Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Paul Ryan’s New Clothes
Wishful Thinking About Natural Gas




The Sixth Extinction
War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar
Whose Knees Are These?

Whose Knees Are These?

By Jabari Asim
$6.99

Head Cases

Head Cases

By Michael Paul Mason
$16.50

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

What Does the Bible Say About Marriage?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 9, 2011
Flickr / Ella's Dad

Following the legalization of gay marriage in New York last month, people using religion to justify their bigotry have cried loud and hard about the chaos that’s sure to descend upon the U.S. for the defilement of what they call one of Christianity’s most sacred institutions. Fortunately, some of the Bible’s more intellectually honest students are speaking up.

Greg Carey, who teaches the New Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania, punctures the idea of “biblical family values” and shows that the Good Book doesn’t speak much to the particulars of marriage. —ARK

Greg Carey via The Huffington Post:

Unfortunately, many Christians use the Bible to support their own prejudices and bigotry. They talk about “biblical family values” as if the Bible had a clear message on marriage and sexuality. Let’s be clear: There’s no such thing as “biblical family values” because the Bible does not speak to the topic clearly and consistently.

It’s high time people came clean about how we use the Bible. When Christians try to resolve difficult ethical and theological matters, they typically appeal to the Gospels and Paul’s letters as keys to the question. But what about marriage? Not only did Jesus choose not to marry, he encouraged his disciples to abandon household and domestic concerns in order to follow him (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:28-30; Luke 9:57-62). He even refers to those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:10-13). Whatever that means, it’s certainly not an endorsement of marriage. Paul likewise encourages male believers: “Do not seek a wife” (1 Corinthians 7:27, my translation)—advice Paul took for himself. If neither Jesus nor Paul preferred marriage for their followers, why do some Christians maintain that the Bible enshrines 19th-century Victorian family values?

Let’s not even go into some of the Bible’s most chilling teachings regarding marriage, such as how a man’s obligation to keep a new wife who displeases him on the wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), his obligation to marry a woman he has raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-30) or the unquestioned right of heroes like Abraham to exploit their slaves sexually. I wonder: Have the “biblical family values advocates” actually read their Bibles?

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By DaveZx3, July 12, 2011 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

Raylan,

I’ll just put out one more before I have to go.  This I think represents more of a third party, impartial authority for the Christ/Church marriage metaphors, and also puts out other ideas regarding the “bride of Christ”. 


http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bride_of_Christ

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 12, 2011 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

By RayLan, July 12 at 6:30 am Link to this comment

“I said cite authorities not people who agree.”
——————————————————

“What John’s vision in Revelation pictures is the wedding feast of the Lamb (Jesus Christ) and His bride (the Church) in its third phase”

http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-supper-Lamb.html
—————————————————————

“The Bride of Christ is one of the metaphors used in the New Testament. Ephesians 5:22-33 compares the union of husband and wife to that of Christ and the church. It is a favorite ecclesial image.[1] It also draws upon Revelation 21:9-10 and 2 Corinthians 11:2.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_Christ

————————————————

I can only give you a couple right now, because I am running a little late. 

You could spare me the effort and google some stuff, like “the bride of Christ” and find all the scholarly, “authorities” who understand the symbology between the marriage of man and woman to the marriage supper of the Lamb, and the marriage of Christ the Church. 

Remember, I am only speaking of symbols, not some literal thing.  As I said earlier, it is important to respect each others symbols, because they are very important to some people.  To not respect them is a sign of ill will.  You would not use the swastika on a Jewish temple, would you?  Then you should not use the word marriage to describe a gay union. 

It is all just words and symbolisms, granted, but a little respect for the diversity of ideas is not unwarranted.  Gays should have stuck with civil union, and then made it do what they need it to do through secular law, because it will never be accepted in terms of what marriage is truly symbolic of.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, July 12, 2011 at 6:30 am Link to this comment

@DaveZx3
“You are hopelessly entangled in literalism, when I am speaking of symbolism. 

I will not cite the thousands of people”
I said cite authorities not people who agree.
I am invoking orthodox theology and elementary logic which has authoritative support from Christian tradition, if you are going to pull out the Bible as a weapon to condemn—
so peddle your politics in religious drag elsewhere.

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 12, 2011 at 5:30 am Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, July 11 at 10:25 pm
———————————————-

From a purely ideological Christian viewpoint, if killing in self defense is aceptable:,

1)  Christ would have defended himself.
2)  The commandment would read, “thou shalt not kill, except in self defense.

However, from a purely ideological secular viewpoint, killing can be accepted in any variation that man decides to accept it in. ie: abortion, war, punishment, food, self defense, population control, and the list could go on and on. 

From the secular viewpoint, If man can decide when it is acceptable to kill, then who can complain when very large groups of men decide to kill very large groups of other men in self defense (or not)?  Self defense is a slippery concept of itself.  Israel my decide to nuke Iran in self defense.  And given the statements by Iran, how could Israel be condemned for it?   

That’s why I asked who gets to decide what is right and wrong, and you kind of evaded the question by ending your last post with:  “we get to decide what is right and wrong”  And you call me slippery.  That is the most slippery statement I have seen lately.

I think “we” and “they” are two of the most slippery words there are.  How often can “we” change?  The “we’s” of today will not be the “we’s” of tomorrow.  And when American “we’s” make different decisions than Iranian “we’s”, which side should prevail? 

When you stated, “we have the brains to do better” it struck me that this is the heart of the debate, whether we actually do have the brains to do better.  I think that if we do have the brains to do better, there would be more measurable progress towards “better”  I don’t see it, 

Right now, I see a severe falling back on too many fronts.  It seems that “handcuffs” put on man only work for as long as he doesn’t have the key to remove them.  Once he finds the key, all hell breaks loose again.  There has been no real progress where it counts, in the MINDS of men.

You also said something regarding nature “regulating” itself.  Surely, self-regulation is impossible in a random system such as nature.  Regulation requires the desire to achieve an end result, otherwise regulation is meaningless.  The end result must be considered prior to establishing a means of regulation.  Nature has no method of considering the future, because considering the future is a component of consciousness, which is a component of intelligence.  Nature is not considered to be conscious.  Man is considered to be conscious, and thus has intelligence far above anything natural.  That is why man can indeed be held accountable for higher motives.  The mystery for the evolutionist is how did man acquire his exceptional consciousness if it did not come from nature?  ie: how can something become greater than that which created it? 

By the way, I do eat eggs, so I am guilty of aborting chickens. 

It is not my purpose to provoke, nor to pick on other peoples ideas in a mean-spirited way.  It is a free exchange of ideas which helps everyone grow.  That is how I approach it.  I, as a person, am not defined by the ideas I sometimes throw out there.  Sometimes I throw other peoples Ideas out there to see how they are responded to.  I am not trying to convert anyone to anything.  I don’t have a secret agenda, nor do I belong to any organization whatsoever, except for the human race.

Just to get back on subject, it is significantly held that marriage is symbolic of the concept of the end result of the creation process, which is the salvation of humanity.  These ideas are held in Christianity, Islam and Judaism, to one extent or another.  Symbolism is not a literal thing, but analogy. 

For gays to use the word marriage for their union is a perversion of Christian symbology.  Symbolism is important to many.  You would not use a swastika at the entrance to a Jewish Temple, would you?

WE must respect each others symbols.

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 12, 2011 at 4:01 am Link to this comment

By RayLan, July 11 at 6:56 pm

Cite authorities.
————————————-

You are hopelessly entangled in literalism, when I am speaking of symbolism. 

I will not cite the thousands of people who agree and have written regarding the idea that Christ marrying the church is symbolic of the process, and more specifically, symbolic of the end result of the salvation process.  You can read up on all of that by googling “the church as the bride of Christ” 

Also, it is somewhat taboo to quote scripture on Truthdig, but I think I will do it anyway, as the symbolism is evident throughout scripture, but the verses I recall to be the most revealing of the symbolism I am reffering to are below: 

Matthew 22:  The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, 

Ephesiaons 23:  For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Rev 19:  Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, July 11, 2011 at 10:25 pm Link to this comment

“Killing is killing. There is no excuse for it ever.  No being ever needs to die for the benefit of another.
When killing, for any reason becomes acceptable, then it will not be long until killing is acceptable for almost any reason.  But of course, the beasts know nothing of right and wrong, do they?  Where did man get his ideas of what is right and wrong?”
-DaveZx3

So that includes any setting with any group of people at any time? Really. When a robber is in your home you do nothing and he kills you is the same as when the home owner defends themselves and family, kills the robber is exactly the same?

That is amazing to me. You willfully ignore the situation or condition to reach a simple, simplistic and utterly devoid of point of view or morality of it. Just amazing.

As for homosexuality, I was just speaking in general terms as to the evolutionary reason for its existence. I wasn’t promoting it as a way of slowing down the birth rates. Not at all and you should have known that. So I assume you either did it to provoke me or you really didn’t see it in the first place. So I’ll let it pass.

Nature is “as mean and nasty” or just is. Such concepts as your quote are human feelings used as reasoning points. Nature isn’t like that and yet it is on some levels with some animals and plants. Live and die all part of the cycle. We have the brains to be better (Mutual Aid) and less mechanical or the human conceived harshness (Dog-Eat-Dog) but too often humans are too ignorant to notice. Also humans have that unique capacity to ignore Nature and outcomes. It can be a strength but it will be our downfall. Too many people not enough living space, or food or clean water etc and the climate change wrought by our combined actions have lead us here.

We are at a crossroads. I suspect any other species with the kind of intelligence we have will reach or have reached in the past such a nexus. If we don’t work together to uplift the poor, change how we operate and live differently from the past we will fail. We might even go extinct. Ultimately it is our collective choice. It may already be too late. We may survive as a species but we will have fallen backwards to do so. Just like any “dumb” animal let Nature take its course. In this case the population gets too big disease and starvation kills the population into a die back to more survivable numbers. We can do better than that. We decide what is right and wrong.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, July 11, 2011 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3
” There is no excuse for it ever”
Do you eat meat? Then you are a killer.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, July 11, 2011 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment

@“Regarding the marriage of Christ to the church, that is very well known symbolism.”

Cite authorities - The orthodox theology is that the church was born at Pentacost - after Jesus ascended.
Moreover, the Church according to Pauline theology is the body of Christ… So you are saying He is married to his own body - which is preposterous.
And how can Somebody who is Salvation and unmarried be symobolized by marriage. - What nonesense!

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 11, 2011 at 6:39 pm Link to this comment

Night Gaunt,

Killing is killing. There is no excuse for it ever.  No being ever needs to die for the benefit of another.
When killing, for any reason becomes acceptable, then it will not be long until killing is acceptable for almost any reason.  But of course, the beasts know nothing of right and wrong, do they?  Where did man get his ideas of what is right and wrong? 

“Pathology is what pathology is” is no more than a figure of speech.  I am sure you have heard it said, “it is what it is”.  Or how about, “I am that I am”  These are all figures of speech which emphasize through a “redundant repitition” that you cannot make something that which it is not.

The “redundant repitition” in the last sentence was a true tautology.  At least as far as I remember them to be.  Different words saying the same thing in a redundant setting. 

I said homosexuality was not pathological, because it is not a disease, it is just bad behavior. 

Survival is a selfish act if it is accomplished through the blood and sacrifice of another.  I don’t survive by killing, so I have nothing to be forgiven for in that area.

Isn’t nature just so mean.  She tied reproduction to the ultimate in pleasures, insuring that you would be faced with a catastrophic overpopulation in your future.  On so many levels, nature is just so mean and nasty.  No wonder man acts like he does. 

Homosexuality might be a good method of birth control, but you gotta convince millions and millions of men to do something that they find repulsive. 

You could address the BIG ideas in my posts, instead of attacking the tiny ones. 

How about the question I posed earlier?  Where did man get his ideas of what is right and wrong?  Did they come from God, or were they acquired through evolution?  How come we all don’t agree what is right and what is wrong?  How come we can’t just do as the animals do, and use nature to teach us what is right and wrong?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, July 11, 2011 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3 you don’t seem to understand the difference between killing to live and killing for some other reason. The tiger kills to eat. No anger, not malice, just evolved to fit the niche of predator. Unlike humans and war, torture etc isn’t strictly that at all for survival. Know the difference, get some nuance that is lacking in your reasoning here.

Another thing, what exactly were you referring to as a “pathology” when you used your little tautology. I see you have avoided explicating it. Pathology is no a noun but an adjective. Modifying a noun. The word is general and subject to any interpretation. So your analogy was incorrect and misleading. Why being so coy?

So for you survival is a selfish act? How do you live then with such a point of view? Or are you asking for forgiveness each time you eat, take a breath, throw trash away?

Considering the population crisis, the fewer who have children the better. Whether it is homosexual, or celibate (better to be sterilized-men first) and other means to aid it. Since from an Evolutionary stand point non-reproductive sex is a good idea. Like having brakes on a car and a transmission to the motor.

Watch out RayLan, DaveZx3 is a slippery one. He knows that once we know his full theology it won’t be so easy to hide from our scrutiny.

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 11, 2011 at 8:25 am Link to this comment

By RayLan, July 11 at 6:47 am Link to this comment

“Jesus marries the church”
Where did you pull that from - another opinion?

——————————————————————

For someone who supposedly “studied” scripture, you sure didn’t learn much.  And you are not very understanding of what symbolism is.  Symbolism does not compel.  I can be an American without wearing a flag lapel pin. 

Regarding the marriage of Christ to the church, that is very well known symbolism.  Google “the marriage supper of the Lamb” and read a number of the entries, and you can’t miss it.  It is all symbolism, and you will find much opinion mixed in, granted.  You should be able to pick out the spiritual message, however.  The church will be united in marriage to Christ, the Lamb of God.  This ushers in the millenium.  Marriage is an institution symbolic of this ultimate marriage of the Lamb of God (Christ) to his people, (the church).  I didn’t make it up. 

You may have studied, but you did not learn. 

There was never any legal obligation for disciples to remain single or celibate.  But to enter into physical marriage when you are put in the position of becoming an integral part of the church, which is already engaged to be married, is a breach of spiritual protocol, at least.  It is all to do with spiritual symbolism. 

I am sure that you know that in prophecy, “the women” symbolizes the church, and the harlot of revelation symbolizes the false church.  The “virtuous woman” of Proverbs 31 also symbolizes the false church, if you are spiritual enough to comprehend it. 

A part of the angle for celibacy is also symbolic of not entangling oneself with these types of women, but it pertains less to the disciples than it does to the population as a whole. 

Some may be distressed that the Bible contains so much symbolism and so many parables, but they are there for a purpose. 

Without spiritual eyes, you cannot comprehend the apparent conflicting ideas, that marriage can be both beautiful and spiritual while also evil and self-serving at the same time.  That you should remain celibate, undefiled by woman, yet have a god-blessed marriage at the same time. 

There is always the duality angle.  Things are both right and wrong at the same time.  You are only confused if it is not the spirit that leads you, but instead the literal writing of men. 

Literalness is somewhat of an abomination unto itself, as it paints one into a corner from which there is no getting out.  But with God, all things are possible, so literalness is not a consideration in Christ.

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 11, 2011 at 7:24 am Link to this comment

By RayLan, July 11 at 3:35 am Link to this comment

“The idea of sexual orientation did not exist until the nineteenth century”
——————————————————-

It was never a matter of orientation.  It was whether there was, or is, an inherent right to act out any behavior you wish, based on your natural desires.  Or should you conform to law, whether spiritual or secular? 

I have to keep hammering on this same subject, which is “where does law come from”?  Who gets to say what needs to be suppressed regarding all of the human natural desires? 

Is it wrong to murder in the secular world?  Who decides that?  If they decide it is wrong to murder, can they also decide it is wrong to be promiscuous?  Can they decide it is wrong to abuse drugs?  Can they decide it is wrong to keep all your wealth?  Can they decide it is wrong to hate? 

What are the limits to secular law making?  And who decides what the limits are?  Am I subject to any law that a slim majority comes up with? 

As far as quoting Leviticus, it is not applicable to secular law.  If religionists want to subject themselves to those OT laws, they are free to do so, but they are putting an unnecessary burden on themselves, as the New Testament is not based on law but forgiveness.  Not to suggest those laws go away, for without law, there is no appreciation for forgiveness. 

Your inability, as well as many others, to comprehend the idea of being completely guilty of breaking a law, yet being completely forgiven of that guilt at the same time, makes your input on this subject meaningless from the spiritual standpoint.
You simply cannot understand law and grace at the same time, or being guilty and innocent at the same time. 

The Christian is still, virtually, a perpetual lawbreaker, but he has been forgiven.  The idea is that this grace should make you so appreciative, that you try your hardest to never break that law again.  But if you do, guess what?  You are forgiven again.  That is the substance of Christianity.  There is no condemnation, and anyone who does not live by this is not a true Christian. 

It is the whole idea that the literalness of law is a futile reason for locking up all of humanity, which is temporarily condemned to live in a deceived state, primarily because of their continous disgusting behavior as a whole, and while forgiveness and grace are definitely absolute, they do not guarantee that the collateral consequences of your lawbreaking automatically disapper within the timeframe that you wish them to disappear in. 

You may be forgiven of the crime, but the bullet you took in your shoulder while perpetrating it, may still be there. 

The only ones who retain their guilt, from the spiritual standpoint, are those who are not sincerely sorry and repentive.  And God is the sole judge of the sincerity.  Their sincerity relieves them from the literal law, and they follow a new spiritual law, which is summed up in the Golden Rule.  That is the Christian version of law and grace. 

Can a practicing homosexual be forgiven, even though he does not discontinue homosexual acts?  Obviously, that is not a question for men, but for God.  Because another extremely important concept of Christianity is that you do not judge others, PERIOD.  You have no way of knowing where they may be in the cycle of law and grace.  Thus the saying, “Don’t judge me, God is not done with me yet”

But you understand nothing of this, so please stick to commenting on the secular angle, even though you don’t have a firm grasp on the concept of democratic law either, and where it comes from.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, July 11, 2011 at 6:47 am Link to this comment

@DaveZx3
“Jesus marries the church”
Where did you pull that from - another opinion?
You don’t even see the contradiction between claiming marriage is a symbol of salvation and Jesus (and Paul) being unmarried. If Jesus IS salvation where is the symbolism required?
It was impossible for disciples to be married?


1 Cor 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister , a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
KJV

Mark 1:29-30 And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 30 But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her

You’re talking from both sides of your mouth. Rationalizing contradiction.

The disciples can’t be married and marriage is a symbol of salvtion. What a crock!


I have studied theology -and your views on marriage have no scriptural or magisterial basis.

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 11, 2011 at 5:30 am Link to this comment

By RayLan, July 10 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment

You said:  “Yah that’s why Paul said that celibacy is the preferred option.” 
————————-

For those who were called to discipleship, it was impossible to have a wife and family and be a disciple at the same time.  There were plenty of marrieds to satisfy the symbolism.  Symbolism does not consitute a law. 

You said:  Oh yes - and Jesus wan’t married so he missed out on that symbolism. Decided not to witness eternal salvation.”
—————————

You don’t understand much about the subject.  Jesus marries the church.  (The marriage supper of the Lamb.
The virgins and the lamps.)  Jesus is what the symbolism is about.  Why should He become a symbol of himself?  Think before you write.  Or don’t write about stuff that you have no real command of.

You said:  “Your opinion about the pathology of homosexuality is just that—opinion - not science. Based on nothing but unthinking and uninformed bias”
—————————————

Homosexuality is not pathology. It is individuals acting out natural desires, which are different from the desires of the mainstream.  It is natural as you say, and has no condemnation in the natural realm, there being no right and wrong in nature.

However, much of human behavior is considered wrong, even though it is completely natural.  The leader of the wolf pack is free to kill competitors to his dominance, and this is not right or wrong in the natural realm. 

Man makes laws to suppress a lot of natural human desires.  Politics is about who gets to say what is right and what is wrong.  In America politics is supposed to be democratic, so it is the will of the majority which determines right and wrong. 

If there is anything higher than human democracy in determining right and wrong within our secular society, please let me know what you consider that to be.

Otherwise, why don’t we just vote whether or not homosexuality should be suppressed? 

And don’t say just because I believe there is a God, that I don’t get a vote.  Even though, obviously, our individual beliefs totally impact our votes. 

And don’t say homosexuality is based on human rights, because human rights come from government in the secular world of the state, and government is based on democracy, therefore, human rights are based on the opinions of men who vote.  Governments can change your rights in the secular world, like it or not.

That is what separation of church and state is all about.  In the realm of church, rights are based on the opinion of God, and man has no say. 

But since we are not a government of God, rights are determined by the majority, or a constitution which the majority declare to be the law of the land.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, July 11, 2011 at 3:35 am Link to this comment

The idea of sexual orientation did not exist until the nineteenth century -

“The words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” do not appear in the Bible—at least they are absent from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. The authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation; this concept was only developed in the late 19th century. The writers had little or no comprehension of same-sex committed relationships. Their languages had no words for these concepts. Rather, they assumed that everyone was heterosexual, but that some heterosexuals engaged in sex with persons of the same gender. Thus, when you see one of these terms in an English translation of the Bible, it is important to dig deeper and find what the original Hebrew or Greek text really means.

Leviticus, the favorite of homophobes (the few times they quote the Old Testament)
also probihits:
heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (18:19)
harvesting the corners of a field (19:9)
eating fruit from a young tree (19:23)
wearing clothes that are made from a textile blend (19:19)
cross-breeding livestock (19:19)
sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19)
shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27)
tattoos (19:28)
even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18)
charging of interest on a loan (25:37)

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, July 11, 2011 at 3:34 am Link to this comment

@NapoleanDoneHisPart
“In Roman times, there wasn’t an idea such as ‘gay’ or ‘homosexuality’ as being ‘wrong’ until Christianity pointed it out as wrong.”

The idea of sexual orientation did not exist until the nineteenth century -
<blockquote

“The words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” do not appear in the Bible—at least they are absent from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. The authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation; this concept was only developed in the late 19th century. The writers had little or no comprehension of same-sex committed relationships. Their languages had no words for these concepts. Rather, they assumed that everyone was heterosexual, but that some heterosexuals engaged in sex with persons of the same gender. Thus, when you see one of these terms in an English translation of the Bible, it is important to dig deeper and find what the original Hebrew or Greek text really means.

</blockquote>
Leviticus, the favorite of homophobes (the few times they quote the Old Testament)
also probihits:
heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (18:19)
harvesting the corners of a field (19:9)
eating fruit from a young tree (19:23)
wearing clothes that are made from a textile blend (19:19)
cross-breeding livestock (19:19)
sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19)
shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27)
tattoos (19:28)
even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18)
charging of interest on a loan (25:37)

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 11, 2011 at 12:15 am Link to this comment

Napolean DoneHisPart, July 10 at 10:46 pm,

What does the Bible say?

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with
womankind:  It is abomination.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, July 10, 2011 at 11:18 pm Link to this comment

Of course, Martha.

Just saying that the Romans did not view it that way until Christianity swallowed that empire up… but of course it is an abomination.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 10, 2011 at 11:10 pm Link to this comment

Napolean DoneHisPart, July 10 at 10:46 pm,

What does the Bible say?

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with
womankind:  It is abomination.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, July 10, 2011 at 10:46 pm Link to this comment

In Roman times, there wasn’t an idea such as ‘gay’ or ‘homosexuality’ as being ‘wrong’ until Christianity pointed it out as wrong.

Men having sex with other men was due / allowed because:

a) power between a master and slave ( he can do what he wished with his slave.. and

b) since women became pregnant and men don’t…. this explains itself.

I was pointing more to the depravity of the hegemony and hierarchy having sex with their sisters and other close relatives… abusing power and allowing tyranny to consume the populous and eventually themselves.

Law is meant to actually keep man from consuming himself.  Without certain limitation, mass extinction is inevitable…. or at least the populous goes into hiding ( those not depraved and still having some sense and whit ).

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 10, 2011 at 8:27 pm Link to this comment

What does the Bible say about marriage?

It says,  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  If some of the others think that males marry males and that
females marry females, they are in the category of others.  You can’t
love the Lord your God for somebody else, you can only love the Lord
your God for yourself and let others do the same and let peace be
with you.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, July 10, 2011 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment

@DaveZx3
“Marriage is symbolic of the eternal salvation of mankind”
Yah that’s why Paul said that celibacy is the preferred option. Oh yes - and Jesus wan’t married so he missed out on that symbolism. Decided not to witness eternal salvation.
Your opinion about the pathology of homosexuality is just that—opinion - not science. Based on nothing but unthinking and uninformed bias

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, July 10, 2011 at 7:12 pm Link to this comment

and the cricket
trapped in the matchbox
most certainly believes
the faint echoes of reality
are the work
of mysterious gods

July 10, 2011. D.R. Zing.  Praying to Zeus

Report this
Billy Pilgrim's avatar

By Billy Pilgrim, July 10, 2011 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

People are free to believe what they want, even if what
they believe is a book of fables written 2000 years ago
by unknown authors and pieced together in the 4th
Century as a means of unifying and subjugating diverse
beliefs into one true state religion.  One in 3
Americans believe the Bible is literal, word for word.
Is it any wonder that we the people are all fucked up?

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 10, 2011 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment

I am that I am.  A pig is a pig.  It is what it is.

These are not tautologies.  “the reason why” they are not tautologies is a tautology. 

To that which is killed, so that the kiler can eat, the killer has committed a violent, selfish act.  Sure the killer has a reason, there is almost always a reason to kill.  And it is hardly ever in the benefit of that which is killed, so it must be for the benefit of the killer, which is selfish on the killer’s part to one degree or another.  And this is very, very common in nature, violent killing for selfish reasons.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, July 10, 2011 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

Very few other life on this mud ball “kills for selfish reasons” unless you mean conquest like with the ants or wasps? Even they are killing for a reason. A concrete survival reason. Not as serial killers do. Humans are the only ones to do that unless you can give any specifics?

Another aspect of Nature most seem to forget is regulation. Just reproducing is an end product to mass death. Such measures as non reproducing as in homosexual sex, scratches the itch yet doesn’t burden the ecology. Unfortunately our ecology is terribly burdened by humans who ignore the effects of what they do.

DaveZx3, care to explicate your little tautaulogy? “Pathology is what pathology is,” is too general and opens itself to individual interpretation. Slippery and gelatenous. Mind firming it up some?

Report this

By Butch, July 10, 2011 at 11:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

•Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.“1

•Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them” (Spiritual death)possibly physical..

•Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 10, 2011 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

By RayLan, July 10 at 8:14 am

“Homosexuality, bisexuality are found in nature with no reasons to explain them as pathology”
—————————————————————————-

Pathology is what pathology is. 

Violent killing for selfish reasons is also found in nature, in the animal kingdom as well as in man.  That doesn’t make it something we want to emulate, does it? 

Marriage is symbolic of the eternal salvation of mankind.  It is about entering into real life, not this physical nightmare which masquerades as life.

But, you are right, everyone is absolutely free to think whatever they want.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, July 10, 2011 at 9:32 am Link to this comment

@NapoleanDoneHisPart
“Why did Rome eventually fall?”
That is a big question with a very complicated answer -if you’re suggesting that it fell because of faggotry, you’re barking up the wrong tree.You are presuming up front that homosexuality is depravity. Rome fell for basically the same reason all empires fall - the dependency on military conquest and autocratic control.
Alexander the Great built up an empire and he was gay. So using your logic - the empire rose because of his homosexuality.
I like that you are comparing the US to Rome, both being imperialist governments.

As far as the world population being threatened by gay coupling - I wouldn’t worry about it - a number of gays perform with women - to the dismay of wives who discover that their husband is seeing a man. Procreation is not the primary reason for marriage - conversely people don’t need to be married to procreate. Biologism is no basis for morality.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, July 10, 2011 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

Here is a historical perspective for everyone:

Why did Rome eventually fall?

Was it not due to the depravity and decadence eventually permeated the populous from the hierarchy / hegemony? 

Take a read of these things, folks…

Isn’t this evident today? 

What would happen to life if all were to be homosexual ( assuming this is just fine and dandy, for it was, then why wouldn’t everybody just do so? ).... what would happen to life? 

Where would life and the generation come from? 

Oh yeah, it would come from a laboratory / a test-tube… the unnatural and irrational would have superseded the natural and rational.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, July 10, 2011 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

@DaveZx3
“It is a spiritual lesson that is taught using biological models.  “
So childless marriages violate this supposed spiritual law?
Homosexuality, bisexuality are found in nature with no reasons to explain them as pathology- but to equate marriage with animal procreation is not biology - it is religious dogma -  You are entitled to your opinion - as indeed gays are entitled to form their own unions. It’s called uh… a seculare democracy.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, July 10, 2011 at 6:48 am Link to this comment

I really don’t care what the bible says about marriage…Nor do I care about the
judgements of Christians, or anyone of the hundreds of other religions, or sects…

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Using any religious belief system
to control the behaviors of others, only leads to religious conflict..

Christians need to leave other people the hell alone, your proselytizing only
demonstrates to me that you doubt your own beliefs, and that convincing others is a way
of convincing yourself..

Marriage now is practically dead, because the state has used it as a way to redistribute
wealth from men to women, enrich lawyers, invade the family, and justify penury for
divorced men through child support. You have to be out of your mind, to get married,
most are.  Those less so, have robust pre nuptial agreements.

After gays get married they will start getting divorced, divorce attorneys are counting on
this to make up for all the lost revenue they are missing since straight men stopped
wanting to get married so as to avoid, a life of penury at the hands of child support
enforcement.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, July 10, 2011 at 6:14 am Link to this comment

There is marriage as a civil union separate from any religious belief and a ‘sacramental’ marriage blessed by a religious institution- last time I checked the constitution affords separation of Church and State - I don’t care what any religious scripture says - you can quote scripture to support just about any bigotted belief - the old saying - the Devil quotes scripture. Many extreme hate groups clutch bibles eg. KKK.
There are so many layers of context and guidelines of interpretation - which is what theology is all about.

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, July 9, 2011 at 11:36 pm Link to this comment

The Old Testament
is Hebrew
myth.

The New Testament
is
Christian
myth.

What a shame
in this age
of
microwave
ovens
and
nuclear
submarines

we are still
citing
the superstitions
of the
ancients
as if they were
the edicts
of some
Santa Claus god in the sky
determining
who’s been
naughty
and nice.

The earth warms
with our
glowing
intelligence
and
fierce
ignorance.

July 10, 2011. D.R. Zing.  And When Splitting an Atom Where Is Your Soul?

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 9, 2011 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment

God says you can know him by what he has created.  And it is evident that all the symbolism in evidence throughout that which was created, is for that exact purpose. 

So that this duality of male/female that we see in biological life, which has the built in capacity to unite for the purpose of creating new physical life is a very important spiritual symbolism.

The male and the female represent the components of salvation, which is the entering into true spiritual eternal life. 

The male represents the “law” and the female represents the “grace”.  And as important as grace is to salvation, the law must come first, because without law to convict you, grace has no meaning.  If you are not guilty, then why do you need a pardon? 

God had to first present the Law, which convicts you, which was the Old Testament.  And then He presented the Grace, which pardons and forgives you, which was the New Testament.  The uniting of the old and the new complete the salvation cycle, and are what brings sprititual, eternal life into being. 

Law/Man plus Grace/Woman equal Life.  It is a spiritual lesson that is taught using biological models. 

But because people are ignorant of all this, they blunder into error.  Law plus Law equals Fascism.  Grace plus Grace equals chaos. 

It is all in understanding that which you are supposed to understand.  Pollute it at your own peril.  But that is what the Bible means when it says that man with man is an abomination.  It cannot lead to life.

Report this

By gerard, July 9, 2011 at 7:04 pm Link to this comment

The history of marriage would seem to indicate that perhaps its main purpose was to assure the legal rights to inherit property. Attaching religious significance and symbolism to it may have been meant to strengthn its somewhat precarious validity. The service is somewhat related to knights swearing fealty to the king, raised it up a notch to get it through the doors of churches, tabernacles, mosques and courthouses.

Love?  Now that’s a whole other thing indeed, like faith, hope, charity, decency, justice and—as the young Italian activist said—“staying human,” all of which bear the mark of sanctity without ceremony or fiat.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, July 9, 2011 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment

Christians will always turn to the Bible for guidance—and we should. If the Bible does not promote a clear or redemptive teaching about slavery, that doesn’t mean we have nothing to learn from Scripture about the topic. The same values that guide all our relationships apply to marriage: unselfish concern for the other; honesty, integrity and fidelity; and sacrificial—but not victimized—love. That’s a high standard, far higher than a morality determined by anachronistic and restrictive rules that largely reflect our cultural biases. Rules make up the lowest common denominator for morality. Love, as Paul said, never finds an end.

Wasn’t the reason the Old Testament was kept was because the Laws are still in effect?

Well until we are under the explicit rule of some kind of religious based gov’t—-theonomy, Gay marriage is legal and good.

Report this

By Robert Hagedorn, July 9, 2011 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sodomy?  For a surprise, do a search:  First Scandal.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, July 9, 2011 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment

The point is to focus on the ministry of reconciliation, not family life per-say and having the attention divided between pleasing God and pleasing a wife in regards to the author’s use of new testament excerpts relating to marriage.

As for the old testament scriptures, that is for those who live and desire to live under law, not for those who live by faith.

And as for the gay issue, Romans chapter one is a pretty clear read explaining how ridiculous it is to honor a gay marriage / union in anything calling itself Godly.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.