Traditional “Christian” marriage is outlawed by the Bible
“Christian” marriage is outlawed by the Bible. I’m not exaggerating. You’ll find all of the stunning details, along with citations to the Bible, at Dwindling in Unbelief. How does the Bible outlaw traditional “Christian” marriages? Here are some of the Bible rules listed:
Image by isforinsects at Flickr (Creative Commons)
- The Bible says that Christians should not marry.
- But if a Christian man decides to get married (which he shouldn’t), he can have more than one wife.
- And if he doesn’t like one of his wives (like if she’s unclean or ugly or something), he can divorce her.
- If a Christian man gets married and then discovers on his wedding night that his new wife is not a virgin, then he and the other Christian men must stone her to death.
- Christians shouldn’t have sex (even if they are married, which they shouldn’t be).
- Christian parents must beat their children (which they shouldn’t have, since they shouldn’t get married or have sex).
- Good Christians must hate their families.
(If they abandon them for Jesus, he’ll give them a big reward.)
This list list only includes the first seven rules. Go to Dwindling in Unbelief for the details and the pinpoint citations. Don’t just trust me on these rules. Go read the Bible. These rules are all there, clearly stated.
Conclusion: We need to march to America’s heartland and start picketing traditional Christian marriage because it is clear that traditional Christian marriage contravenes the clear teachings of the Bible.
William E. Connolly, a noted opponent of secularism, writes, “Secularism is not merely the division between public and private realms that allows religious diversity to flourish in the latter. It can itself be a carrier of harsh exclusions. And it secretes a new definition of “religion” that conceals some of its most problematic practices from itself.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/william-e-connolly
Karl
Answers.com, yet?
And quoting a “noted opponent of secularism” to support your own “opposition to secularism” isn’t particularly compelling.
That’s like me quoting PZ Myers in defense of atheism or Evo-Devo!
(Doh! in other words)
If you want to convince anyone that secularism is ‘wrong’ find someone previously noted as a strong supporter of secularism, who then rejects their previously held position. Note: that does not mean you can simply trot out the “I used to be an atheist” canards — I said “previously noted” in writing, and attributed, and recognized as such.
There are plenty of counter examples of seriously devout religious people becoming secular. I’m sure you can find some examples if you try (you seem to have this research thing down pat)
Never said secularism was wrong. If it really existed the way people are told it could exist, it would be able to allow religions in their diversity to flourish. The only philosophies it really allow to flourish are secular humanism and atheism.
Not because the people who practice secular humanism and atheism as philiosphies don’t have any flaws, but because people who claim any other “religion” can be associated with the flaws of historical people who claimed to be adherents to these non-secular religions.
If I wanted carte blanche authorization to stop debate over any issue, that called a trump card and as I see it secularization plays there’s all too often.
Look at William E. Connoly’s bio and you will see he is not a flaming conservative.
Answers.com got its reference from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Connolly
Karl
You labor under a common misapprehension - you think that I (and perhaps all) atheists or secularists want to banish religion. You could not be further from the truth.
I cannot speak for everyone, but I simply want religions to recognize that their creed is not my creed. That their creed is, in fact, contrary to many other religious creeds. That the only way for all of us to get along is to adopt a common framework that we can all agree upon. That framework is the basis of humanism and secularism.
Secularism does not demand the elimination of religion - it is merely an accommodation to many disparate points of view. You are perfectly free to hold whatever personal views you wish, subject only to the golden rule (remember that?). In other words - don’t try to impose your narrowly dogmatic worldview upon others. Note that secularism is the common framework absent those dogmatic overtly-religious elements, and is therefore NOT am imposition, merely a request to keep your particular beliefs (beyond the commonly agreed secular perspectives) private.
Your posts labor under the weight of one solitary idea - that your christian religion should somehow be in the ascendancy, and that your christian-based ethics/morals/guidelines/teachings should form the basis of all our societies position on those things. that because the christian religion held political sway over much of the world until the eighteenth century, it should continue to do so.
You therefore misconstrue when non-christian agencies seek to dispel the notion of christian ascendancy or primacy over non christians (such as myself). This is not an attack on christianity - it is an accommodation to perspectives that we can all share.
Unless, of course, you believe that the rest of us are indeed in error, and it is your goal to enforce the rule of your god upon us.
If that’s the case - then be honest and say so. We’ll respect you for your honesty, but still insist that your goal will ‘do us harm’ and should therefore be considered an illegitimate goal according to the golden rule. You may wish to do so, but should not be permitted to actually enact such a wish.
Proselytizing is one thing - trying to persuade me to your perspective is something that is definitely permissible (as free speech). But equally I may request that you refrain from such proselytizing (quid pro quo). Trying to encode such beliefs as the rule of law is not, and should never be, permissible.
Christians are not ‘under attack’. Their numbers are simply ‘in decline’. It’s easy to blame others for your misfortune, especially when you once had an accessible bully-pulpit. But there is no one to blame but yourselves - and universal education. It’s hard to indoctrinate people who are taught to think.
Tony, I think you nailed it. I think that is the genesis of so many disagreements regarding church and state.
Christians see the United States as a Christian tent into which other types of folks are more or less tolerated. I see the United States as a big tent into which all kinds of folks are invited, including Christians.
Does it make the tent an atheist tent just because it’s not a Christian tent? Karl thinks so. I would characterize it as a tent that is not geared to any particular supernatural belief. If that means it’s a “secular” tent, does that give “secularists” a leg up? To be honest, yes. But these are the folks that believe in the natural work that most religious believers also recognize. It’s a common denominator tent, with a few exceptions (those Bible literalists, who insist that the proper value of pi is exactly “3,” as indicated in the Bible, as well as other untenable non-objective conclusions born when fear and hope go beyond tangible evidence.
Karl — I think I already knew that - I did follow the link. I do not comment or reply without first understanding the source.
The disparaging tone related to your ‘answers.com’ comment was intended to convey my surprise that you had reached the end of your own resources and were now simply reaching. The fact that you had perhaps heard this particular quotation (which is a truly egregious example of quotemining*)and therfore thought to provide a link to the man’s opus is lame at best.
* the wider context of his thesis, from with this quotation is taken, is that as the growth of secularism continues, religion is almost forced into increasing militancy. This latter is the new definition of “religion” tow which he refers, and in becoming more militant and more fundamentalist, the religion then conceals some of its most problematic practices from itself. Connelly’s primary opposition to secularism is that it forces religion to become inhospitable to moderates, thus it becomes marginalized.
Again - it’s all about reading the context and reading for comprehension.
Oh dear me…you say: “Don’t just trust me on these rules. Go read the Bible. These rules are all there, clearly stated.”
The advice you give is GOOD, because anyone who actually takes the time to go read the Bible, will realize how WRONG you are about these interpretations.
But most Atheists are too lazy to do so, because they don’t belive in the Bible anyway, so you could tell them that the Bible says everyone is a green alien, and they’d believe it, and they’d tell their friends that this was true…hence lots of lies getting spread…
Rule #1 about the Bible: It’s not all a set of a rules. Some of the the things written in the Bible are written as commandments, and some things written are not.
The blog you link to uses Chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians for most of its erroneous conclusions, but completely ignores this DISCLAIMER:
“But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.”
It’s Paul’s opinion, NOT GOD’S COMMANDMENT!
The context is that Paul is writing a letter to a group of Christians, telling them his opinion of marriage. Paul himself was never married, and remained abstinent.
He is essentially telling his followers that while he thinks that marriage is a distraction that makes it harder for a Christian to completely dedicate their life to God, people SHOULD marry to avoid being tempted to have sex outside of marriage. Several times, he says “MARRIAGE IS NOT A SIN” in that same paragraph, which is completely ignored by the blog you link to.
So essentially, he is saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim. The Corinthians were asking him if they should avoid marriage to be more holy, and he is saying that most people shouldn’t avoid marriage, because they would be too tempted to have sex outside of marriage (which IS a SIN).
Just read the whole thing and see what you think. On the other blog, I wrote a point-by-point correction to every misquote from the Bible, but I’m not sure if the moderator is going to approve it or not.
Good grief, MarkML, relax. The point of the post was to show how differently the bible can be interpreted. You are probably right in much that you say - and as someone who is not atheist but also not a follower of the bible, I have not read it cover to cover. I am not inspired to do so, nor do I feel like I need to at this point in my life. I know enough of Christianity to know I don’t believe in it as such, but my not reading the bible has been a choice, not just a product of my laziness. Talk about generalizing . . .
I don’t need the bible. I find discussions about it fascinating, when those discussing it have actually studied it from an historical perspective - read some of Mark T’s posts and responses - and I listen and learn, but I don’t jump in and speak up as if I know what I’m talking about, because I don’t. And I admit it. And all that time I’m not reading my bible, I’m not just lying around on my lazy backside. I’m actually a functional human being.
Nice try, MARKML.
OK, so Paul was expressing his opinion that it was “better to marry than to burn.” But what about Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 24:1, Deuteronomy 22:13-17, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which are laws, and clearly allow polygamy, a man to divorce his wife because she “find no favor in his eyes”, and decree stoning the punishment for a bride who is not a virgin and a son who is “Stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard” (KJV).
You’ll probably say that these are OT laws, like no cheezburgers or poly-cotton blends, and Christians needn’t follow them.
In which case, why are ya’ll so worked up about homosexuality? There’s no mention of it in the New Testament (unless you want to count Paul’s “opinion”, in this case, as a proscription).
Better not assume “most atheists” are “too lazy” to read the bible. Lots of us have, and do.
Paul expressed his “opinion” on many topics. The problem is not that he had an opinion, but that subsequent generations of christians took those opinions and read them as LAW. Misinterpretation, misreading, misuse. What’s that bumper sticker say? Oh, yeah:
The Bible Says It, I Believe It, That’s The End Of It
Against such unassailable logic, we can either give up or take away their toys.
Not everything written in the Bible is a direct quote from God.
There are multiple personality disorders that can develop from trying to believe the entire Bible without some comprehension of who is actually writing and why some other people thought this was good stuff to record for posterity sake.
The Psalms can be used to both pray for a change of heart in your enemies or for their judgment/destruction from off of the face of the earth.
At times through the ages, someone had to decide what was clearly enough written to reveal truth about God and his message for mankind. People who think they can find clarity in their attribution of human emotions and thoughts to God are really anthropomorphic worshippers of God. All through the Bible God tries to remove this trait from humans, even though that was all he has ever had to work with since the fall of man.
This does not mean we have every right to think that the collection of scriptures are full of typical fictional accounts to semi-real events.
Karl writes:—”There are multiple personality disorders that can develop from trying to believe the entire Bible without some comprehension of who is actually writing and why some other people thought this was good stuff to record for posterity sake.”
ROFLMAO!!! Yes! Yes! Yes! Boy, you nailed it!
—”People who think they can find clarity in their attribution of human emotions and thoughts to God are really anthropomorphic worshippers of God. All through the Bible God tries to remove this trait from humans, even though that was all he has ever had to work with since the fall of man.”
And, according to Genesis, who’s fault would that be? He made us, you’d think he’d know how to talk to us?
But seriously, the key line is: “…attribution of human emotions and thoughts to God are really anthropomorphic worshippers of God.”
Well, duh! Of course, Karl, because that’s what it is. All religions are externalized projections of spiritual concepts, born in the imagination. They can be nothing else because they are nothing else. Damn, you can frame it but you can’t see it.
—”This does not mean we have every right to think that the collection of scriptures are full of typical fictional accounts to semi-real events.”
Yes, it does, especially after we take the time to deconstruct it down to its verbs and nouns. Although, “typical”….you have a point there. Under the circumstances of modern examples of the same thing—Scientology and Mormonism—it is clearly not “typical”, but no less fictional.
Look at it this way: The Iliad and the Odyssey are fiction. Based on, by all we have found through modern archaeology, something that really happened, but nevertheless fiction. In the same way, “Gone With The Wind” is fiction, but no one can claim that the Civil War didn’t happen because that account is fiction.
It’s simple. There is some abominable morality on display throughout the OT, offered up as examples of Yahweh’s justice or goodness or rightness.
To my mind, one of the things that Jesus was supposed to accomplish was to cancel all that old style sturm und drang legalized morality and offer a new covenant based on a couple of simple principles.
We managed to screw that up, too. So now we are dealing with a theology that takes a lot of its authority from the OT, filtered through the NT, giving us a half-baked legalistic religious viewpoint that seems at times to really want to go out and put all its detractors to the sword. It doesn’t seem to work so well sometimes trying to be reasonable. So we shoot holes in the guiding document. Why? Because it is insulting to be told that our attempts of living a decent life are corrupt because we choose to treat people decently who would have been stoned to death in the days of Abraham and Moses.
Simple. Jesus’ message was love your neighbor as you love yourself. Great. I’m all for it.
But sometimes that includes getting naked with my neighbor and all hot and sweaty and reaching for heaven in mutual orgasmic pleasure—which Jesus did not condemn, but all you guys who can’t let go of the OT do.
Just sayin’, y’know?
Stacy, if you finished the verse it is read like this, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” It is not burn as in on the stake, but with passion so that God’s laws are followed. Paul is also saying that he wants to spare his fellow believers from hardships, “But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.” Paul is saying throughout the entire chapter that the reason he states the men should not marry is that so they are better able to serve God, and focus on His needs rather than on his wife’s.
And those verses are only talking about slander and adultery by the husband and wife and tells that that punishment is in order for such things.
John,
Regarding Paul: Whatever. My point stands.
Regarding “those verses” (I assume you mean the OT verses cited on the Dwindling blog, that I referred to?)–no, hon, they don’t just refer to “slander and adultery”, and they don’t merely say that “punishment is in order for such things” (a stern talking-to, perhaps?) They clearly say that stoning is in order for non-virgin brides and disobedient children.
Mark
I hope that’s not a requirement for membership in the a-religious club…. My neighbor is kinda icky (dead whale with a pinch of opossum). And her husband is worse.
Can it be a ‘near’ neighbor??? please?
Animals needs are really pretty basic.
http://comics.com/speed_bump/2009-05-19/
Here’s a fun take on God-defined marriage:
Even from what Betty Bowers explains, the Bible is clear on this, when there is no ideal for marriage, the people will perish under their own lack of restraint.
There are those who think society is just plain against them nomatter what they think, as long as anybody thinks marriage could ever be more right for some and less right for others.
There are those who think society is just plain against them nomatter what they think, as long as anybody else thinks marriage is not simply about the desires of an animal to release their sexual energies in anyway they see fit.
It is clear that the concept of marriage means anything and therefore nothing to Betty Bowers, so why even try to make the case for two men or two women?
Why not make it a total farce and therefore outlawe the whole ideal to begin with? Call it a glorified mutual sex agreement and have done with it.