Biblical Marriage Not Defined Simply As One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious Scholars'

[poet]

/shrugs....is it really that hard to find?....
Matthew 19
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes (Genesis 16:1-4).

No...not hard at all.

 

[poet]

Originally Posted by I Love America

Yeah AIDS infested queers raising kids is a problem. I feel sorry for the children. They probably would have been better off being aborted and spared the trauma.

Illogical fallacy. First of all, not all gays have AIDS. Second, AIDS is not an infestation, no more than a cold is. Having AIDS, which, now, is no longer a certain 'death sentence', and has become a manageable disease, doesn't preclude one from "raising children", or doing much what everyone else does. Third, AIDS is a human condition, not a "gay disease"...there are more heterosexuals with the disease than there are gays with the disease, "world-wide". And a loving, caring home is far better than being aborted or being wards of the state. Bigot.

 

[poet]

He said if they could accept it they should do it.



No, it was about taking foreign wives.



Exactly, and you are a dishonest liar that relies on cherry picking, half truths and confirmation bias. Witness the fact that the scholars mentioned several references to form the conclusion that it was inconclusive on the subject while you attempt to take one passage in isolation.

Hush, truth! Thank ya!

 

[poet]

Extracted from the series West Wing, President Bartlet delivered a KO on an anti gay practitioner highlighting the ridiculous practice of selecting quotes from the Bible to shore up irrational prejudices. Hello, PMP.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

He said if they could accept it they should do it.

????....no he didn't...

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

he said divorce was wrong and remarrying after divorce was adultery......his disciples said if that were true it would be better not to marry......he said, then remain celibate......nothing at all to do with castrating yourself.....

No, it was about taking foreign wives.

and to you "foreign" means a different race?......the original text uses goyim, in Greek gentile.....it means someone who isn't Jewish.....

Exactly, and you are a dishonest liar that relies on cherry picking, half truths and confirmation bias. Witness the fact that the scholars mentioned several references to form the conclusion that it was inconclusive on the subject while you attempt to take one passage in isolation.

/shrugs....I'm just pointing at the lies you spread and educating our readers.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

the christian bible is inconsistent and bites its own tail too often to be treated as a homogeneous work making pronouncements about most anything.

unless lied about, it serves quite well.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes (Genesis 16:1-4).

No...not hard at all.

so tell me.....did Moses do this because he "harkened" to God or because he "harkened" to Sarah?......did you decide this verse instructs us that God wants us to have two wives?.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Extracted from the series West Wing, President Bartlet delivered a KO on an anti gay practitioner highlighting the ridiculous practice of selecting quotes from the Bible to shore up irrational prejudices. Hello, PMP.

/shrugs.....and some people refuse to take instruction from it because it tells them they aren't doing what God would prefer they do......so they pretend it says things it doesn't.......and refuse to read the things it does......

 

[poet]

so tell me.....did Moses do this because he "harkened" to God or because he "harkened" to Sarah?......did you decide this verse instructs us that God wants us to have two wives?.......

Moses???? At question is "Abraham", not Moses. Some biblical scholar you are. I suggest that marriage, fidelity, self-serving, legacy, and obedience to God are more "shades of gray", than "black and white". What God instructs and what men do are two different things, God not always being "crystal clear". Besides....the God of the OT is not the one I'm beholden to. My question is why is the God of the NT more congenial and less "fire and brimstone" than the NT God?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I suggest that marriage, fidelity, self-serving, legacy, and obedience to God are more "shades of gray", than "black and white". What God instructs and what men do are two different things, God not always being "crystal clear". Besides....the God of the OT is not the one I'm beholden to. My question is why is the God of the NT more congenial and less "fire and brimstone" than the NT God?

yet, you keep using the comments of the fire and brimestone OT God as an excuse to ignore the demands of Matthew 19 which comes from the congenial NT God.....

 

[poet]

yet, you keep using the comments of the fire and brimestone OT God as an excuse to ignore the demands of Matthew 19 which comes from the congenial NT God.....

Wasn't Jesus' instruction solely for those who choose to marry? Man to woman? Were "eunuchs' an euphemism for homosexuals? One doesn't know, does one?
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

This could be interpreted as better to "cleve" to one's own kind, "fellow homosexuals" , if one is homosexual, than to lie, and cheat, being in a loveless, thankless marriage of convenience with a woman, if that is not where your heart is.
And he didn't command as much as suggest.

 

[Timshel]

????....no he didn't...

He did. The passage has been cited.

he said divorce was wrong and remarrying after divorce was adultery......his disciples said if that were true it would be better not to marry......he said, then remain celibate......nothing at all to do with castrating yourself.....

He was speaking of eunuchs.

and to you "foreign" means a different race?......the original text uses goyim, in Greek gentile.....it means someone who isn't Jewish.....

It talks about how they took wives and husbands from the people of the foreign lands. It has little to do with their faith, which could change and if that were the only issue then why not just demand that they convert, and even counseled to put away their children.

/shrugs....I'm just pointing at the lies you spread and educating our readers.....

You are quite full of shit and trying to mislead.

 

[Timshel]

Well, lets put your two homo's on an island by themselves and see how many kids they produce.....
and I don't mean howey and some lesbian....even that would be unlikey to produce a normal human kid.

Then we'll talk about truth....and nature...

It is not relevant. You were going on about how polygamy, castration and celibacy are about sex and not marriage. Well, having a kid is achieved through the joining of fertile sperm and egg not by marriage of one man and one woman.

 

[DamnYankee]

...
Extracted from the series West Wing, President Bartlet delivered a KO on an anti gay practitioner highlighting the ridiculous practice of selecting quotes from the Bible to shore up irrational prejudices. Hello, PMP.

Selecting quotes from a liberal television show to shore up irrational prejudices. Hello, Poet.

 

[Timshel]

Selecting quotes from a liberal television show to shore up irrational prejudices. Hello, Poet.

That's right, one's irrational prejudices may only be "shored up" with references to a book that presents morality through tales of genocide, slavery and misogyny of a "chosen" people.

 

[DamnYankee]

That's right, one's irrational prejudices may only be "shored up" with references to a book that presents morality through tales of genocide, slavery and misogyny of a "chosen" people.

No. That's just as retarded.

 

[Timshel]

No. That's just as retarded.

You have resorted to insulting yourself. I win!

 

[Phantasmal]

Moses???? At question is "Abraham", not Moses. Some biblical scholar you are. I suggest that marriage, fidelity, self-serving, legacy, and obedience to God are more "shades of gray", than "black and white". What God instructs and what men do are two different things, God not always being "crystal clear". Besides....the God of the OT is not the one I'm beholden to. My question is why is the God of the NT more congenial and less "fire and brimstone" than the NT God?

My observation is that PMP got his degree in the 70's from a very evangelical ollege and has not furthered his education since. His Biblical knowledge is very behind the times.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

This could be interpreted as better to "cleve" to one's own kind, "fellow homosexuals" , if one is homosexual, than to lie, and cheat, being in a loveless, thankless marriage of convenience with a woman, if that is not where your heart is.
And he didn't command as much as suggest.

Matthew 19 ".......because your hearts were hard"

 

[Red Mule]

What I don't understand is why the hell should we even CARE about what a "Biblical Marriage" is, even putting aside the practices in the bible that are NOT acceptable in our modern western society. I won't even go into all of them because a brief scan of this thread shows most have been already referenced already.

But what I REALLY don't understand is why the religious ideas of any one group of people should have any impact on our country's secular laws at all? If you are "whatever your religion is," but for now we'll assume a Christian, then nobody is saying YOU have to do anything but what you belive to be right. Where I draw the line is when you want to make the laws that apply to ALL of us to adhere to what you think your religious text says. Just when did this country become a theoracy anyway?

If I happen to believe my marriage should consist of three women, two men, and a goat, (all consenting and adult and not under undue influence) just what business is it of yours? How does it change your quality of life or change what you can do with your life. Where are the conservative and libertarian ideals of personal freedom when we talk about this?