Respectfully, I think I’m missing some information here.
…Biblical references to adultery or fornication are really metaphors for idol-worship.
Here’s where my mental gymnastics came in. (By the way, thank you. It is a fascinating angle to pursue in Real Life discussions.) Adultery is prohibited by the 7th Commandment. In the most literal sense, to commit adultery is to pridefully/sinfully construct an idol – in essence, a tribute to one’s own body and its sexual gratification – and an idol that is more powerful to you than God’s own proscription. In another sense of adultery, as in Jeremiah 3:9*, the people of Israel had backslid into idolatry by placing industry and commerce ahead of God.
I hope I’m understanding you correctly, but the part I have the most trouble with is that you’ve used the 7th Commandment to invalidate the first four Commandments. This sounds a bit circular, but I definitely see your point.
So in re-cap, since the Constitution allows Freedom of Speech, idol-worship is protected. And because idol-worship is protected, the Constitution is in direct violation of several of the Ten Commandments. Therefore, our laws are specifically NOT Bible-based.
If I have misinterpreted your post, would you be so kind to clarify? If not, of course, you’re always welcome to commence the wrathfulness and the vengeance and the blood rain and the “hey hey hey it hurts me”.
Very truly yours,
B
And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
.
Just watch who you use that argument on. To some people, God’s Law/Natural Loaw/The Law of Moses trump anything else. If an 11th commandment were somehow magically added that said “thou shalt not be clean”, your average fundie (as opposed to Fundamentalist) who owned a commercial enterprise would prerer violating OSHA to sinning in the eyes of the Lord. And of course if OSHA came calling regarding health code violations, then all Christians would be persecuted by the government for following God’s Law rather than artificial law imposed by the atheist politicians and liberal interest groups.
When are religious zealots going to learn that “no law respecting an establishment of religion” means precisely that?
Is it so difficult for you people to understand that the laws of this land are for everybody in the U.S., not just the religious?
How does someone, or a law, for that matter, utterly disregarding a principle you hold dear prevent you from practicing that principle in your life?
Why do you insist on imposing principles (various “Blue Laws,” “Under God,” and sundry other trash) I, and many religious folk for that matter, find silly at best on the rest of us?
Is it ever going to be enough that many non-religious people fought and died in defence of your freedoms?
Does any of this mean anything to you, or is all the writing of the Founders and other Patriots regarding the subject of American Law and Freedom completely irrelevant?
Remember: “Render unto Caesar…”
As a heathen, I have some faith in the common sense and decency of the American People. I don’t see this amendment passing into law. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just another cynical political ploy by Shrub’s machine aiming for reelection. Much like his first campaign’s ass-kissing stop at Bob (Catholic’s ain’t Christian!) Jones University.
Anyone out there eligible to vote: Please do. Nobody’s vote is wasted. Don’t let the zealots and freaks run the country anymore!
Sorry, Mr. Twin, but that’s a no-no. The bible mentiones no sisters, so you can not assume them to exist. Remember, the fun part of being a fundamentalist is that you are only allowed to use what the book expressly says, so no sisters. Try again, who exactly did Cain marry out there in Nod?
They are … just not the ones milroyj and others would have you think. And they’re not based out of religion so much as that the relevant societies sure had their share.
What I don’t get is, if Marriage is a religious based institution, why is it that someone dressed as Elvis in ‘The Little White Chapel Of Hunka Hunka Burnin Love’ can perform the mostly official and civil ceremony? What about Registry Service marriages? What about those performed for and by atheists? Are these not real true marriages? Should they also be banned? Can nobody who does not officially believe in God and adhere to all of the Bible’s teachings to theletter not do anything without the President saying so?
Although I suspect it is a serious overstatement to say that Celtic law is as big an influence on our legal system than Christianity.
Look, I don’t have much of a dog in this fight, but the implication that the Bible is neutral about same-sex marriage, or that you are not making a almost unprecedented change to the term “marriage” by including gay unions, is just not justifiable.
There may be a case to be made in favor of gay marriage, but pointing out things you don’t like in the Bible doesn’t make it. Neither does pointing to other societies that never based their morality on the Bible, unless you can find some that also recognized gay marriage.
Bottom line to me: My marriage is a sacred union before God, in which Barb and I pledged lifelong fidelity and constancy to each other, not merely in matters of sex but in all that goes to make up the spiritual union between two people. (And “spiritual union” is not playing a religious card here, but referring to the internal feelings that distinguish human beings from, say, robins or hamsters.)
Therefore I do not accept the idea that it’s some sort of “civil union” – with our beliefs, it is something more, and more precious, to us than that.
Now, I consider myself equal in the eyes of God and of the law to anybody else, not better and not worse – say, Shodan or Homebrew as two examples of that “anybody else.”
Accordingly, for me to take a stand that my religiously-based marriage is somehow “better” than the marriage of two atheists or two gay men, is to raise myself to some sort of egotistic superiority over them.
The only way in which I care what the term “marriage” means to you is what you mean by the marriage that you yourself are in or hope to be in. You don’t have the right to judge the validity of the feelings, commitment, or meaning invested in a word by anyone else.
Period.
If Cajun Man and Dr Matrix are somehow not “married” in some metaphysical sense, then presumably nobody else is, either. Because I fail to see how their investment in their relationship, their commitment and love, differ from mine and Barb’s, Mr. & Mrs. Shodan’s, Mr. & Mrs. Homebrew’s, or the one Homebrew may someday make with his SO, if and when.
You are right. The Bible mentions no sisters for Cain and Abel. But that is meaningless. Does the Bible have to mention every single person born from the time of creation to be valid? The Bible doesn’t mention cats, either. I guess they don’t exist by your logic.
That’s an odd standard to propose against fundamentalists (and yes, I guess I could be branded a fundamentalist, though I would call myself a Christian). As I stated above, though no sisters were mentioned, the existence must be assumed. In many of the genealogies listed in the Bible, only the sons were mentioned. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. Do you really think they stopped after only three sons? I stand by my assertion that Cain married his sister.
Twin, in case you missed my point, I honestly don’t give a shit what the Bible says about same-sex, opposite-sex, polygamous, endogamous, incestuous or any other kind of marriage or for much else. I’m attacking those who use the Bible to justify denying rights to same sex couples. Our legal system is NOT based on the Bible and our legislators should know that (if they don’t already; I suspect most do but realize that pandering is the way to get elected in a nation with universal suffrage and incredibly bad public education [as compared to other first-world democracies]).
If our laws are Bible-based then please tell me:
-What does the Bible say about speeding in a school zone?
-What does the Bible say about regulations for hiring kids under 17?
-What does the Bible say should be the penalty for noise pollution?
-Why isn’t adultery in the U.S. punishable by stoning?
-Why aren’t Buddhists arrested for worshipping false idols?
To borrow a line from As Good As It Gets, “Sell crazy somewhere else. We’re all stocked up here.”
PS- I’ll take the biblical critiques one by one when I have more time to spare.
A use of the “search” feature will find lots of comments on SDMB (many of them by me) about the legends concerning Cain and Abel and their sisters (Jumella & Aclima, each a twin to one of their brothers). It was actually rivalry over the sisters that in the myths led to the fratricide (just as in some myths the sacrifice of Cain was refused because he was not the son of Adam- Eve and the serpent were doing more than making fruit salad).
Still, the notion that most humans derive from brother-sister unions would explain a lot wouldn’t it? (One thing it wouldn’t explain is how Cain founded a city when it was just him and his wife, or how his great grandsons were respectively “the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” or “the father of all who play the harp and flute” when there descendants were either all killed in the flood or else descended via Noah and Na’amah, which would make Noah “the father of all who” did much of anything.) Cain’s grave is a tourist attraction in Kabul, incidentally.
You could have fooled me. You sure seemed to be interested in what the Bible had to say about marriage. But I’ll take your word for it.
I didn’t say our laws are based on the Bible. Our laws are likely based on British common law (likely based on Roman law). I said they seem to (by and large) abide by the Bible (as in do not conflict with). I admit that even that statement is a stretch, especially concerning some of the Levitical laws you mentioned. I can’t find every law our government has created somwhere in the Bible, nor would I expect to. And as I mentioned earlier, I don’t agree with any government involvement in the issue of marriage. I simply took issue with the inaccuracies in your post and what I perceived to be the use of a Biblical argument to support same-sex marriage.
See, now you want it both ways. When it comes to something like biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, it’s an absolute, and forget context (for example, in one of the two places Paul mentions it in the NT, it’s clear he’s talking about grown men having sex with young boys, but through the years that destinction has been lost in translation), yet here you happily invent whole new people that the text dosen’t mention, likely because it’s obvious that Cain and Abel had to procriate with somebody, and rather than admit Genesis is a collection of creation myths from several different sources, you make stuff up to add to them. An honest biblical scholar ( like, say, Polycarp ) admits that that’s a problem but that the message is what’s important, a fundamentalist tends to make outrageous and inconsistant leaps of “logic” because he’s married to the idea that every word of the bible must* be the literal truth, in spite of the fact that some of it is contradictory and much of it is demonstrateably inaccurate.
You really must believe that cats do not exist. It is dishonest to say that if the Bible does not mention someone’s birth then it cannot be assumed that it happened.
Assuming that Adam and Eve had more than three children is an “outrageous and inconsistant leap of logic”?
Because I’m at work this will have to be piece-meal, for which I apologize. I’m going in point-by-point order.
QUOTE=Twin]My translation is the KJV. The first mention of marrige is clearly:
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 AND ADAM SAID, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding and capitalization mine.
Adam was God? (That is Adam talking, you do realize? Not God. And how exactly did he know what a father and mother were, I wonder.)
Jacob’s actions don’t require defense- Laban was the deceiver (sorta kinda- it was an “exact words sort of thing”)
I never said all marriages end well.
Okay, you have outright accused me of lying, a charge I take very seriously, so I am going to take this one in more detail than probably anybody cares about.
My exact words were:
For me to have lied, the above phrase “the bride’s brothers kill the groom and all the men in his village during the honeymoon” would have to be correct.
Here’s a link to Chapter 34 of Genesis so that you can play along at home.
Yes, you’re right in saying that Schechem raped (or seduced) Jacob’s daughter Dinah, but I never said otherwise. (This translation says he “violated” her, others that he “lay with” her; whether it was rape or seduction is essentially unimportant [to all but Dinah] since the point is he took her virginity in an area of the world where being a virgin bride was and is of such importance that deflowered women had/have no value, monetarily or morally, as wives. That it was a seduction rather than a rape would be implied by the later admission that he is in love with the girl and by his father’s formal offer to pay any price that is asked even though she is no longer a virgin.)
A contract is entered into by the fathers of the bride and groom. This is not a simple engagement as we know it but a legally binding contract for marriage that unites the nomadic tribe of Jacob with the townspeople of Hamor’s village. The men of the village agree to be circumcised (an INCREDIBLE concession- even with today’s surgical cleanliness that’s a very painful operation for a grown man to undergo, trust me) and while they are still doubled over in pain DINAH’S BROTHERS, SIMEON AND LEVI, WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR FATHER slaughter every man in the village. They then return with their other brothers to loot the village.
Jacob, who you claim was part of the planning and execution of this, is in fact furious with his sons:
This is because the sons have violated their father’s personal honor by refusing to allow the marriage that he had AGREED and which the men of Shechem’s village had not only agreed to but undergone a very painful process as part of their bride-price.
So, I’ve established that the union between Shechem and Dinah ends when her brothers kill all the men in his village. Perhaps my use of the word “honeymoon” is inappropriate, but I hardly think it would be “dishonest” either. You meanwhile have stated that Jacob orchestrated the attack/murder/looting of the village to avenge his daughter when in fact he agreed to the match and was outraged by the action. This makes you the dishonest one, hon.
This is in reference to a typo of mine (it should have read “holy OPPOSITE-sex unions”) that completely altered the meaning of my sentence. As evidence that it was a typo, all of the unions referred to after I mentioned it were opposite sex unions. I understand your confusion and I sincerely apologize for not proofreading better. (I have no problem admitting that there are no same-sex marriage like unions in the Bible or even that the Bible condemns homosexuality.)
Adam (aka God, by your definition) seemed to disagree with you:
Adam clearly believes that he wouldn’t have strayed had he not been “married”. God seems to agree. As I’m sure Adam reminded Eve many many times in the 900 years to come, things were paradise when he was single.
An aside: as part of their Punishment Package, God tells Eve:
Based on these verses, should a woman still be submissive to her husband? Do you think it is sinful for a woman to take painkillers when she gives birth? (There was a MAJOR debate over this in the 19th century, one that quieted down significantly in England when the often pregnant Queen Victoria basically said “Screw fundamentalism, knock me the hell out” with her fifth child.)
Obviously it was permissible; I hardly think God would have chosen as the parents of the chosen people who were living in Sin. However, by making this comment, you’re admitting my point: even the Bible and even God himself are inconsistent (or at least mutable) on what does and doesn’t qualify for a valid marriage. We’re right back to Euthyphro: does God permit it because it’s right or is it right because God permits it? And if it’s the latter (which it would seem to be), how can we know that tomorrow God might not decide that we should ONLY marry our near relatives or ONLY wear clothing that is orange and made of nylon?
WRONG. ENNNNXXXX… THANKS FOR PLAYING. He had to serve Laban seven more years for Rachel, but he married her the same week that he married Leah.
Please don’t condescend; it’s very rude. Besides, it seems to me you’re the one whose reading comprehension is lacking.
Again, that is NOT God speaking; it is a quote from Adam followed by a quote from the author of Genesis (traditionally Moses, though it’s doubtful; whoever wrote it was even by Fundamentalist standards writing many many centuries after the events and after the Flood, so it’s odd to imagine that exact words traveled that far down the road anyhow.
