Listen up Republicans. (and Democrats)

[Shockwave]

Simple! Look at the cultures over millenia, who have engaged in polygamy, with scores of kids as a result.

That includes the two groups, who as of late, are known famously/infamously for such: Muslims and a offshoot sect of the Mormon faith.

Correlation =/= causation.

Some people simply want to marry multiple women because they want to fuck multiple women. Believe it or not man, some people enjoy sex and don't want kids.

[MCWAY]

1 - What editing attempts???

That would be intentionally leaving out the portions of the passage that fully explains the scenario, in which such actions occur. For instance, Hosea 9:11 (which you left off, before citing verses 14 and 16) "Ephraim's glory will fly away like a bird--no birth, no pregnancy, no conception."

Again, it's awfully hard to have abortions, if there's NO PREGNANCY in the first place.

2 - Then a woman can do what she wants with her creation as well.

That's funny! How is it her creation, when she can't even control the gender of the baby?

3 - Were those enemies also God's children as well?

His creation? Yes! His children? That depends on whether they acknowledge Him as Lord or not.

Nice try.  But God is nothing but Pro Choice.

Not even close. But, thanks for playing.

[MCWAY]

Correlation =/= causation.

Some people simply want to marry multiple women because they want to fuck multiple women. Believe it or not man, some people enjoy sex and don't want kids.

Didn't someone just mention that marriage was not necessary for having sex?

And where do you see rampant polygamy, absent multiple children?


Again, you're confusing the words, PRIMARY, with SOLE. The lion's share of polygamist DO NOT marry multiple women, just to bone them. The marriage is for one primary purpose: LEGITIMATE CHILDREN, usually for purposes of inheritance and association with the family.

Out-of-wedlock kids are known as bastards.

[MCWAY]

Yes because Elizabeth wants to ravage her body and go through the emotional pain of having a Jigaboo baby come out of her vagina to remind her of the horrific act perpetrated upon her.  The jigaboo baby then has half the rapist genetics and is released into the world to become someone elses problem.  Besides, who is supposed to pay for her pregnancy and all? 

Don't tell me you're one of those uber-paranoid white Getbiggers, who dread their precious women will be penetrated by force or (GASP!!!) VOLUNTARILY by those pesky Negro guys.

Say it ain't so, Adonis.

My statement made no regards to the race of either person, simply to strap the rapist to the chair and fry him, regardless of his color.

Rape isn't a genetic trait, BTW. Just when it looks as if you can post anything more utterly foolish, you somehow manage to top yourself with this tripe.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

GAY SEX  , I'm against it .

The homosexual movement is a depopulation movement in disguise. However almost all of them aren't in on it. When the Hierarchy gets Earths numbers to a managing amount, these people will be forced back into the closet.

[syntaxmachine]

Furthermore, nothing in these verses suggests that the crime is minor. If anything, it's a major crime, up to CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (notice how Adonis left off verses 23-25, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life"). At the very least, it's going to cost the offender a lot of dough, for which he may be put into bondage to repay (perhaps for LIFE), if he doesn't have the cash or cattle on hand.

Definitely sounds like relevant advice for citizens of a first-world, industrialized nation in the 21st century 2,000+ years removed from the comments' original context.  

[LurkerNoMore]

That would be intentionally leaving out the portions of the passage that fully explains the scenario, in which such actions occur. For instance, Hosea 9:11 (which you left off, before citing verses 14 and 16) "Ephraim's glory will fly away like a bird--no birth, no pregnancy, no conception."

Again, it's awfully hard to have abortions, if there's NO PREGNANCY in the first place.

That's funny! How is it her creation, when she can't even control the gender of the baby?

His creation? Yes! His children? That depends on whether they acknowledge Him as Lord or not.

Not even close. But, thanks for playing.

Desperation is quite amusing to watch.  You didn't quite grasp the lifeline there though.

1 - I edited nothing, left nothing out.  I simply cut and pasted just as it was on the site I got it from.

2 - Yes, her creation.  Unless you trying to tell me that God is running around creating pregnant women on his own?

3 - If those are not acknowledging them, then they are not his children?  Is that what you claim?  Then whose children are they?  If god didn't create them, who did?  Really now.. here we go... typical religious spin trying to argue semantics and make a really distinct separation (that clearly does not exist) about "children" and "creation".  If God created them, then they are his children.  If they are not his children, then who created them?  Very simple.  Now cue in the standard gnashing of teeth about whhhahhhh... whaaaahhhh... wahhhhaahhh... they have to do this... or whahhhhhhhh... they have to believe that......   

4 - Yep, God is nothing but Pro Choice.  Not to mention Pro-Genocide, Pro-Child Abuse, and not quite unlike a childish poltergeist having a little tantrun at times according to the Bible.

THANKS FOR PLAYING