Traditional “Christian” marriage is outlawed by the Bible

| April 23, 2009 | 139 Replies

“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)

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.

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Category: American Culture, Good and Evil, hypocrisy, ignorance, Religion

About the Author ()

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on consumer law litigation and appellate practice. He is also a working musician and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich and his wife, Anne Jay, live in the Shaw Neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri, where they are raising their two extraordinary daughters.

Comments (139)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Karl says:

    The faith of Christianity can survive and prove itself in even the worst of social conditions. What you call the elite running scared is your perspective.

    This is why you don't see the articles from any vantage point but your own.

    There has been civil litigation in all of these areas;

    The removal of Bible reading from Public Schools.

    The denial of school teachers to talk openly during any classtime regarding their personal faith in Christianity. Everything else goes and is encouraged, but not Christianity.

    The tenants of atheism/secularism are pushed as a viable alternative to any family values that individual teachers disagree with.

    The removal of prayer from nearly every gathering of Public Schools. The "non-discrimination" factor is used to "protect" and "not offend" those with different ideologies.

    The removal of the word "Christmas" from school settings, while all manner of other new holidays and other non-christians holidays are encouraged.

    Attempts to remove the words in God we trust from coins and currency.

    Attempts to remove "under God" from the pledge.

    Attempts to remove posting of any "Judeo-Christian" phrases from Public view such as the Ten Commandments.

    The approved tax dollar funding of secular public schools, while essentially fighting every step of the way to allow parents choice in where their children can go to school.

    The list goes on.

    BTW this has nearly all been done by the civil liberties Union who claim to protect everyone from the idea that their might be "values" that are important to teach in a context where the majority have a right to have their views expressed.

    Many of these matters have been directed by atheistic teachers or parents, often the children as only used a case for litigation.

    • Erich Vieth says:

      Karl this is so wrong on many grounds. I was tempted to delete it because of the factual inaccuracies and because this is ground we've been over repeatedly with you.

      For example, any student is welcome to bring the bible into a public school. There has NEVER been any court decision preventing a private individual from studying the bible on their own in a public school. Lawsuits regarding religion and public schools prohibit the SCHOOLS from attempting to promote a particular religion.

      "Secularism" (= not following a religion) is not a religion. I know that you disagree, but where is the supreme being in secularism? What are the sacred writings? If someone on the street told you to join their religion, you might ask about their religion. Imagine them saying "we don't believe in a God and we don't have any holy book, no revealed writings. We just try to be good to each other and relieve human suffering where possible." You would think: "This is no religion at all."

      What is the word "God" doing on national currency in the first place? Is it even possible for you to imagine that a country that is bound by its highest founding papers to not promote religion shouldn't be promoting "God" on its currency? Or does "God" not mean God, in your opinion?

      Once again, you are trying to define not-religion as a type of religion. I don't buy it. Nor is not-religion anti-religion (which is how you are construing not-religion). You would have a point about public schools if they were actively telling kids to NOT BELIEVE in religions. Imagine a teacher getting up and saying "Hey, kids, there is no God." That would be prohibited by the Constitution too. That's not what any of the 1st Amendment cases are about.

  2. Karl,

    Basically, you see faith in god as essential to everything. Fine.

    But when religion was challenged in public forums, it was not faith in god that was challenged, but the indoctrinational practices of organized religion, which serve to form in-groups. Yes, this is sociology, and maybe you think it's not important. But when I was in Lutheran school, I saw many a fight between our kids and those of the nearby Catholic school, who would come over to ours and wait till class ended so they could taunt us with epithets like blasphemer, pagan, antichrist, and so-forth. Which our kids would throw right back at them. It was an excuse to feel superior and an excuse to get into a fight and an excuse to form a clique, and it was HURTFUL and perfectly human.

    You just don't seem to get it how a kid's life can be made miserable by not being part of the in-group. I doubt you were ever on the outside of much as a kid. If you're the lone Jew or Muslim in a classroom full of "good Christians" and by school policy that difference is made prominent—through class prayer, which you can't participate in—it's an excuse for bullying, for intimidation, for the kind of behavior your Jesus would have abhorred but which nevertheless is done all the time in his name BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE CRUEL AND IF YOU GIVE THEM THE IDEA THAT GOD WANTS THEM TO BE THAT WAY THEY'LL GLADLY USE IT!

    Christians feel picked on. Aw.

    Let's take that list of yours and see where it goes.

    —"The removal of Bible reading from Public Schools."

    There is no reading of the Qu'ran, either. Nor of the Torah. Nor of the Bhagavad Gita or the Vedas or, I believe, of the I Ching. Why feel so special? Religious texts have no place in public school.

    Now, to be fair, I think this is a little extreme. I've said before, I don't know how you teach world history without some reference to religion—so much just doesn't make sense. But on the other side, can you imagine the nonsense schools would have to go through if they started reading from any of those other religious texts and the "christian" parents started accusing them of teaching Satanism?

    They keep it ALL out, Karl.

    —"The denial of school teachers to talk openly during any classtime regarding their personal faith in Christianity. Everything else goes and is encouraged, but not Christianity."

    Nor, I think, can a teacher advocate about politics. Under what subject heading would their personal faith be appropriate? There would only be one—religion—and that is not a class in public schools. But, damn, how many times does it have to be said? That's what your church is for. You can say anything you want there. The only reason to bellyache about its absence in public schools is because you think it should be EVERYWHERE, because the little urchins are getting a chance to find out about other things and not getting enough programming in the thing you think is important.

    —"The tenants of atheism/secularism are pushed as a viable alternative to any family values that individual teachers disagree with."

    This assumes there are no valid family values that can be expressed without a religious gloss and that is simply nonsense. It assumes that values which you think are worthwhile can only be taught in a religious context.

    It also presumes that the job of the school is to teach values, which is arguable.

    —-"The removal of prayer from nearly every gathering of Public Schools. The “non-discrimination” factor is used to “protect” and “not offend” those with different ideologies."

    That means all prayer, not just Christian prayer. Again, religion is a powerful force in the creation of in-groups, of Us vs Them thinking, and would only serve to divide in a widely mixed gathering. Public arenas should be neutral ground. Is there something wrong with "not offending"? Oh, you're offended because your pet philosophy is not vocally recognized and given special place. I would be offended at the idea that some Giant Spaghetti God would have anything to do with the issues at hand in a public forum.

    —"The removal of the word “Christmas” from school settings, while all manner of other new holidays and other non-christians holidays are encouraged."

    Encouraged in what way? As far as I know, Christmas is still a recognized national holiday and kids get to stay home for it. Maybe schools aren't putting on Christmas Pageants anymore, but so what? Again, that's what your church is for. If other holidays are being recognized in the same manner, what's the big deal? Kwanza gets folded into the Christmas vacation, etc. I don't see schools putting on Pagan Pageants in lieu of—Wotan is not being worshiped or celebrated in school plays, nor is Zoroaster, Mithras, or Zeus. Again, something you think is important isn't EVERYWHERE so you get bent out of shape about it.

    —"Attempts to remove the words in God we trust from coins and currency."

    We went over that recently. The addition of the phrase happened very late in the history of the Republic—mid-Fifties—and was a Cold War measure to separate us from the "godless" commies. It was probably unConstitutional, but no one at the time had the balls to argue it on those grounds because we were still deep in the Red Scare and atheism was akin to communism. It was never seen as necessary before and might even have seemed odd. Removing it would return our currency to what it always had been, a human-made medium of exchange.

    And frankly, I don't trust in god, so it is not representative for me. Until people like you made it an issue, though, I could have cared less about it.

    —"Attempts to remove “under God” from the pledge."

    The original pledge reads as follows: "I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist (something of an anachronism that). Note that this Christian had failed to mention anythign about god at all.

    In 1923, the phrae "My Flag" was changed to "the Flag of the United States." Again, the god part was not considered.

    Interestingly, the Jehovah's Witnessed were the cause of the Supreme Court deciding that compulsory pledging violated the first amendmant (the Witnesses believed pledging allegiance to be idolatry). This was in 1943, the year of profound godlessness in the country (that was sarcasm, in case you missed it).

    The insertion of "under God" came in 1954 after much agitation from religious organs beginning with the Knights of Columbus.

    So even that was a late addition.

    I find it offensive because every nation claims special privilege in some way, most by claiming that god is on their side. German soldiers in both world wars had the phrase Gott Mit Unst on their belt buckles. To suggest a supreme being would give a rats ass for the feckless interests of nationalism ought to outrage any good Christian, so calling upon that deity to bless the workings of governments that must deal in dirt in order to function and use that blessing as a sop to public conscious in odious.

    And what would it change anyway? It implies that we who have no god can also have no country. The idea impugns the very foundation of this country, which is the willing and voluntary adoption of certain POLITICAL principles. And if, as in many instances, the actions of our government violate religious sentiment, as in the instance of the Quakers? It should not be there.

    —"Attempts to remove posting of any “Judeo-Christian” phrases from Public view such as the Ten Commandments."

    Now that's just plain b.s. I live in Missouri and our roads are all but wallpapered with JESUS billboards. Public spaces are replete with church bulletin boards, roadside testimonials, cemeteries in public view, we don't hide the churches. You're talking about putting this stuff up in government facilities. That's not the same as removing posting of any Judeo-Christian phrases from Public view—that would be a violation of your First Amendment rights. You can buy a billboard and put up the Ten Commandments if you like and the public can see it. In fact, the Public would have a hell of a time taking it down. So that's just specious.

    —"BTW this has nearly all been done by the civil liberties Union who claim to protect everyone from the idea that their might be “values” that are important to teach in a context where the majority have a right to have their views expressed."

    You have that reversed—the ACLU rarely initiates these cases. They merely provide the attorneys to citizens or citizen groups who press the cases.

    And good for them! If an argument is sound, it will stand the case in court. But if it is not, it will eventually fall apart. This is just sour grapes because you don't get your way.

    —"Many of these matters have been directed by atheistic teachers or parents, often the children as only used a case for litigation."

    And of course an atheist can't possibly act on behalf of his or her children, can't possibly do this out of love, can't possibly have a sound, ethical, even MORAL motive for any of it. That's not possible because we all know that atheists are sadistic, soulless creatures who want merely to snuff the light from the world, who indulge all manner of evil practice behind the veil of reason. Atheists can't be trusted because they fear no eternal damnation that would make them honest. They are ignorant of truth because they do not accept the predigested pabulum of received wisdom, they insist on asking questions that can't be answered, and they want things to make sense. Can't trust someone like that, they won't tow the party line when the crunch comes. Atheists known nothing of love, all they want is sex—which is why most sex abuse scandals seem to erupt from the midst of religious communities, I suppose, because the "victims" must be atheists who have cleverly seduced otherwise good Christians into unsavory conduct.

    It would never occur to you that believers might want their religion kept separate from their government, for sound reasons, would it? Must be a plot.

    You know, given the track record of governments that ruled in conjunction with religion, it might not be a bad thing to give this experiment in secularism another century to play out before we condemn it. When you consider all the wars, the abuse, the dehumanizing psychological torment exacerbated by the faithful in the name of god, secularists so far have little to feel ashamed of.

  3. Karl says:

    Erich, you stated: Imagine a teacher getting up and saying “Hey, kids, there is no God.”

    This is where it is obvious the perspective of atheism claiming to not be a religion is blind to its own doctrines and interpretations.

    If the logic eludes you, let me state it.

    Some may say,

    I am an atheist, but I will teach in a way that allows my students every prerogative to believe that God exists.

    There are innumerable examples of how college professors take students to task in science classes and intimidate and cajole until the student either quits or is beyond further attempted humiliation.

    You can't even believe there are people who want to keep on engaging you over and over again. How can you as an adult, who has a hard time resisting the edit button, not see that a teacher in a classroom has near complete "editing" ability.

    I am an atheist but my values will not be on display while I am teaching.

    I will grade you upon the logic in your thought process, not upon my belief in ________________.

    You fill in the blank, evolution, global warming, socialism, Marxism, democratic liberalism, … take your pick.

    I will let everyone do reports on topics of their choice.

    I will allow any parent the opportunity to come and share from their perspective relevant material pertaining to matters in the curriculum.

    Someone can not claim to be an atheist and not teach from an atheistic perspective.

    There is no education accomplished in a void of values, as secular as it claims to be.

  4. Karl says:

    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

  5. Tony Coyle says:

    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)

  6. Karl says:

    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.

  7. Karl says:

    Answers.com got its reference from Wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Connolly

  8. Tony Coyle says:

    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.

    • Erich Vieth says:

      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.

  9. Tony Coyle says:

    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.

  10. MARKML says:

    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.

  11. Mindy Carney says:

    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.

  12. Stacy Kennedy says:

    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.

  13. 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.

  14. Karl says:

    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.

  15. 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?

  16. John says:

    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.

  17. Stacy says:

    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.

  18. Tony Coyle says:

    Mark

    sometimes that includes getting naked with my neighbor and all hot and sweaty and reaching for heaven in mutual orgasmic pleasure

    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?

  19. Karl says:

    Animals needs are really pretty basic.

    http://comics.com/speed_bump/2009-05-19/

  20. Dan Klarmann says:

    Here's a fun take on God-defined marriage:

    <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OFkeKKszXTw&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OFkeKKszXTw&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

  21. Karl says:

    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.

Leave a Reply


Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.