Defending Biblical Marriage (?)

[Pi]

Well I think you shouldn't be so harsh... Put all these commands in the right time! In these days there was no State to protect people, so another Power was ruling society and that was the religious power. And there was nothing worse for a woman than her husband to die and leave her without any income. So the brother was taking care of here. Don't forget this is about 3000 years ago. The world is changing and so does the c(C)hurch.
I think you shouldn't be so narrowsighted and only look at these sayings with your wisdom and knowledge and morals. Because otherwise you're not better then the people still believing in these sayings!

[Happy Monkey]

It would be nice if more people took that stance. The rules in the Bible were written for a completely different civilization and time. Whether something is supported or discouraged in the Bible shouldn't be relevant to whether it should be allowed in 21st century America.

That's not to say that all Biblical rules should be broken, just that they need to be able to stand on their own with no regard to the Bible.

[vsp]

Originally posted by Pi
The world is changing and so does the c(C)hurch.

There are legions of people out there who will kick, scream, harass, donate money, picket and cast votes specifically to ensure that c(C)hurches and contemporary religious views in general do _not_ change with the times.

If people like that did not exist, the world would be a better place.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by vsp


There are legions of people out there who will kick, scream, harass, donate money, picket and cast votes specifically to ensure that c(C)hurches and contemporary religious views in general do _not_ change with the times.

If people like that did not exist, the world would be a better place.

To borrow a link I used in another thread:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/
http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

These people, just, damn...

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Speaking for the total heathens, it's a great exercise to build your very own moral code based on philosophical principles instead of fairy tales. I heartily recommend it.

Something I'm reading right now...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846



From Publishers Weekly
Drawing on evolutionary psychology, Skeptic publisher and Scientific American contributor Shermer (Why People Believe Weird Things) argues that the sources of moral behavior can be traced scientifically to humanity's evolutionary origins. He contends that human morality evolved as first an individual and then a species-wide mechanism for survival. As society evolved, humans needed rules governing behavior-e.g., altruism, sympathy, reciprocity and community concern-in order to ensure survival. Shermer says that some form of the Golden Rule-"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"-provides the foundation of morality in human societies. Out of this, he develops the principles of what he calls a "provisional ethics" that "is neither absolute nor relative," that applies to most people most of the time, while allowing for "tolerance and diversity." According to the "ask-first" principle, for instance, the performer of an act simply asks its intended receiver whether the act is right or wrong. Other principles include the "happiness" principle ("always seek happiness with someone else's happiness in mind"), the liberty principle ("always seek liberty with someone else's liberty in mind") and the moderation principle ("when innocent people die, extremism in the defense of anything is no virtue, and moderation in the protection of everything is no vice"). Shermer's provisional ethics might reflect the messy ways that human moral behavior developed, but his simplistic principles establish a utilitarian calculus that not everyone will find acceptable. 35 b&w illus.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[BrianR]

Originally posted by Shattered Soul
* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found),
a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen
19:31-36)

Actually, I looked this one up just for ha-has. you should really include 19:37-38 as well...they tell of the results.

To wit: (this is ALL of 31-38)

And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.


Thus is it written in my Book of Genesis. Things got kinda racy in those days, neh?

Brian

[Shattered Soul]

Originally posted by Kitsune
I'm a pagan, so all that christian stuff doesn't apply to me

Is that how it works? If I just drop the whole "religion thing" or change to another one, the rules no longer apply? Hot damn!

Silly little "rules to control the masses" don't fly in Paganism, thank Goddess. We sum up "play nice" in a single sentence.

[Shattered Soul]

Originally posted by lumberjim
join my church.

we're Pickandchoosists. you just take what you like from wherever you like it, and try to be a good person. Don;t persecute others based on their religious beliefs, and you get to go to whichever heaven you feel most comfortable with.....nirvana, valhala, heaven, whatever. and you dont have to go to church or anything.

You sound like either a Pagan or a Unitarian Universalist

[Shattered Soul]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


Something I'm reading right now...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846



From Publishers Weekly
Drawing on evolutionary psychology, Skeptic publisher and Scientific American contributor Shermer (Why People Believe Weird Things) argues that the sources of moral behavior can be traced scientifically to humanity's evolutionary origins. He contends that human morality evolved as first an individual and then a species-wide mechanism for survival. As society evolved, humans needed rules governing behavior-e.g., altruism, sympathy, reciprocity and community concern-in order to ensure survival. Shermer says that some form of the Golden Rule-"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"-provides the foundation of morality in human societies. Out of this, he develops the principles of what he calls a "provisional ethics" that "is neither absolute nor relative," that applies to most people most of the time, while allowing for "tolerance and diversity." According to the "ask-first" principle, for instance, the performer of an act simply asks its intended receiver whether the act is right or wrong. Other principles include the "happiness" principle ("always seek happiness with someone else's happiness in mind"), the liberty principle ("always seek liberty with someone else's liberty in mind") and the moderation principle ("when innocent people die, extremism in the defense of anything is no virtue, and moderation in the protection of everything is no vice"). Shermer's provisional ethics might reflect the messy ways that human moral behavior developed, but his simplistic principles establish a utilitarian calculus that not everyone will find acceptable. 35 b&w illus.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

So do you ascribe to the ideas in the book, or are you just reading it for fun?


To everyone:

In a similar vein, I wonder how many people here (and I'm saying "here" because this is where I am) actually walk the walk of the talk they talk. It's easy to say, "I ascribe to this belief/This is how I see things," but I wonder what the discrepancy is between what you "believe" and how strictly you adhere to those beliefs for yourself. Lots of people say that "this is how things should be" but REALLY mean "This is how things should be, except for me, unless I choose to conveniently follow this belief so as to make some kind of point."

For instance, I'm going to use an example that I've found here: unfaithfulness. I wonder how many of the people who denounce unfaithfulness have actually ever BEEN unfaithful? If so, what's your excuse (or "justification" if you prefer)? I thought of this example because I've seen it here a bit, and the idea of " the "happiness" principle ("always seek happiness with someone else's happiness in mind") would have to do with something like that.

For instance, is cheating unacceptable behavior
UNLESS your spouse/SO is a bitch/asshole?

UNLESS you start thinking you made a mistake and want out, but don't want to have to be the one to do it?

UNLESS you start thinking, "hey, this marriage/dating thing is too much responsiblility, I can't take it"?

UNLESS you find someone you like better?

UNLESS you have problems in the relationship and, instead of dealing with them, you'd rather just bail because it's easier?


See what I mean? People who are vehemently against infidelity will use these excuses when they violate the beliefs they profess, because their situation is SPECIAL.

Any comments?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Shattered Soul



So do you ascribe to the ideas in the book, or are you just reading it for fun?

I haven't read enough of it to agree with the content, but I like the idea and it falls in line with my studies, research an ideas.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by BrianR


Actually, I looked this one up just for ha-has. you should really include 19:37-38 as well...they tell of the results.

To wit: (this is ALL of 31-38)

And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.


Thus is it written in my Book of Genesis. Things got kinda racy in those days, neh?

Brian

If I recall correctly, incest was not a problem until later on in the bible. In fact, it was needed twice: During Adam and Eve's time (Cain married his sister. Duh.) and after the flood. There is a passage (I'm not sure where it is and I don't have my bible with me at work) that says something about not being allowed to interbreed anymore. But up until that time, it was not a bad thing to do yer daddy.

[Skunks]

I like how this is going. It might be a flash in the pan, but the amount of media coverage and the number of places starting to allow homosexual marriage looks positive.

<a href="http://www.dailyemerald.com/">My school paper</a> was made up mostly of reports about the subject. In particular, the folks in Portland who found a <a href="http://www.dailyemerald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/03/04/4047426bcc8ff">loophole or whatever</a> in the Oregon constitution. It gives me the feeling of one of those crazy social revolutions, though it might still be too early to say.

I was going to write something about how silly the arguments against homosexual marriages are, but the Economist articles pretty much sum up how I feel.

[warch]

I'm an optimist. I think the San Fransisco strategy is going to pay off well. Instead of seeing a horrible, gruesome gay freakshow, you see average normal people, couples and families with kids that have been together and loving each other for years, celebrating their lives. Its making the injustice visible. Shows that the fears are out of wack. The hate spewing protester waving his poster about bestiality, screaming at the happy, peaceful couple holding their small child....its going to be very hard to go back now. Those who got hitched make me proud. I'm cheering them on.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's even making waves in China.