Anyone desperate enough to claim "virgin" can refer to a sexually active male is perfectly capable of claiming that one time with the dark, husky pool boy wasn't REALLY gay for some convoluted reason.

 

[Paul Bethke]

That isn't what I asked. I asked if you two are still living together. By your given definition of holy matrimony, a married couple who divorce are still considered wedded for life. By your definition, even if your wife had divorced you and remarried someone else, you could still say that the two of you were "in holy matrimony".

Does your wife still live with you?

I gave you the answer.

 

[halleyscomet]

I gave you the answer.

And yet again we catch you in a lie.

If you told him, then provide a link to the post where you did so.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I gave you the answer.

No, you did not. Your extremist interpretation leads you to define marriage as a permanent condition. In other words, by your definition, if you had a wife who left you, you would consider her to be your wife until one of you died. The rest of us don't consider that marriage. The question is a very simple one: do you and your wife live together?

 

[Paul Bethke]

I am sorry for you that you do not understand the facts of lexicography. The word "virgin", means "a person who has not had sexual congress", every time it is used in the "scriptures". It is not "one script[sic]", but every time the word is used. What you are doing is tantamount to claiming that "sometimes, when the word "up" appears in the 'scriptures, it really means 'down'..."

It may seem a minor point, but it is a topical exposure of the lack of respect you accord your own "scriptures". As with your bizarre claim that "scripture" says that people with dark skin are inherently inferior because your 'god' has "cursed" them for eating monkey meat, you pretend that your scriptures "really mean" what you, personally, want them to, no matter what words are actually used.



In other words, you admit that to you, your "scriptures" mean what you want them to, no matter what they actually say. Please see above.



Which has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the actual term, "virgin", no matter how much you want it to. You continue to interpret your "scriptures" according to what you wish they said; to what you need them to say, rather than dealing with what is actually there. You cannot even get your own myths right...



The only thing to thank me for is pointing out to you that you do continue to err in claiming that "virgin" really can mean a sexually active person. What was once correctable error has come to look very much like dishonesty.

Your claim for "scriptural" support for your bigotry, racism, and misogyny is part of the same tattered cloth.

It would be a relief if you would, in fact, stay true to the actual truth of reality.

When the word virgin in this case is the only time it is applied to men—then we look to what is the purpose of using this word —because of its strange application we are directed to take note.Men who have not defiled themselves with women.
This describes the men—(Complete Jewish Bible)--Rev 14:3 They were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living beings and the elders, and no one could learn the song except the 144,000 who have been ransomed from the world.
Rev 14:4 These are the ones who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins; they follow the Lamb wherever he goes; they have been ransomed from among humanity as firstfruits for God and the Lamb;
Rev 14:5 on their lips no lie was found — they are without defect.

One has to look at the whole section—what makes these men special.
1) They have been ransomed.
2) They did not defile themselves with woman.
3) They did not lie
4) They are without defect.
5) They were the only ones who could sing the song
The word ransomed applies to all the redeemed. The redeemed do not defile themselves. The redeemed do not lie. The redeemed are blameless.

So as I have said, prophecy has its application at all times, what is prophesied then must be understood in the present age as well, otherwise it is superfluous.

So today what applies to the 144k will apply to all men, that have repented and are justified, they are pure as Jesus stated---
Matt 5:8 "How blessed are the pure in heart! for they will see God.
Philp_1:10 so that you will be able to determine what is best and thus be pure and without blame for the Day of the Messiah,
2Tim_2:22 Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
Heb_13:4 Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

So the goal is that of a pure heart—but what I believe in this day and age that there are men who will qualify, maybe not many, but only a few is required to start with.
These will be those who are pure in heart as Jesus stated.

 

[Paul Bethke]

No, you did not. Your extremist interpretation leads you to define marriage as a permanent condition. In other words, by your definition, if you had a wife who left you, you would consider her to be your wife until one of you died. The rest of us don't consider that marriage. The question is a very simple one: do you and your wife live together?

Holy matrimony means that we are holy together not separated not divorced, not living apart. Still in the same house and sharing the same bed, but we do not use the same tooth brush.

 

[Paul Bethke]

And yet again we catch you in a lie.

If you told him, then provide a link to the post where you did so.

Holy matrimony, you not understand what holy is?

 

[turingtest]

But that is what I am about to prove the Scriptures as authentic--so watch this space as they say!!

Well, that flounce didn't last long. I'm interested, Paul- how exactly are you going to "prove the Scriptures as authentic"? Surely even you must realize that an event claimed as prophecy after it happens is no prophecy; and that creating an event as "proof" of Scripture proves nothing but belief in them?

 

[halleyscomet]

Holy matrimony means that we are holy together not separated not divorced, not living apart. Still in the same house and sharing the same bed, but we do not use the same tooth brush.

That definition excludes married couples where one of the partners has been sent to war. It excludes couples where one of the partners is in prison. Was that your intention, or just another example of your inability to think through the implications of your claims?

Holy matrimony, you not understand what holy is?

I understand what it means, but given your inability to grok simple words like "interpret" we need to ask you for clarification. You're a very poor communicator.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Holy matrimony means that we are holy together not separated not divorced, not living apart. Still in the same house and sharing the same bed, but we do not use the same tooth brush.

So you and your wife live together, yes?

 

[halleyscomet]

When the word virgin in this case is the only time it is applied to men—then we look to what is the purpose of using this word —because of its strange application we are directed to take note.Men who have not defiled themselves with women.
This describes the men—(Complete Jewish Bible)--Rev 14:3 They were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living beings and the elders, and no one could learn the song except the 144,000 who have been ransomed from the world.
Rev 14:4 These are the ones who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins; they follow the Lamb wherever he goes; they have been ransomed from among humanity as firstfruits for God and the Lamb;
Rev 14:5 on their lips no lie was found — they are without defect.

One has to look at the whole section—what makes these men special.
1) They have been ransomed.
2) They did not defile themselves with woman.
3) They did not lie
4) They are without defect.
5) They were the only ones who could sing the song
The word ransomed applies to all the redeemed. The redeemed do not defile themselves. The redeemed do not lie. The redeemed are blameless.

So as I have said, prophecy has its application at all times, what is prophesied then must be understood in the present age as well, otherwise it is superfluous.

So today what applies to the 144k will apply to all men, that have repented and are justified, they are pure as Jesus stated---
Matt 5:8 "How blessed are the pure in heart! for they will see God.
Philp_1:10 so that you will be able to determine what is best and thus be pure and without blame for the Day of the Messiah,
2Tim_2:22 Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
Heb_13:4 Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

So the goal is that of a pure heart—but what I believe in this day and age that there are men who will qualify, maybe not many, but only a few is required to start with.
These will be those who are pure in heart as Jesus stated.

SPORFLE!

Seriously?

Your whole shebang about trying to redefine the word "virgin" is because you hope to one day get into an exclusive afterlife virgin choir?

BWHAHAHA!!!!

on their lips no lie was found

Stop. Stop. My sides are aching. I'm not sure how much more laughing I can take.

The unrepentant, rampant liar is trying to get into an afterlife choir that EXCLUDES liars by trying to redefine the word "virgin." Oh Lordy. I haven't had a laugh this good from an Internet discussion since Kirk Hastings was vivisected by Irreligiosophy

This thread is as saturated with pathos as a Tres Leches is with milk. It's like watching a contemptible sitcom character who sets out to achieve great things and does the exact opposite of what would be helpful in every possible situation.

I recant my Jonah comparison. George Costanza with fewer scruples and less likability is a better parallel.