Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Which 'biblical Marriage' Are Amendment One Supporters Talking About?


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#1 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,056 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 09:49 AM

http://clclt.com/cha...ent?oid=2655141



Perhaps they think everyone should follow the Biblical "tradition" of a man having a wife and a few concubines; hey, it was good enough for Abraham and Jacob. No, that's not it either? OK, then it must be the Bible's approval of a man having several wives, a la Gideon, Esau or the man-of-700-wives, Solomon. You're shaking your head, no.
Let's see, could Amendment One supporters be talking about the Biblical prescription that a woman who hasn't had any children when her husband dies must marry her brother-in-law and give motherhood a few more shots? No, that can't be it.
Well, then, how about the Bible requirement that slave owners assign female slaves to their male slaves? No, that obviously won't work.
Maybe the anti-gay, "Biblical" crowd is getting behind the rule in Deuteronomy that says a woman must marry a man who rapes her. No? I thought not.
The point? God may have defined marriage in the Bible, but the "definition" was all over the map, so its value as an argument for enforcing a specific type of marriage today is, to be frank, nonsensical.



#2 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,344 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 10:05 AM

lala can't hear you lala

#3 Epistaxis

Epistaxis

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,182 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:06 AM

Posted Image

#4 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,656 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:57 AM

to be fair, theologically speaking the old testament law has been replaced by new testament covenant, so it's really only fair to ascribe NT beliefs to supporters of the amendment

#5 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,056 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 12:03 PM

to be fair, theologically speaking the old testament law has been replaced by new testament covenant, so it's really only fair to ascribe NT beliefs to supporters of the amendment



Not true but on the assumption that it is, you're missing the point which is that the definition of marriage has changed many times even in the Bible so changing it now is not anything new.

Also most Christians quote the OT in regards to why they believe homosexuality is wrong.

#6 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,929 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 12:10 PM

to be fair, theologically speaking the old testament law has been replaced by new testament covenant, so it's really only fair to ascribe NT beliefs to supporters of the amendment


Why would you do that when they keep quoting the "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination." line from Leviticus to prove their point?

#7 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,000 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 12:34 PM

Gotta stop the spread of the Ghey!

Keep them freaks from infectin more people!


And PhillyB is right.

Christ's life and sacrifice abrogated all of the old laws and rules.


I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.



#8 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,733 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 12:48 PM

Jesus said:

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.


Kinda sounds like Jesus is cockblocking for His Dad there. sorta creepy.

#9 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,656 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 10 April 2012 - 12:56 PM

Not true but on the assumption that it is you're missing the point which is that the definition of marriage has changed many times even in the Bible so changing it now is not anything new.

Also most Christians quote the OT in regards to why they believe homosexuality is wrong.


to my knowledge it was never defined in the new testament at all (at least not in the sense it was defined in the old testament.) because of the relationship between the OT and the NT, i'm not sure it's a stable arguing point to suggest that changing definitions negates the argument.

doesn't negate the stupidity, however, of mindless idiots referencing the OT while tossing out gods commandments to go slaughter women and children

#10 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,023 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 10 April 2012 - 01:47 PM

/

#11 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,656 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 10 April 2012 - 01:55 PM

I just cant understand how a fuging book has so much power over billions of people.

Religion was created as a way for powerful people to control everyone else.


incredibly inaccurate over-arching statement

#12 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,733 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 02:17 PM

I think that the long arc of history tends to support chris999's statement overall. Today it's not a big deal but a few hundred years ago when 90 percent of people never went further than 20 miles from their house, the church could control everything, and the leadership could control the church. Promising the peasants a great afterlife if they behave themselves here is about the greatest crowd control idea ever invented.

#13 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,656 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 10 April 2012 - 02:26 PM

i would disagree on the grounds that there is (usually) an enormous difference between the founder and founding intent of a religion and the way it has been exploited politically (often immediately, leading to the widespread association of it with the adopting government's agenda/actions.)

#14 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,656 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 10 April 2012 - 02:29 PM

jesus was overtly apolitical, pissing off the saducees and the pharisees that comprised the two main political factions of his day, for example, but adoption of the religion by empires, and subsequent histories of those empires, has made the adopters' motivations clear.

also i think you have to differentiate between monotheistic religions and poly/pantheistic religions in this case. way more examples of christianity and islam being politicized to control than, say, zoroastrianism or hinduism

#15 cotblock

cotblock

    Don't Call Me Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Location34.887133,-81.00769

Posted 10 April 2012 - 02:49 PM

There's no doubt that from around the middle of the third century onward, the Christian church became much more about power and politics than spirituality. They struggled for power until Constantine became Emperor of Rome and had his "vision." He then gave the church the foothold it needed and it hasn't been about spirituality since. The mystic branches have maintained a focus on spirituality, but that's true in every religion. Apart from the mystics, it's nothing but power and control.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.