Biblical input on the defintion of marriage....

[truebrit71]

I received this in an e-mail from a friend....Wonder if * is considering any of these...???

"Biblical sources for marriage...

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 many forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."

So here,in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen29:17-28; 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 Sam5:13; 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 (Gen24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh10:30)

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. (Gen.38:6-10; Deut
25:5-10)"

[Atman]

1. I am not religious

Does the government want my SECULAR case for (or against) marriage?

They seem to keep missing the point...we are talking about the law of the land, the constitution. One's religion has no place in the discussion.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. More proof that a religious or biblical basis for marriage

would be ridiculous, and claims of such basis are lies.

[bryant69]

3. Thank Goodness you posted this

This hasn't been posted in nearly two or three days.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[truebrit71]

4. Wow, it must be nice to be perfect......

Has it been posted HERE though????

:eyes:

[bryant69]

6. It is nice.

I never get traffic tickets.

And yes it has been posted here, like I said, at least three times.

[stanwyck]

7. I posted. However

it's worth posting again. And again. I love all the scripture and verse highlighting the absolutely incredible hypocrisy of fundamentalism. Let's go on the offensive. (and I've been accused of being offensive....). If gay marriage is an abomination (according to strict Biblical literalists), then: no divorce. But polygamy is OK. And raping your daughter. Too bad about the non-virgins being executed. And, my favorite, Bill Clinton is to be honored for his girlfriends, not castigated. Hey, it's right there in The Bible.
Or is The Bible strictly a Chinese menu to our fundamentalist friends? Just select what you like. Ignore the rest. It's only a sin if it applies to someone else.

[bryant69]

10. This is not a great interpretation.

TO reach your point you are bending the bible as much as some fundamentalists do. The death sentances of the Old Testement were rendered obsolete by Jesus Christ when he chose not to execute the woman taken in adultry. According to Jewish Law, she was guilty and she should have died, but he chose not to; but to give her time to repent. "Go and sin no more." And that should be the Christian pattern today.

You also have Christ rejecting a theocracy and accepting that the theocratic power in society and the governmental power will be seperate when he says "Render unto Ceaser . . . "

The problem, as Christian between what is a sin and what society should do with the Sinner. I'm not going to lie; I believe that Homosexual Sex and Pre-marital Heterosexual sex are sins (and just so you know, despite my jocularity earlier, I don't think I'm perfect--I have plenty of sins of my own, as we all do). But my believing this probably isn't relevant in deciding what we as a society should do. In my mind the only "sins" that should be punished as crimes are those in which you can draw a straight line towards societal harm. Such as Theivery. Or Murder. Or Fraud. And so on. But not Homosexuality or Pre-marital sex (or blasphemy or social lying or failure to care for the poor or taking the name of God in vain. You get the idea). While both are sinful, neither directly harms society, in the way that thievery does.

[stanwyck]

11. Sounds like you're equivocating

quite a bit. Again, how do YOU get to decide what is "sinful" and what isn't? Aren't you placing yourself as God? If The Bible is God's word, which words get edited by you? Those which don't apply to you? Your approach seems not Biblical, but personal..."in my mind." Why pre-marital sex as a sin...but not taking care of the poor? To me, not taking care of the poor is more of a sin. See the problem? You're a believer, kind of, sort of, depending on how you wish to interpret God's word. Seems very convenient.

[bryant69]

14. They are both sins

Did I say that not supporting the poor was not a sin? If I did I apologize. Both are sins. Do you want me to make a complete catalogue of sins for you?

So your theory is to be a good Christian according to the Bible I should be stoning people on a much more regular basis? And that if I don't I'm a hypocrite?

[stanwyck]

15. not at all

I don't believe in any stoning. I don't think those are judgments we can make. What I'm trying to understand is how you determine which parts of The Bible you'll follow and which you won't. And how you determine your judgments of others. (although, of course, you have been told "judge not"). Do you eat shellfish? Do you believe women should be able to wear makeup...and pants? Should women be separated from men during their menstrual cycles? Should non-virgins be executed? Should there be a constitutional amendment to ban divorce since The Bible does not allow divorce? Should we be a polygamous society? Should men take concubines? Are these sins...or not? How do you make your determinations?

[bryant69]

17. Well I haven't judged anybody

Saying that something is a sin isn't judgeing anybody, unless I say "Hey you your a sinner." I mean we are all sinners aren't we?

Should there be a constitutional amendment to ban divorce since The Bible does not allow divorce

And here I thought I had answered this question, but since you apparently missed that let me repeat myself. What I believe or don't believe has little bearing on what the law of the land should be. Do you believe that it's wrong to lie? Presumably. Do you think the government should pass a law against all forms of lying (including social lies)? Presumably not.

We should not be a polygomous society. We should not take concubines. For all i know those worked back in the old testement, but they don't work now.

As for shellfish, perhaps it might help if you understood the transition between the Mosaic Law and the Christian Church. The early church under Peter had a debate over what parts of the old testement they were going to impose on those converts who weren't Jewish.

Peter had a dream, as related in Acts 10:9-15.

"9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

Because of this revelation Peter went on to baptize Gentiles. Paul was also teaching at that time, and converted many Gentiles, particularly in Antioch, and it was unsure what to do with them, as they were uncircumscribed and didn't adhere to the Mosaic Law. The early leaders of the church, apostles and others, held a meeting in Jerusalem to determine what to do. From their discussion they drafted a letter to the early Christians at Antioch which is found in Acts Chapter 15:23-29

"23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

And so those are the commandments of the Mosaic law that remain in force, if I understand correctly.

Now let me ask you a question; what's a win on your part in this discussion? I mean unless you are just shooting the breeze. But this is a political board; I would assume that most posts, including my own, have an agenda of some sort. So after having read your posts, what would you have me do? Abandon my faith? Keep quiet about it? Or what?

[stanwyck]

19. Don't use your beliefs

as a weapon against others. Don't underwrite bigotry, hatred, and war as spirituality. My political agenda is to elect people who understand the separation of church and state and who don't legislate their personal and religious prejudices into law. What is your political agenda?

[bryant69]

21. It's hard to know how to take this

Are you suggesting I've done this (used my beliefs as a weapon against others, underwriten bigotry hatred and war as spirituality)or that I keep from doing this in the future?

If the first, how have I used my beliefs as a weapon against others?

At any rate I would agree your political agenda; I'm also opposed to legislating personal and religious prejudices into law. Which is why I am opposed to any federal or state government performing marriages in the first place. Marriage has intrinsic religious significance; as such the government should stop performing them, and leave that to the various churches. Instead they should perform Civil Unions for both hetero and homo sexuals.

I've heard the arguments that Civil Unions are a lesser form of Marriage--that's probably true if we create Civil Unions as a kind of a ghetto for Homosexuals. But if we have civil unions for everybody, these problems will be fixed. People won't stand for half measures if it will affect them personally.

But I don't hold out much hope for this solution.

[Kool Kitty]

24. How does marriage have

intrinsic religious significance? I believe it was first a civil ceremony. Mine certainly was-we were married by the Mayor.

[bryant69]

25. Well, I see your point

The Religious significance of Marriage has partially stripped away; but many people still get married in churchs. Marriage and laws regarding what marriage is and how it works are found in many of the worlds religious works. I don't know exactly how long Marriage has existed, but I would assert that for most of its existance it has been intimately tied up in religion. It's only the last 100 years or so that religion and marraige have started to untangle.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Kool Kitty]

26. I don't believe that marriages were even performed

in churches before the Middle Ages. (I'll try to find a link to that info-someone had a whole raft of stuff posted when the gay marriage amendment flap started.) That was the point I was trying to make.

[bryant69]

27. Hmmmmm

That's a pretty narrow interpretation of religious involvement, isn't it? I mean saying they weren't performed in the church is not the same thing as saying they didn't involve religious issues.

[Kool Kitty]

28. I guess what I am trying to say is that

I am SICK and TIRED of everything in this country (since this bunch of bums took over) being put to us in a religious way. Freedom of choice, who you want to marry, who gets funding, medical research, etc. I am not religious in a conventional sense, I don't want my life (or anyone else's, for that matter) being run in conjunction with some biblical code. No Hmmmmm.... about it, that's the way that I feel. And I thought that was the way that the country was run. Or at least, it used to be. I guess that may be a narrow interpretation, but that is my opinion. (I wasn't referring to having a wedding in a church building in my previous reply. I meant the church-meaning priest, etc. didn't perform the ceremony.) And in my heart of hearts, I don't really believe that this administration is all upset about this. The reason this is being brought up is because it is the perfect wedge issue for them to use to pander to what they consider their base-the fundamentalists.

[bryant69]

29. Well, I"m not sure I disagree with you

But if that's how you feel, than why not duck the issue by making all state marriages civil unions. Then there is not even the hint of religiousity; and if you or anybody so chooses they can also be married in a religious ceremony.

But I wouldn't worry to hard about it. I don't think this solution is likely to go anywhere--both the religious right and the activist homosexual community want and think they can achieve a total victory, and my take is that neither is interested in any compromise yet--which means a long fight.

[Kool Kitty]

30. The only thing that worries me about this issue is that

for the first time, a President (and I use the term VERY loosely) is even considering an amendment to the constitution that would actually take away someone's rights. As far as marriage goes, I don't give a damn who gets married or not. I don't think that the government should be in the business of legislating who you choose to psend your life with and share your property with. As long as it's not against the law (incest, bestiality, abuse of children), they should stay out of it.

[Kool Kitty]

23. Hear, Hear!!

Well said, stanwyck.

[Djinn]

16. shouldn't you do as the bible says

which yes includes stoning people? I've never understood the way people seem to be able to pick and choose which bits of the bible (or Koran etc etc) they'll follow and which bits are allegory

[NewJeffCT]

13. don't forget

The Bible also has a lot to say about slavery... I think it was often cited by those folks in the South during the Civil War.

[struggle4progress]

18. Chinese menu criticism should work

Over the years, I've heard a lot of fundies tell me I can't "pick and choose" what I believe. Of course, a certain number of them DO want to bring back stoning.

[ashling]

5. Praise the Lord

. . . and pass the ammunition.
- Oliver Cromwell


:nuke:

[Mari333]

8. allrighty tighty!

My virginity was tossed into some landfill back in 1972...Oh dear...looks like its the noose for me!

[Solomon]

9. This is one post that can't be posted too many times.

:kick:

[Bucky]

12. *sniff* I'll miss that old shoe.

[radwriter0555]

20. This whole marriage BS is a MOONIE stunt you know... The Uni Moonies

are HUGE BIG on marriage, I believe because it's a form of oppression, since they preach that women should be submissive to men.

[yellowcanine]

22. If you don't want to marry your brother's widow, don't choke the chicken.

Genesis 38
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to
thy brother.
9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto
his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.


And here I thought that the worst that could happen to you was to go blind, and then only after the 100th time.

[maveric]

31. The bible is a book of metaphors and fairy tales. It was written by

MEN, who never actually witnessed any of the events, to control the IGNORANT masses.

The bible has no place in government nor should it be used to measure morality.

When all people realize this, then we may have a much better world to live in.

BTW, consensual sex is not a sin. Persecuting someone in the name of God/Christ/Allah.... is a sin IMO!