Biblical Marriage Not Defined As One Man, One Woman

Biblical Marriage Not Defined As One Man, One Woman​

My Take​

Provided here is the link to the actual article: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...nal-marriage-isnt-just-one-man-and-one-woman/

And on that note, I've been speaking on this matter the whole time. Despite my personal distaste towards institutions and interpretations based on conservative mindsets to further a retroactive agenda, I do see that the Bible has been distorted and misrepresented by people who aren't true theological scholars. The parables in the Bible are meant to teach a lesson for people during those times and they would have never fathomed how the future will evolve.

And before anyone attempts to dissect the article and find flaws in their rhetoric, be mindful that many individuals whom are atheists have had a religious upbringing, and some even engaged in priesthood as well, so their understanding of religious texts are much more educated than those talking heads in mega-churches who preach everything contrary to the means of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Religion have always been a tool to control the masses, but at the same time, there are those willing to give it more of a positive light and bring a better message.

 

I remember seeing this article.....it wont do much good. Those that feel gays are not fully human or the same as us will never accept gay marriage/rights...they see it as special rights instead of equal.

morningstar..check out this book called the Republican Brain by Chris Mooney....its a leftist book but he offers great scientific and psychological evidence why they won't budge on this issue....and few others...DESPITE biblical evidence to contrary

 

Not just special rights, but they also think it should remain a state's rights issue, which I find to be completely wrong since we've made this argument before with the miscegenation until Loving v. Virginia. And yet, even with this, people think it's wrong to compare interracial relationships with same-sex relationships on the sole basis of sight, but not the similar discriminatory practices.

 

You can twist scripture to make it fit anything.

 

First off. .

If we are going to go by Old Testament rules.. Many men had numerous wives, did they not?
So early definition of marriage is NOT defined as one man and one woman

Second off..
If we are going to go with the new covenant based on Jesus dying for our sins: he gave two commandments
Love God above all else
And love thy neighbor as thyself.

I'm not exactly sure but I'm pretty sure that a fancy wording for the golden rule. And that means that you don't hold others to standards you expect for yourself
"Gay lesbian bi and transgendered" people.. People being the key word their.

If you are discriminating based on how someone looks or who they love, which doesn't even affect you personally except when you get your panties in a twist, you are NOT following either commandment laid out by Jesus.

And if you are going to use the Old Testament as guidelines for behavior..then it makes you a hypocrit to hate people who are same sex inclined but to have say a tattoo. Or to wear more than two types of material garments.

The love of Jese is shown in the love you exchange with other people.
My take of "you will know them by their fruits" means you can tell people who who have unselfish love by their actions toward those close to them those neutral to them and yes, even their enemies.

This is the concept of equanimity in Buddhism.

We are human and we will sin on these accounts. I know I do.

Seeing the worth of the person and not condemn them based on their action is hard work and takes practice.

 

Genesis 2:18-25.......and Jesus bringing it back to the way God originally created it........Mark 19:1-11, esp v 4-5

 

So is this your way of saying that marriage between same sex people is justified by Jesus and his teachings?

And what if those who don't follow Christianity?
Are they expected to believe they way you do just because your truth is your life and way of living?

I'm not attacking. I'm asking real and honest questions here.

Try this.

As strong as your faith is in God..imagine if a Muslim person told you that you had to marry such and such a person even if you know it didnt go with what you feel is correct for you.
Would that upset you?

Now imagine someone who has their own truth about who they are and what they believe and you telling them.."my religion says this is so sin so you have to do it this way instead because its how I believe YOU should live your life because its how I choose to live MY life"
Are they suppose to be any less up set because somehow you have the monopoly on the one true religion.

It's the same as anything else.

If you don't like it or don't believe in it then don't do it.
It will be a miracle when people stop trying to force their way of thinking down everyone's throat ho doesn't think that way by denying them basic human rights

 

I'm saying that, according to the Bible, God's original intent was one man, one woman, one flesh. Jesus affirms that in the New Testament. I take issue when someone uses scripture to support a position or claim that is contrary to what the Bible already states. Or attributes things to God that scripture doesn't support or refutes.

I don't wish to get into a discussion on gay marriage/rights, nor am I saying, in any way, that others must believe what I believe. That's not my purpose for responding.

 

Looking through the old Testament, there are many things in which many Bible Believers take great relish on overlooking on a lot of things. And sure, people take the Bible out of context, but it's not a book to be taken literally, otherwise you'd have to answer to the following:

1) "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him."
(Leviticus 20:9) Does this mean we should actually kill every child who has disrespected their parent? Both of my kids would be firmly in hell by now if that verse were interpreted literally. Notice how close this verse is to the second homophobic verse quoted above - only 3 verses prior to this verse that fundamentalists obviously do not take literally.

2) "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45) So, I guess this means it's ok to own slaves?

3) "If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)Guess hubby and I will be deported from the state of Maryland.

4) "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27) Gotta go throw away all the razors!

5) "...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7) I've been eating unclean pork meat for most of my life. I'm not going to heaven I guess.

6) "...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19) Those farmers who plant more than one kind of seed are sinning (even though it's far more ecologically prudent to plant something other than a monocrop!) In addition, I guess I better go get rid of any clothes that might have a mix of materials in them for fear of doing something sinful.

7) "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10) I guess this means no more shrimp or lobster for me since that's sinful as well . In fact, just like a man lying with a man, it's an abomination. Certain birds and insects are also abominations.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/chri...tation-book-leviticus-hell.html#ixzz2YHLDj9VU

So with that in mind, this God is nothing more but an ignorant, homophobic, racist, sexist, infanticide-driven maniac that wants nothing more but the community of slaves to give in to not be able to exercise free will and remain in a state of fear. This landlord holds now weight, except when the conscience driven victim give themselves unto the weight of disaster.

P.S. Theologians generally have a greater understanding of the Bible since they know better than to simply take the English translated words and use them out of context, hence the word abomination was a word that never existed when the first Bible was written, so translation errors were abound.

 

How can anyone claim that was God's original intent? Or claim to know what the intent was? Because he created Adam and Eve? Well, in the Bible, Adam and Eve were not married, but were only meant as companions/friends, as sex and childbirth are only a function of original sin and only came into being once they were expelled from the Garden of Eden. And nearly every favored follower or prophet of God had multiple wives. It is not a "twisting" of the text to accurately point these facts out.

 

Read what Jesus said in Matthew 19:4-5

 

That doesn’t quite mean that Jesus hates gays but as you said the scripture can be taken to interpret anything. Southern preachers used the Bible to endorse slavery. Check out Nellie Nortons book "southern Slavery and the bible".


It is also important to note that the Bible...esp the new testament are not the original documents....not even original copies of the originals...well sort of. The new testament we read today are copies of copies of copies of copies that spread throughout the middle east and southern Europe for nearly 200 years. Then translated into one copy well over a thousand years later.

I respect all views, but to dehumanize and deny others rights for any reason....esp coming from claims that would be heresy X100 in modern courts really pains me

 

In your denomination Jesus is allowed to correct God? I guess it depends on what denomination or sect an individual belongs to, which is a doctrinal discussion too esoteric for the forum.

Furthermore, the statement Jesus is credited as quoting was actually made by Adam, not God, in Genesis.

"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.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

In addition, even were you right in saying that God said that, rather than Adam, at nowhere in that section does God or Jesus say that it is man's job to enforce that rule on other men. If you are a follower of a given deity, it is your responsibility to follow those tenets, NOT to make others follow them.

 

I bring the same sex debate in because as with other refusal of basic rights its what the opponents use to keep the rights away from those who are being denied rights.
They used the bible and this one man and one woman bs to justify.

And then you can show these same people how their stance on this is wrong according to the bible they just used to justify and they will come up with a slick way of explaining how what they just did was not what they did.

People....

 

Ore, I challenge you on your statement that Adam made the bolded comment. It's not written like that in the Bible. If you will read that whole chapter, you will understand that only your quoted portion "And flesh of my flesh, etc..." is a quote made by Adam. Verse 24 is the explanation for why God created a woman for Adam (because he was alone and that was the only thing in creation that God proclaimed "Not good") and the relationship that he intended a man and a woman to have.

As to your question about Jesus, in my faith, Jesus IS God. He is part of the holy trinity which is God in three persons. And in the scripture in Matthew that I referenced, He is not correcting God, He is affirming God's original design. In that particular instance, He was speaking to the issue of divorce, but he reminded those he was speaking to that God's original intention was what was quoted in Genesis 2:24. Jesus was correcting man. Man is the one who tries to correct God by making his own rules and declaring God wrong or intolerant, imo.

And, finally, how am I making it my responsibility to make sure someone else is following the tenets of my faith? I don't believe I've ever done that. But as one who studies scripture and has sat under solid biblical teaching and lived my faith for more than 30 years, I do know a little something about the Bible and the nature of God. Do I know it all? Am I an expert? Am I perfect in my walk with God? By no means. Do I expect others to believe as I do and live by the same principles? Nope. I want to be allowed to believe in my God and so I give respect to others who choose to believe in something else or nothing at all.

If you have something or someone that is precious to you, if the object of your devotion is maligned or treated contemptuously, would you stand by silently? Or would you try to bring clarity and understanding?

 

As for the quote, you are correct, I misspoke/mis-wrote. I lifted it directly from the King James version as written, no modification. Verse 24 is not a quote directly from Adam or god, it is a conclusory statement, attributed to no one, as if the person who wrote it was interpreting what he thought it meant based on quotes he read from God and Adam and then summing it up in a "therefore" statement. Every statement directly attributed to God says "And the Lord said" or something similar. Verse 24 is spoken by no one. Unless it is directly from one of the various personages of God, it does not have controlling authority and is just someone else saying something. Verse 24 is not a quote from anyone in particular, so it cannot be interpreted to be God's will, but is instead an interpretation of someone as to what they THINK God's will is.

You are right that Jesus was pointing out to the listeners that the original intent was spelled out in that section of the bible, but he was not quoting God directly, he was quoting what was written. The reason I asked about your specific doctrine is that different denominations of Christianity hold differing views of Jesus and his relationship to God. Even those holding the Trinity conception differ with respect to Jesus' place within that hierarchy. Some hold that Jesus is the physical embodiment and yet, as God's son, a sort of ambassador to mankind and ultimately subordinate to the God impulse, which is supreme. And that view can greatly impact how you view Jesus' words.

As for defending your deity, I am not religious and have only studied religious texts for consistency and clarity, not from the standpoint of someone with a vested interest, so I will take your word with regard to how it makes you feel and your need to defend or clarify it. I respect your choice.

 

Remind me to rep you in the near future. Excellent post. :smt023

 

:smt023:smt023

I Iz approves this message.