The Federal Marriage Amendment is idolatrous, which is sinful.

[More Than A Feeling]

In the Bible, it says concerning marriage, "Those whom God has joined, let no man put asunder". The idea of government attempting to usurp God's authority by defining who he/she/it can or cannot join seems to be the height of idolatry, which is a violation of the ten commandments (you shall have no other Gods before me), and a sin. What do you all think of this argument?

[shraby]

1. That kinda puts the kibosh to divorce,

doesn't it?

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Consider this

is it possible that those who divorce were not joined by God in the first place, so it is not a violation for them to divorce? What say you concerning that?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[More Than A Feeling]

4. that is one form of idolatry

more generally it is making things the object of your Ultimate Concern (thank you, Paul Tillich) that do not deserve to be so. Like if I said that Ronald McDonald was the most important thing in my life, and I was going to live according to his teachings, that would be a very unfortunate and unfulfilling life, because I am idolizing him. He is not worthy of my ultimate concern. For a government to take on authority belonging to God would mean that government is placing itself in the position of God. A clear case of idolatry.

As to your second statement, if the Bible was meant to be the absolute, literal, and unchanging Word, then why send the Holy Spirit at all? Clearly, God can either change his/her/it's mind, or else, the message will change when humankind becomes mature enough to accept it, and that message will come through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, God reserves the right to join male and male or female and female, or perhaps he/she/it already has, and some people just can't accept it.

[UdoKier]

7. Nice to know you can read God's mind...

... since the Bible is vague and contradictory on the subject...

[More Than A Feeling]

8. I only try to understand the best I can with what I have.

if you have alternate ideas about this, I would be very happy if you would share them with me, so I can profit by your wisdom. Seriously, I am not being snide or sarcastic or anything. I want to learn.

[UdoKier]

9. My post was to Purple Clamato, not your OP.

I don't really understand your reasoning because I'm an atheist, but I don't have a problem with it. But I didn't like Clamato's all-knowing condemnation of gays as though he/she has a personal hotline to God.

[sandnsea]

11. It doesn't condone alot of things

Like divorce and remarriage, but the law allows it. Or killng kids. Or even killing husbands and wives. You can get married if you do that. Or any host of things. Of all the Biblical things that the law overlooks when allowing people to marry, homosexuality seems to be the least of it. If it were a BIG deal, it would have been a commandment.

[zmdem]

5. You misundrstand marriage

Naturally, what God has joined, let no man put assunder. God does not join two men, or two women, or various multiples. He only joins together a man and a woman. No idolatry is involved, as idolatry is the worship of false gods, such as Zeus, Hera, Allah, etc.

ON EDIT: Spelling

[More Than A Feeling]

6. Government would also be false God that could be worshipped

which is what it is asking for when it takes on the role of God by claiming His/her/its power, to decide who can and cannot be joined. Also, how can you claim to fathom God such that you absolutely know He/Her/it would never do that? I refer you to my post above, where I lay out the idea behind it more fully.

[zmdem]

20. Government does not define marriage

it regulates it, e.g., age of consent laws etc.

Marriage existed long before our government. The government could pass a law saying a dog is a cat, but that doesn't make it so.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. huh?

Where does it say that G-d does not join two men or two women together? Did I miss a passage in the Bible? As for the 'various multiples,' you might want to reread the part about Solomon and his MULTIPLE wifes, whom were all considered married to him, jointly!

[Solly Mack]

12. Allah is a false god?

[More Than A Feeling]

18. OOPS! Completely missed Allah

NO of course not! Allah is just the arabic word for God! I thought Muslims had the same God as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus? Am I wrong? As for Zeus, Hera and others, I see them as expressions of various aspects of one God, which, I think is similar to the Hindu ideas about this.


LET ME MAKE PERFECTLY CLEAR: I RESPECT OTHER FAITHS COMPLETELY. I MADE A MISTAKE IN MY RESPONSE TO THAT POSTER, IT WAS AN ACCIDENT, NOT REFLECTIVE OF MY THINKING ON THIS MATTER! APOLOGIES TO ALL WHO WERE OFFENDED!

[zmdem]

25. The Judaic, Christian, and Islamic God

Are the same in the sense that knowledge of Him springs from a common source. However each of these religions expanded on that common ancestry to such an extent that to call them the same is highly misleading.

Ptolemy and Copernicus had the same universe, (how could they not ?), but we would not say that the Ptolemaic universe is the same as the Copernican. In fact at least one of them must be incorrect.

[zmdem]

21. Yes, if you are a non-muslim monotheist or

an Atheist.

[Solly Mack]

31. Just as the Christian god would also be false...gotcha

however, gods aren't false to me...they are myth and as such carry every validity that myth carries...which doesn't exactly make them false.... they're just metaphor, parable, and prose. There is a subtle, though very important, difference...

[DrWeird]

13. You do realize that "God"

is just English for "Allah", right?

[zmdem]

22. Yes I do know that

"Allah" is not a personal name like "Fred" or "Zeus".

[Swamp Rat]

15. Those are NOT false gods! n/t

[zmdem]

24. At least some must be

If Allah is the true God, then Zeus must be a false god.

[G_j]

26. how do you know?

could be just the different names humans make up for the 'great mystery'

[Swamp Rat]

37. Of course Zeus is a real god!

You better watch what you say or else he might zap you with a lightening bolt! Don't worry though, I will speak to him on your behalf. I just finished my tribute to Dionysus and raised a cup to Bacchus, so everything will be alright!

Down in New Orleans where the blues was born
It takes a cool cat jus' to blow a horn
On LeSalle and Rampart Street
The combo player with the mambo beat

Mardi gras mambo, mambo, mambo
Mardi gras mambo, mambo, mambo
Mardi Gras mambo down in New Orleans

Le bon temps roule! :D

[UdoKier]

17. LOL

Zeus, Hera, Allah. Why did you leave out Jehovah?


They're all the same to me...

[zmdem]

23. I left out many gods

not just Jehovah. The world is lousy with gods and listing them all would be Herculean a task.

[okasha]

28. "Whom God hath joined. . .."

Naturally, what God has joined, let no man put assunder. God does not join two men, or two women, or various multiples. He only joins together a man and a woman.

So I guess God didn't join Jacob and Leah and Rebekkah, or David and his five wives and one husband, or Solomon and his "thousand wives and three thousand concubines," or the early Christians who remained polygamous. Folks who pontificate on the subject of marriage, as a rule, seem to have very little knowledge of the history of the institution.

[More Than A Feeling]

32. Good call, I forgot those

I will promptly add it to my repertoire for the next time someone starts ranting about traditional marriage

[Zhade]

29. So you know for a fact that your god never joins two men, or two women?

Right.

Answer me this: is love what happens when your god joins two people together? If not, what do you interpret the passage to mean?

[Inte11ectual]

14. Don't folllow the bible, follow simple logic

Many rules stated in the Bible mirror similar tribal rules from cultures of the same time. Most tribes that existed thousands of years BCE are known to have similar codes as the Hebrew law. Would you want your nomadic tribe to have its population growth stunted by homosexual behavior when you need more young people to compete with a neighboring tribe? of course not! So the way that the Bible condemns homosexuality is really just an outdated tribal rule from the earliest days of the Judaic tradition.

[Inte11ectual]

16. By the way, religion has no place in American politics

So we should not attempt to use it to justify liberal beliefs. Logic works better.

[More Than A Feeling]

19. Not if you are talking to someone who takes their religion very seriously

Religion has no place in government. But some of the finest traditions in the history of American politics have come from religion. Abolition and civil rights, for one.

My liberal beliefs only got stronger when I found faith, so I see no reason why I shouldn't use it to justify them, if I am talking to someone who might be swayed by that. I use other reasoning for other people.

[zmdem]

27. God has a significant place in American politics

He figures prominently in our idea of rights, (Declaration of Independence), and has been referenced in non-trivial ways from Geo. Washington, (Farewell Address), to at least JFK, (Inaugural address).

It is fair to justify basic political beliefs, liberal or otherwise by appeal to God. I agree that logic is better for things like a farm bill, drilling in Anwar, etc.

[immoderate]

30. "Superstition has a significant place in American politics"

God not mentioned in Constitution. Declaration says people inherit rights from "their Creator." I am quite sure my parents created me. Who created you? Other Declaration reference is to "Nature's God." This invokes natural law, not a deity.

Yes, politicians use references to deity when they are making moral points. But usually those points stand on their own and could reference common decency just as well. Can you think of an exception?

--IMM

[Inte11ectual]

38. "our Creator"

Since a majority of the country's founders were Diests, they believed that any God figure had left the universe he had created to run according to natural laws.

[NC_Nurse]

33. Arguing anything from a reigious standpoint

is useless. People interpret it the way they want to, that's why there are so many different interpretations out there of the Bible, the Koran, etc.

Didn't Homer Simpson say, "There's no place for logic in Religion!" or somthing like that? I'm with him! :P

[More Than A Feeling]

35. A post regarding my original thought. Wonderful!

ah, but with literal types who take the Bible as their guide to everything, it can give you more authority, because then you don't seem so much like one of those "libruls who want to ban the Bible and hate Jesus".

They don't accept the idea of other interpretations, so I usually don't even bother trying to argue them out of their literal ideas. 1. It distracts from the original topic, and 2. it isn't necessary, I can argue for my beliefs even using the bible literally, if I have to.

[SarahB]

34. The argument is moot.

Since we do not live in a theocracy, Biblical interpretations should not be the basis for our civil statutes.

[More Than A Feeling]

36. But when you go up against people

who take their interpretation of the Bible as the foundation for discrimination, it is nice to be able to talk to them in their own language, it makes one more credible, and a seed of change might be planted, imho.

[SarahB]

39. Determining who is on the defensive, determines the outcome of debates.

Part of our problem is continually putting ourselves on the defensive in some attempt to justify our beliefs. The way I see it, beliefs from a progressive standpoint fall in line with our Constitution- freedom of religion, civil liberties, individual rights (i.e search and seizure laws) the concept innocent until proven guilty, and even certain entitlements and protections (Social Security, Medicare, OSHA, elimination of child labor, unemployment compensation) are all examples of liberal ideas. We are in the right. It should not be us having to continually prove that point. We just live in bizarro world in America where we have been fed garbage so much from the mass media, we often fail to see that.