Matthew 19:3-9
3 Some Pharisees came to [Jesus], and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”
Skammer I mean this sincerely- thanks for clearing that up.
I won’t go so far as to say that Christians who have persecuted homosexuals (and continue to do so) are not Christians; but I will say that they are mistaken in their understanding of what God asks of them. Steely Dan’s anti-ecclesiology is a minority view, but Christians have always had a hard time truly loving the figurative Samaritan woman.
On every religious right-winger who rails against gays (or anyone else) I want to tattoo on their forehead “God has shown thee, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of thee: but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.”
I don’t mean to deflect the topic here, but Skammer, I like teasing both sides of the gay marriage issue by pointing out that Christian marriage is: One man, one or more women … is there any truth to this?
I’m not an expert on the history of polygamy in Judaism, but it was certainly practiced in the patriarchal times and on into the Kingdom period. I don’t know when Judaism ultimately started to demand monogamous marriage, but if polygamy still existed in the first century is was apparently pretty rare - having more than one wife is only mentioned once in the New Testament, rather ambiguously and not favorably: there is a passage in I Timothy concerning the qualifications of a bishop which states that a bishop must have “only one wife.” Some interpret this as a prohibition against polygamy; others see it as a prohibition of second marriages. I see that the New Revised Standard Version translates this as “married only once” which seems to support the latter interpretation.
I won’t claim that Christians have never practiced polygamy; I’m sure they have in some times and places even if you exclude the Mormon tradition. But the preponderance of Christian teaching has always been the one man/one woman model.
One thing that is clearly happening is the Christian indoctrination that has said for so long that gays are somehow sick, perverted, and sinners is being changed. I think that will aide in slowly changing some people’s minds about the Bible having some authority. Ad to that the readily available knowledge about the history of the Bible.
I hope that more people will realize that the Bible can be a tool for study and thought, but ultimately they must take responsibility for their own choices and attitudes and can and should use their own hearts and minds to decide what is right.
DocCathode Mark, Luke and Paul also include similar statements condemning remarriage after divorce, and not including the ‘escape clause’ for adultery. The Catholic Church takes these other passages as controlling, which is why they forbid divorce&remarriage even in cases of adultery.
I think there’s pretty strong internal evidence that the ‘except for unchastity’ is a gloss added by the author of the Gospel or subsequent scribes, and that Jesus didn’t include it in his actual teachings.
Polygamy is fairly common among Christians in Africa, actually, and Martin Luther famously said he couldn’t find an explicit condemnation of it in Scripture.
In Europe, around 1000. Some Yemeni Jews are still polygamous.
Yeah, but I don’t think we’ll see anyone lobbying to legalize that any time soon. (Contrary to what Rick Santorum may think, I doubt there are all that many people out there interested in having “man-on-dog” sex)
Interestingly enough, my church (ELCA Lutheran) called a gay pastor in 2000. That was far more progressive on the issue than I was in 2000 (I joined the church in 2011). So I guess I’ve always had a different view about this - Christians being strongly for and against gay rights. Churches always get some of the warmest reactions in gay pride parades, FWIW.
I remember my first gay rights march, I found myself walking next to a guy in a full monk’s habit. I asked him, “Pardon me, but are you really a monk?”
“I don’t think I’d be dressed like this if I weren’t,” he answered.
“Maybe. But there’s some guys over there dressed like nuns, and I don’t think they’re really brides of Christ.”
Weeeellll . . . Jesus, He had this Beloved Disciple, don’tcha know. Now, of course, that’s Jesus, right? He loves everybody – all His disciples and all His enemies and everybody else in the whole wide world. So, why single out one disciple as His “Beloved” unless there was something . . . special going on there? :o
I can see merit in this as people are becoming more accepting of other people they will need to reconsider the scriptures. It would certainly put a major dent in Paul’s message, but Paul is not Jesus, Paul makes mistakes and admits it, and talks about this war going on inside him. At least my hope is people will start looking a lot more critically at Paul.
My own take on it is one of the teachings of the bible is ignore the rules and do the right thing and trust God that He will not only protect you but glorify you, there are some direct examples of this in scriptures. If that is indeed what comes out of the ‘modern tendancy to clear up loose ends’ I’d say it might gain more authority in that interpretation then less. Not more authority in the context of religion., but freedom, as the religious structures based on isolation will surely suffer a society that no longers accepts that.
Christians at that time also prayed the 5 daily prayers just like Muslims still do today.
Indeed. I’d like to see some evidence that the anti-gay crusaders have much respect for the Bible’s authority in the first place.
ETA: And by that I mean its authority over them, not as a tool to use against other people.
Can we get a cite for that? What time of day, what were the prayers, which christians, etc?
Christians used to pray the 7 or 8 daily prayers at set times like sunrise and sunset and midday etc which is well known in medieval times and long before.
The Christian Kings and Queens of Europe before the reformation and even after all did this. They followed the Jewish practice and Jesus and his apostiles and the prophets all did the same and prayed at set times like the Muslims still do.
If Jesus came to earth today he would ask what is this thing they call Christianity? 
you can find some information here Canonical hours - Wikipedia
I assume it’s a reference to the Liturgy of the Hours. I don’t think your average serf observed this though; they were too busy working and being repressed, what with the violence inherent in the system and all.
ETA: Curses! Semi-ninja’d!