From a Beliefnet interview:
And the same thing would be true of marriage. Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?
Christians and modern Jews do not approve of polygamy, but surely anyone who believes in the Bible has to acknowledge that it attests to the widespread existence of marriage between a man and multiple women. (Nor is Huckabee just saying "a man and a woman" as a slip for "heterosexual"; immediately after this, he goes on to distinguish "a man and three women.")
Now of course we see polygamy in plenty of cultures in recent human history as well — Islamic cultures, some American Indian cultures, and many more. And of course we have lots of historical evidence of men and women in a relationship that is not for life; consider ancient Rome, or for that matter the growing tolerance for divorce in Western Christian cultures over what is now centuries (remember Henry VIII?). But it's striking that here Huckabee is forgetting what is described in the Bible itself.
I should stress that none of this responds to the traditionalist case built on longstanding American or Christian traditions of heterosexual monogamy, or for that matter to a traditionalist case built on longstanding broad traditions of not treating homosexual unions as marriages. But Huckabee seems to be deliberately trying to make an appeal to supposedly universal (at least nearly universal) traditions that go beyond just rejection of same-sex marriage. And that appeal is just factually unfounded, as his own religious histories and his own profession (as minister) should teach him.
UPDATE: I had thought I'd made this clear in the original post, but let me repeat it: I'm objecting to Huckabee's "historical[]" claims, and saying they're inconsistent with the Bible's own account of history. I am not responding to Huckabee's moral claims; I am criticizing his attempt to buttress his moral claims with what strike me as factually unsound (and Biblically contradicted) assertions about what has been the case throughout "human history."
FURTHER UPDATE: My colleague Stephen Bainbridge (who's considerably more conservative on social issues than I am) agrees.
The Bible itself provides for divorce, and it's not like other cultures and religions have never heard of divorce. But then, one should never let the facts get in the way of a good round of pandering.
Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?
I look forward to his proposal to make divorce illegal. Of course, that will never happen because there are enough divorced voters out there to make Huckabee conveniently forget about that particular tradition.
Wouldn't this all go away if marriage were strictly a religious affair (of whatever type is endorsed by the participants) and a civil contractual affair (of whatever type of contract they chose to execute)?
Point taken. I do, however, think that this is part of a larger phenomenon, in which fundamentalists construct a mythical history on which to base their beliefs. Consider, for example, the frequent claim that the Ten Commandments form the basis for our legal system. Even without knowing anything of the history of law, one can see that this is false, since almost all of them would clearly be unconstitutional and/or contrary in other ways to our legal tradition, e.g. by creating thought crimes. And of course they say nothing about such critical aspects of our legal system as the right to due process.
I think that there may actually be forms of polygamy that are corporate. If my understanding is correct (and it may not be), in Tibetan polyandry, in which the usual case is that several brothers marry one woman (the economic effect of which is to reduce the division of land into ridiculously small plots), the marriage is corporate rather than a set of pairings of the woman with the individual men.
But then so is the doctrine of 'sola scriptura.' Texts never interpret themselves.
>>There's much to what you say about the degree to which even though who claim the Bible is literally true actually depart from its literal words . . .
Why do Baptists oppose premarital sex?--They're afraid it will lead to dancing. (Old one. Sorry.)
I've never gotten a good answer to this one: Why do Biblical literalists believe that Christ can teach with parables, yet the Bible cannot? I mean, what is the /doctrinal/ reason. Since the /practical/ reason is that this would force an admission that understanding the Bible requires the reader to come to the text with an interpretive framework. And once one admits that, "sola scriptura" is out the window: Any method of interpreting a text has to come from outside that text itself.
With this teaching from Paul, polygamy in the new and growing Christian community was extinguished. That would be a little less than 2000 years ago.
While the Old Testament details the existence of polygamy, it is never condoned. And everyone who engaged in it suffered for it in the form of family strife. Abraham (Sarah sent Hagar and Ishmael away); Jacob (the sons of Leah mistreated the favored son, Joseph, of the favored wife, Rachel); David (there was rape, incest, and murder between his children)
I suppose Huckabee should have said "as long as there’s been a Christian history."
Also, everyone in the Jewish Bible that walked on two feet suffered from family strife. Perhaps a biblical regression analysis could isolate the true cause of family strife.
Right on, brother. We all know that government can't regulate anything unless the government has a compelling interest in doing so.
Some would argue first of all that the government actually is supposed to generally do what 'the people' tell it to do; second, that social institutions and culture are important things in the life of a nation or a community; and third that that in a representational democracy, 'the people' have some inherent right to determine the general shape of the community in which they live, expressing their individual desires collectively through government actions that help to shape those social institutions and the culture.
But all of us who are enlightened know that they have no right to tell us to do anything unless the government can show a compelling interest to do so. Reactionaries...
Regarding strife, nearly all marriages (and individuals) in the bible suffer from much strife. Very few individuals in the bible live happily ever after. I thus wouldn't draw the conclusions you do.
first actual prohibition on multiple wives is only about 1000 years old. That prohibition (initially temporary and local to Germany) later became almost universal, though some Jewish communities, especially the Yemenites, did not accept it (even though they are subject to it in practice since almost all modern governments enforce such a prohibition). The bible has specific rules on forced marriages with war-captured women (you must give them a year to mourn their dead husbands first). The Talmud discusses divorce and inheritance in polygamous households.
I read Huck as being lawyerly/Clintonesque on this one.
The language doesn't clearly exclude poly-marriage ("a man and a woman" can be properly read to include "1 man and 2 women" but not "1 man and 1 man"), nor does it close the door on "early outs" ("for life" just precludes "for a term certain").
Of course, that's slimy in a Beliefnet interview as opposed to a VC one.
I don't think Huckabee was speaking to the Patent Office. I doubt he'd support that interpretation if asked a follow-up question.
Or when a lot of people think one of them ought to be president. Huckabee's observations on anything are worth considering only because they tell us something frightening about democracy. After all, this is the guy who said that most of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence were clergy (right answer: one of them). Not that many of the other candidates are any better when they discuss things like free trade. I can't manage to care much about which of these people wins the election, but the quality of the pool as a whole is worth worrying about.
I think he very well might have being weasel-y - why else would he have avoided the cliched "ONE man and ONE woman" construction? Is that really less likely than an fairly intelligent preacher/politician forgetting about poly marriage in the bible?
I have not read the interview, but I'll give 20:1 odds Huckabee was speaking about gay marriage and not polygamy.
Whatever else you can say about Huckabee (and I don't say many nice things), he does know his Bible and playing grammarian "gotcha" seems a bit silly to me.
And let's not forget the death-punishable biblical prohibition on shrimp.
17. Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18. But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20. these are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
First, the issue being addressed in the interview is whether the definition of marriage should be expanded to include homosexuals or protected from such by a constitutional amendment. Huckabee's remark is addressed to the heterosexuality of marriage not to its being between a single man and a single woman.
Second, Huckabee is clearly speaking of norms, not practices. If Huckabee had claimed that there was a historical defintion of murder as the intentional taking of life with malice aforethought, would Prof. Volokh claim that Huckabee was ignorant of the Bible's account of Cain and Able and the Roman practice of assasination?
Finally, Jesus provides a normative Christian interpretation of the history of marriage in Mt 19, where he teaches that the nature of marriage as a unity between a man and a woman was established in creation and provides the guiding framework for understanding marriage against contrary practices and even contrary permissive principles of the Mosaic law:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 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'?
Prof. Volokh doesn't have to recognize this norm, but he ought to know that Huckabee does.
idiocymisunderstanding is common throughout the South.Huckabee truly believes what he said. He's not being slimy, at least not intentionally. He's just spouting off at the mouth.
A mistake made by many of the posters, especially those citing to OT examples of polygamy and divorce, is to confuse the historical with the ethical or moral. There's a lot of history in the Bible that is not recorded with approval. So the Jews of Moses time practice polygamy. They also practiced idolatry. No one confuses that historical reality with "biblical truth."
FWIW, I'm not a Huckabee supporter. But I think on this one, he knew more about what the Bible -- at least from the Christian perspective -- teaches than those who have criticized him. This wasn't one of Eugene's finer moments.
blcjr, You are absolutely correct, but I believe Professor Volokh's point is that Huckabee specifically made a historical point, not an ethical or moral one ("As long as there's been human history".
If a fundamentalist like Huckabee were to preach a sermon on Biblical Marriage as a model for today, he wouldn't find a single text to base his sermon on. The closest would be the hectoring Job suffered at the hands of his wife! There simply is no marriage recounted in the Bible that could serve as a model for what Huckabee's "ideal" American marriage.
The real relationship model is that of Jesus and Paul, who of course were single, the latter damning marriage with the faint praise of being better than burning in Hell.
In the PTO the phrase "a man and a woman," assuming the standard preamble, "A marital unit comprising:" would typically be interpreted as "at least one man and at least one woman" unless, of course, the applicant clearly provided another definition for either "a man" or "a woman" in the application.
Just sayin'.
blcjr: Huckabee was not, in the passage I quote, making simply a moral claim. He was making precisely a historical assertion, trying to use supposedly universal tradition as a guide for what we should continue to do: "Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life." But that historical claim is simply wrong; regardless of whether heterosexual monogamy is the only morally sound form of marriage (or for that matter the only socially constructive one), it is not the only historically recognized one.
2. I think that Paul in Timothy says something to the effect that deacons &bishops should be men with one wife, suggesting that he regarded polygamy as acceptable in the ordinary believer. Clergy didn't have to be celibate, quite, just stop at one.
3. I was told by a Mormon that in the days of polygamy the first wife had rank on the others, and the husband was expected to get her consent before marry others, so there was something of a corporate nature to it.
4. G B Shaw had an interesting point, that in any society that is somewhat democratic, polygamy will be outlawed, because for every man with four wives there will be three men condemned to involuntary celibacy. They will outlaw the idea so as to force a more equitable (to them) division of wives. I think early Utah was an exception, because women outnumbered men.
5. I read somewhere that in certain areas of Germany, after the 30 years war which brutally impacted the areas and drastically reduced the number of surviving young men relative to that of surviving young women, the (R. Catholic) bishops gave a dispensation for polygamy, Monogamy was a command of the church, not of God, and thus could be dispensed with, and in this extreme was outranked by the direct divine order to "be fruitful and multiply."
Certain American areas could have used this in 1865. As I recall there were some counties in the Carolinas where 90% of the men of military age were killed off, with the result that 90% of the women would never marry.
True, but the comment I was responding to took a broad view including the accepted and mundane. The division of the estate of a person who dies intestate is hardly obscure.
I tend to think that it's a benefit to the public when any group of people define themselves as a family and pledge themselves to each others welfare and to pay each others debts. Sexual relations within the group (abuse excluded) are not so relevant. It's difficult, however, since the conventional view of marriage and family is assumed in quite a lot of law, e.g. labor law, property rights, privacy rights, etc.
Due to high profile cases, there is currently a view that sexual abuse of children is more common in polygamous families. I don't know if that would stand up to close scrutiny, but as a society we prevent many things that are not harmful in themselves but which are perceived to foster trouble. Many of these are controversial to some degree, e.g. gun control.
If you actually read the Bible, we see that Genesis 2:24 states: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."
If you're reading "historically" we see that from the very beginning...well okay the 6th day into the beginning the desired situation was monogamous marriage. So the historical claim is correct. That men went ahead and did their own thing is no new news...it is no surprise, and it does not undermine the claim.
There is a difference in scripture between prescriptive and descriptive truth. The Bible tells us what actually happened, and also what we should actually do. These are not always the same. Polygomy in the Bible begins with the story of Lamech, which granted was early in human history, but we also see Lamech is hardly a man worth emulating as he sings of his killing a "boy." It should not be forgotten that for such wickedness the world was destroyed. "Now the Earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the Earth was filled with violence."
Polygomy was practiced by as we see many of the patriarchs and powerful people, that norm is somewhat common throughout history, although it does not justify or excuse it. If we look to actual middle class life, we see, for example in the story of Ruth, in the story of Uriah the Hittite we see that he has but one wife. Even in Proverbs it's fairly apparent that the "wise" model is to have one wife...even if Solomon did not follow that wisdom himself. Noting however that as the proverbs state that lapse in judgment led to even greater problems.
And quite frankly Huckabee's reading of Scripture is absolutley correct "Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life." The beginning of human history was that 6th day, and we see in Scripture that from that 6th day the meaning of marriage has been one man one woman.
King David had 8 wives and he seemed to get on fairly well with the Lord.
If it was good enough for Solomon, it's good enough for me. I think Huckabee should move on to things expressly prohibited by Mosaic Law -- like cheeseburgers, and pepperoni pizza.
Hoosier asks the question “I've never gotten a good answer to this one: Why do Biblical literalists believe that Christ can teach with parables, yet the Bible cannot? I mean, what is the /doctrinal/ reason.”
I have an answer to Hoosier’s question. There are no Biblical literalists as he defines them. Baptists speak loosely about the literal truth of the Bible – but as a matter of religious discipline believe only that the book of Genesis need be interpreted literally. Any other Book can be interpreted in any other way that is not inconsistent with Baptist tradition.
The requirement that Genesis be interpreted literally is in the foundational document of the Baptist church, the Baptist Confession of 1904. It was added to confront Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Don't forget cotton/poly blend shirts.
Let's be honest. EV's post is a criticism, not of Huckabee's knowledge of history, but of the religious values underpinning the governor's support of "one man, one woman" marriage. The point is: "Even the Bible, which you claim to rely on, doesn't support your vision of marriage." And that point is not fair when the Bible's teaching on marriage is considered in its entirety, as other commenters have noted.
Unfortunately, I think such
idiocymisunderstanding is common throughout the South.Are you serious in saying that it's common for Southerners not to understand that the original manuscripts of Scripture weren't in English? I would accuse you of prejudice, but I guess we fundamentalist hicks are the only ones capable of that.
Zacharias,
Here are a couple of good explanations: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap080400.htm
That statement could just as well have come from an opponent of the abolitionist movement in 19th century America. Are we prepared to say that all laws motivated in part by religious sentiment are unconstitutional? I guess when it comes to civic participation, only secularists need apply.
Why not take Huckabee's words literally (ahem) "Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life." That is clearly factually inaccurate, even in the context of the bible. You can read into it all you want, of course, but EVs point is pretty obvious- Huckabee is picking and choosing his biblical frameworks. Hardly unusual, but that doesnt mean it should pass unremarked. Huck needs to choose his words more judiciously.
The claims of fundamentalist Christians that they simply follow the Bible is patent nonsense. They frequently prohibit practices that area clearly endorsed in the Bible, such as polygamy, dancing, and drinking, and they pick and choose the prohibitions that they wish to enforce.
But then so is the doctrine of 'sola scriptura.' Texts never interpret themselves.
That's why I like being a Catholic. We have the history, the scripture, and the right method of interpretation and balance between each.
The late Pope John Paul II expounded on this point in great detail, in a teaching which is popularly called "The Theology of the Body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Body
To be fair (that's been said a lot in this thread it seems)
The original doctrine of sola scriptura (at least as I know of it from Martin Luther) didn't foreclose interpretations, it foreclosed what Luther saw as entirely extra-biblical practices in the catholic church of the time. Most notably thing such as the sale of indulgences.
The sola scriptura of modern evangelicals is similar in some ways but quite different in others, at least in results.
But to take Huckabee's comment literally would attribute to him an error that no one honestly thinks he is making. Do we truly understand Huckabee to say that forms of marriage other than heterosexual monogamy have never existed? Do we really believe he is unaware that some people in the Bible had multiple wives? To criticize the literal import of his statment is to make him either appallingly ignorant or shamelessly dishonest, and that's simply not fair in this context. He's clearly making a statement that since creation, marriage was meant to be between one man and one woman. That it was not always practiced as such does not change its normative meaning. The fact that Huckabee isn't being given the benefit of the doubt on this shows that the commenters are driven, not by indignation over a mistaken history, but over a disagreement with his religious values. And I think it reveals the bias of many who insist religion shouldn't count, except to disqualify those silly evangelicals.
I think his words are, perhaps, poorly chosen but, accepting the bible as true, he is factually correct.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 2: 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Matthew 19:4-6 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh.
So, according to the bible, God established marriage at the beginning of creation as a covenant between one man and one woman.
I suppose you will come back by redefining "thousands of years of Western morality" to mean only the bits of Western morality you personally happen to agree with. Sorry, but no.
Thats if you assume it was a mistake instead of an intentional attempt to spin the subject. I assume he knows the facts. I assume he knows them well enough and is smart enough to say "the ideal marriage is between a man and a woman" instead of insinuating, no stating, that the practice has always been so.
Huckabee is getting the brunt of this, but this is an issue many of us have had with evangelicals for years. There is a decided strategy of 'interpretting' biblical sources and portraying the result as simple fact. If you are going to take liberties you better explain why and how. Explain the reasoning, dont just make arguments of authority.
Huckabee's language is a little loose. In parts of your post, you read it as making an empircal claim about marriage practices around the world over the ages and about the content of stories in the Bible.
I read his claim as being about the meaning of marriage. Huckabee himself says "meant." The context of the interview and his words suggest that he's making an interpretive or normative claim about what marriage "means."
But in any case the assertions that he's "forgotten" what's in the Bible and hasn't "paid attention" to it strike me as stretching the meaning beyond what it will support. Imagine for example, how he would respond to this question, "Hey, haven't you forgotten that there was polygamy in the Bible? Haven't you failed to pay attention to the Bible?" It's pretty clear from the interview how he'd respond to that.
I also think the poster who mentioned the relationship between monogamy and women's right was dead on. Polygamy (polygyny) most definitely has a tendency in practice to make women spoils for powerful/wealthier men, to make them more passive participants bordering on mere possessions. Doesn't sound like much of the vaunted free "contract" the libertarian purists support (which BTW I am not 100% opposed to).
Again, in practice, monogamy raised the value (and therefore power)of an individual woman.
Once overtly arranged marriages began giving way to to the selection of a spouse based on romantic love (which also arose out of the Christian notions of chivalry and spillover effects of the respect for Mary), the power of the woman was further increased because her real consent became more important, compared to the old deals between her father and prospective husband.
Feminists actually owe a great deal to the traditions they normally spit on.
That is what he said.
Do we really believe he is unaware that some people in the Bible had multiple wives? To criticize the literal import of his statment is to make him either appallingly ignorant or shamelessly dishonest, and that's simply not fair in this context.
I think I would give the alternative explanation of pandering to the ignorant, of whom there are many.
I believe the wise response to EV on Huckabee is simply to say that one could cherrypick this stuff from every candidate, including his favored one. And this is a lot less descriptively objectionable than other stuff like rejecting evolution.
I believe the unwise response is to try to defend the substance of the comments as being accurate.
For a Catholic, the Pope is infallible when deciding matters about the church. Therefore, any Papal decrees effectively amend the Bible, as they are God's instructions as passed thru the Pope. IIRC, it was Siricius that essentially banned Catholic priests to marry, although the Nicene and Elviran Councils had laid the groundwork for it. All appeals to theologians aside, as far as I was taught (I am a lapsed Catholic) the main ideal behind the ban was to prevent dynastic succession throughout the Church, and therefore to reduce the incidence of corruption.
R/
Pol
But Huckabee said "as long as there’s been human history". That assumedly doesnt simply include Genesis to Deuteronomy, and then New Testament to the present. There was undeniably a period in human history (well documented in the bible) where the practice of polygamy was accepted. Hence Huck is simply factually wrong.
And lets step back for a minute- Huckabee obviously knows this. He is intentionally ignoring that period because it doesnt suit his argument. Its beneath him. He could easily have made a more factual (and i think more persuasive) argument by saying something like "since the Garden of Eden, humanity has held the ideal of marriage to be one man and one woman, as per the Lord". Obviously he preferred to make a more sweeping and less accurate generalization to support his argument, but in doing so he was just plain wrong.
You say, "Therefore, any Papal decrees effectively amend the Bible . . . ." Is the doctrine of infallibility that broad? I thought it's only when the Pope speaks ex cathedra and not for "any decree." Also, haven't the number of expressly infallible pronouncements been very small?
Right on the second point, but not on the first. On this miscopnception, one needs to read the parts of "Brideshead Revisited" in which Rex is taking instruction in the Faith. Rather funny, since he is trying to tell his instructor what he THINKS the Church wants to hear from an initiate. I don't have the text with me. But something like this:
Priest: "So if the Pope says something is true does that mean that it is true?"
Rex: "Absolutley, father!"
P: "Anything he says?"
R: "That's right."
P: "Well, what if he says it will rain tomorrow?"
R: "Then it will rain."
P: But what if it DOESN'T?"
R: (Pause)"Well then it is raining in some spiritual way, but we are too sinful to see it."
As to amending the Bible, the Catholic Church has no means of doing so, ever.
But celirical celibacy WAS introduced in the Middle Ages in an attempt to prevent clerics from passing waelth on to their children. The idea was that they'd then be less likely to seek out wealth in the first place. It worked well in Ireland. Better in Germany than in France or Italy.
1. Huckabee used the phrase: "Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life." Doesn't the word "meant" require interpretation? To me, that word could have referred to either historical practice (as you suggest) or an ethical aspiration. So I think there are at least two valid interpretations of what he said. I don't mean to be cavalier about it, but anyone interpreting that sentence has to decide what "meant" meant. And is there a word in the English language more indeterminate than "meaning"?
2. If you have not already, can you please do a post on the use of "a historical" versus "an historical"? That one drove us nuts on law review. There was some stuff on google about it, but not super-reliable. The Supreme Court seems to prefer "a historical" at a 2-1 rate, but counting up hits on Westlaw isn't conclusive because sometimes a case will quote a book title that uses the opposite of what the opinion author prefers.
Actually there's another strand of Western morality that has nothing to do with the Bible and in part predates it (or parts of it), which holds that one ought to leave other people to their own devices in matters of consensual sexual relations and allow equal liberty for all. Some people would like to overthrow that strand because they think gay people are icky and threatening.
"That's why I like being a Catholic. We have the history, the scripture, and the right method of interpretation and balance between each."
Well I'm glad that's settled. I was wondering which approach was right.
One thing to remember -- economically polygamy always favors high class men and low class women at the expense of low class men and high class women. High class men get access to more women and low class women become competitive to getting a share of the high class man. High class women find new competition for the good guys, and low class men find a drastic reduction in the number of possible mates.
I read a paper once [title long forgotten] that this may have been a part of the success of Islamic armies in the 700-1400 timeframe. Since multiple wives was specifically permitted in the Quran it was hard to turn if off when it came time to establish a stable civilization. In most places multiple wives were great when conquering an area, but gradually gave way to monogamy after the conquest was done (the Saxon conquest of Briton is a good example). Moslem societies were rarely able make this transistion. Their societies always had lots of young, low class men with no prospect of getting a woman at home. That demographic combination is always trouble. However if they could just crush the infidels down the road there would be plenty of women to go around.
The corollary to that may be that that's also why Islamic societies have so much trouble becoming stable democracies, even today. That group of lower class males with no prospect of marriage still looks to destabilize their society, and are willing to risk life and limb to do it. The 19 9/11 hijackers were SINGLE moslem men, most from Saudi Arabia, one country where polygamy still takes a good number of women out of the marriage pool.
That's an interesting theory, I'd never thought of that before.
For a Catholic, the Pope is infallible when deciding matters about the church.
This does not sound quite right. I think it is “faith and morals” not “about the church”. Catholics are free to ignore him if he declares “St. Peter’s Basilica” is now “St. Peter’s Pogo Stick”, even if it is technically about the church (although the Brideshead Revisited example is cute too).
Therefore, any Papal decrees effectively amend the Bible, as they are God's instructions as passed thru the Pope.
To second/third it, this this also does not seem quite right. The church at least used to teach that Catholic doctrine could maybe clarify or expand on the bible, not contradict or change what it says.
IIRC, it was Siricius that essentially banned Catholic priests to marry, although the Nicene and Elviran Councils had laid the groundwork for it.
Only as an administrative rule in the Western (Latin) church. Eastern (or uniate churches), that is, those eastern orthodox churches (or parts of churches) that did not break away from Rome, still have more-or-less the same marriage/celibacy rules as regular Eastern Orthodox churches. I lived in Pittsburgh years ago, which has both a latin bishop/diocese and an eastern rite (Carpatho-Ruthenian) Catholic archbishop/archdiocese, and read there about the stink the eastern rite clergy made when the American latin Catholic hierarchy got Rome to require that all new catholic clergy in the new world had to follow western celibacy rules, regardless of rite. And even in the latin rite, married clergy from certain denominations (e.g. Anglican and high Lutheran) can convert to be Catholic priests, at least according to a (single) converted Anglican-to-Catholic priest I knew, also in Pittsburgh.
…the main ideal behind the ban was to prevent dynastic succession throughout the Church, and therefore to reduce the incidence of corruption.
That is exactly what I remember reading also.
You can also start out as an Anglican priest, get married, then convert to Roman Catholicism and be a married Roman Catholic priest. It seems like a giant loophole but apparently the Vatican regards it as totally legitimate.
Well, I can explain the doctrine, but then I'm an ex-Catholic, so maybe that doesn't count.
However, since this is a thread about marriage, it would have been more cogent to have asked a Cathoic to explain the Catholic doctrine of marriage.
I can remmeber that one, too. Marriage is rated a sacrament not because Jesus said anything much about it (it's pretty clear he wasn't much on heterosexual sex) but because his attendance at the marriage at Cana showed he approved of it.
Pretty thin as an endorsement.
Anyhow, when it comes to Southern Baptists, practice and public declamation diverge about 180 degrees. I dunno where country music (a heavily Baptist art form) would be without divorce.
If not, am I the only one noting the irony that most participants seem to lean towards originalism in the Constitution but believe in (or at least believe Christians should believe in) a "living Bible", wherein we can wear poly blends and not stone adulterers?
And while I am myself a Constitutional originalist, a Biblical originalist (a "fundamentalist") could claim (ad argumentum) that his source document is divinely inspired if not dictated. I have no such defense.
Government that does what the people "tell it to do" is simply mob rule and the tyranny of the majority. If the majority prefer vanilla, and ban chocolate, government sets up conditions for conflict and strife.
It is because I agree that "social institutions and culture are important things in the life of a nation or a community" that I think that need to be taken out of the realm of government. To avoid being tyrannical, government must be inclusive as possible, which opens any government endorsement open to the challenges of the smallest of fringe groups. If government restricts its endorsement to the obvious and necessary, the people are free to use the power of moral suasion and association to protect their society.
And while I agree that the people have the "inherent right to determine the general shape of the community in which they live", I deny them the right to use the exclusive, coercive and putative powers of government to enforce their preferences. They must depend upon their protected rights of free association, approbation, and moral suasion for enforcement.
I agree completely. Which is why I think that the issue of "marriage" relationships can be dealt with in an inclusive manner in civil law, protecting the rights of the participants, without needlessly dictating the exclusive form of those relationships.
It is my observation that most people could care less what type of contractual relationships gay people enter into. Those defending "marriage" do so because they (a) (properly) resent people not of their faith defining the sacraments of their religion, and (b) (improperly) resent people obtaining special benefits granted by the government to certain classes of relationships.
By taking government out of the business of endorsing religious concepts, and ceasing to grant special rights to certain classes, government takes away the spoils that are being fought over. The result would be to allow religious people the dignity of their definitions of marriage without them being forced to redefine them to suit non-practitioners, and to allow people who wish to form non-traditional relationships the right to do so without forcing their views on the rest of us.
If government has an interest in protecting the rights of minor children and dependent "spouses", let it define those protections more exactly without the umbrella of the definition of "marriage".
I am actually a traditionalist, who sees value in the institution of marriage, but thinks it is going to be destroyed by the current conflict.
I can explain the doctrine as well and I am a Lutheran who grew up Episcopal and who used to attend an independent Evangelical chuech. It is not that hard of a doctrine to explain even though most, if not all, prostetants reject it once they hear about it. For those not familiar it says that when was Mary conceived she was without original sin and always lived in a state of grace.
To those who keep commentating on why it is funny that fundamentalist Christians reject the ritual purity laws of the bible you really have to ingnore large parts of the New Testament, which revolves around the idea that when Jesus came a new covenant was established and a lot of the old rules no longer apply. There is the part in Acts where Peter is ordered to eat unclean animals, Collosians 2 with the law being nailed to the cross, the discussions and church councils about gentiles not being circumcised, and the aforementioned passage by Jesus about handwashing. Those are just the first ones off the top of my head, but there are probably more.
There are still some Christians that practice polygamy, but they are not mainstream. Then there is Mormonism, which some consider Christian and which only gave up polygamy because the US government required it for Utah to become a state. Of course some Mormon sects still practice polygamy.
Glory? Do you not see the fruits of your labor? European secularists are dying out. They aren't reproducing at replacement levels. Muslims will soon be the majority. In America, Mormons and Catholic hispanics who believe in family and are against abortion are out-reproducing you. The secular, post-Christian, post-traditional marriage populace is aborting itself into extinction. Where's the glory of empty towns scantily laced with nothing but aging hipsters?
I don't see how Huckabee's comments are contradicted by polygamy. A man marries one woman, and their marriage is for life. He then marries another woman and their marriage is for life. But his two wives are not married to each other. Each marriage is between one man and one woman, it just wasn't exclusive. I'm not carrying water for Huckabee, but I think that's an important clarification.
No.
What Bible are you reading from and what marriages heve you been to?
The only widespread marriages are between one man and one woman - and the New Testament trumps whatever transpired prior.
Certainly, the Bible attests to other historical forms or norms for marriage, i.e. polygamy, and if Huckabee did mean to make a categorical historical statement that marriage has always and only been between one man and one woman throughout history, then he was obviously wrong, and even the Bible demonstrates that. But is Huckabee really that stupid, to be making such an obviously wrong statement, or is it more likely he meant something else, even if he didn't do a good job of articulating what he meant?
Or in other words, Christian "traditionalist" moralizers who-as is typical-display astonishing ignorance about what is actually in the Bible. Why is that exactly? Could it have something to do with the fact that much of Christian moralizing on issues like gay marriage has everything to do with their cultural beliefs and biases, and less to do with the actual Bible itself?
If Christians are supposed to be followers of Jesus why don't they celebrate Passover the way Jesus and the Apostles did?
Seems like a serious oversight to me.
And how about the calendar. Jesus never followed the Roman calendar. Or did he?
And lots of other stuff.
How is your nitpicking interpretation, giving no benefit of the doubt, of an oral statement - which, as you have pointed out several times, are easy to mangle and should be given leeway - any different from Weisberg's many Bushisms that had all the same faults and which you rightly railed against?
I mean, come on - people are getting married in Massachusetts today! How can you claim with a straight face that Huckabee meant that marriage has always been solely between a man and a woman and all other definitions have always been roundly rejected - when alternate definitions are sanctioned by law in our country, right now, today? Do you think he has never heard of Massachusetts? Do you think he doesn't believe in the gay marriages there; they are just a fiction of the MSM(tm)? How could you assume that he meant that?
RE: Say Again, Professor
"UPDATE: I had thought I'd made this clear in the original post, but let me repeat it: I'm objecting to Huckabee's "historical[]" claims, and saying they're inconsistent with the Bible's own account of history. I am not responding to Huckabee's moral claims; I am criticizing his attempt to buttress his moral claims with what strike me as factually unsound (and Biblically contradicted) assertions about what has been the case throughout "human history."" -- Eugene Volohk
No offense intended, but, as we say in the Army, "You're coming through garbled and stupid."
I'm no big fan of Huckabee, but I'm rather familiar with that old Book. And I'm not quite catching your drift here.
Sure, there have been a LOT of instance of polygamy in the Bible. Even Kings David, Solomon, etc., etc., etc.
However, from the Christian perspective, they don't matter.
The example of leadership amongst us mere mortals of the Christian persuasion is written where the leaders of the church must be a man of ONE wife.
Whether this is what you were addressing, I cannot tell for certain as even your 'UPDATE' leaves me confused as to your central premise.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Where there's marriage without love, there will be love without marriage. -- Benjamin Franklin]
RE: Ignorance, Again?
"If Christians are supposed to be followers of Jesus why don't they celebrate Passover the way Jesus and the Apostles did?
Seems like a serious oversight to me." -- M. Simon
Maybe you should read that old Book a bit more closely.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Know your enemy and know yourself and you shall never be defeated. -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War]
Technically, Jesus fulfilled the Passover requirement, but the tradition lives on through the Christian holiday known today as "Easter."
i.e. the blood of a spotless Lamb is shed for the remission of sins
/descended from Mormom Polygamists
RE: Well....
"/descended from Mormom Polygamists" -- Don Miller
....we all have our cross to bear.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Are we learning, yet? -- Young John Conner, Terminator 2]
>>If Christians are supposed to be followers of Jesus why don't they celebrate Passover the way Jesus and the Apostles did?
I'll take this one. Jesus celebrates the Passover in the synoptic Gospels, and then comes the Passion and Crucifixion. But in John, he is killed and his blood is shed, and then he is taken from the cross prior to the Passover. John is making the point that Jesus now *is* the Paschal Sacrifice; the "Lamb of God." Thus John has Jesus say "It is finished," before he dies. That is, the messianic mission of the Incarnation is now complete.
I don't know how "Biblical literalists" deal with the two different chronologies for the most significant events in the history of Christianity. But I hope some VCer has the answer.
That seems like a neat dodge.
What else is optional because Jesus fulfilled the reqmt?
BTW when did Jesus say he had fulfilled the reqmt? I didn't recall that in the bible between the Last Supper and the Resurrection.
But I spend more time studying electronics than the Bible. At least for the last 40 years.
BTW some Christian sects do celebrate Passover. In the original Hebrew. Way cool.
RE: Yeah....Right....
"That seems like a neat dodge." -- M. Simon
We know our Christianity better than you do and when we point that out to you, you claim we're 'dodging'.
I think you're 'projecting' here, compadre.
Maybe, as I suggested, you should do a bit more reading.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[There is nothing to which [most] men will not stoop in order to avoid having to think.]
Who gave Christians permission to change that? Or is this another one of those interpretation deals.
So Jesus says it is finished. Which it was he referring to? Seems like that is open to as much interpretation as "is".
The reason we keep commenting on this is that fundamentalist Christians always rely on the Mosaic prohibitions against homosexuality, while conveniently ignoring the laundry list of other prohibitions, to justify their rejection of gay rights. Granted, Paul wasn't too keen on gay sex either (although he only mentions it twice--and even then it is unclear whether he is referring to all homosexuality or the practice of pederasty), but for something that is barely mentioned in the Bible, and certainly never by Jesus, homosexuality sure ties the fundies in knots.
RE: Another Case of Ignorance....To Go
"The reason we keep commenting on this is that fundamentalist Christians always rely on the Mosaic prohibitions against homosexuality..." -- J.F. Thomas
Better re-read Romans 1 and 2, compadre.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Contrary to popular opinion, ignorance is NOT 'bliss'.]
I have no doubt you know Christian theology better than me.
But would Jesus agree with Christian theology? Or is that just an assumption.
A number of early Christian sects considered Jesus a Prophet. Could they have been right? I mean after all it was a government commission that settled the issue. And you know how those work.
RE: Perhaps....
"So Jesus says it is finished. Which it was he referring to?" -- M. Simon
....He was referring to His task in that venue.
RE: The 'Jewish' Sect
"But we know that for quite a while after Jesus was gone Christians were a Jewish sect." -- M. Simon
Yeah?
When's the last time you read Acts?
"Who gave Christians permission to change that? Or is this another one of those interpretation deals." -- M. Simon
Again....when was the last time you read Acts?
Your ignorance is showing.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I notice you did not respond to my comment about needing to read that old Book a tad better. I'll accept that as acceptance. And your latest post as more evidence that you are, indeed, VERY ignorant. And, unfortunately, I suspect you are proud of it.
How do you reconcile this? He sounds like he's using "history" to justify his position, not the Bible.
RE: Theology? Moi???!?!?
"I have no doubt you know Christian theology better than me." -- M. Simon
I don't know theology.
I know Christ.
There is something of a difference. Don't yout think?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[God builds His temples in the hearts of men, on the ruins of religion and theology.]
You should be more careful in use of the word "never," consider 2 Samuel 12.
vs 1 - "And the LORD sent Nathan unto David"
The prophet Nathan tells a story of a rich man taking from a poor man and then asks King David's opinion of the situation. Nathan condemns David saying he is that rich man and follows by saying: (vs 7 and 8.)
"And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
Here we have a prophet of God, sent by the Lord, to condemn David because he didn't appreciate the gifts of the Lord. These gifts included "thy Master's wives into thy bosom" and if it he needed more, the Lord would "have given unto thee" even more.
I don't support polygamy but it does seem condoned, even a gift from the Lord in this instance.
I think what the original commentator was trying to convey is that we all know that the Bible was written originally in old Greek. Then it was translated several times before it got to the KJV. Then, we have to consider the fact that almost every time the Bible was copied before printing, errors were introduced which were lated copied. So the KJV is very far from the original Greek in many instances.
Therefore, anyone who adheres to a literal interpretation of the Bible is basically an idiot. The only possible way you could defend such an interpretation would be to read the original texts in old Greek. Which don't survive, of course.
It's as silly as taking a play by Shakespeare, translating it to old french, then to russian, then greek, then to modern English, making lots of mistakes along the way, and then proclaming that you have the 'authentic' and one true Shakespeare.
Better re-read my post, compadre as I mentioned Paul's discomfort with homosexuality. And I bet you always cite the Mosaic laws (along with Paul) when you are making a point about evils of the homosexual lifestyle.
That may be true. However, Huckabee was specifically addressing all of human history. I'd refer a president who knew the difference between the Christian tradition and all of human history.
That doesn't even address the issue of which chapters that were decided early on not to be included in The Bible, for various reasons.
Even if we could, there is the matter of interpretation. We would need a thorough understanding of life and literary traditions that existed when the bibles were written. We have a difficult enough time understanding everything written by Chaucer or Shakespeare, let alone anonymous authors of 2 or 3 thousand years ago.
Then, there is always context. The bible includes letters. Well, where the letters intended to address specific or general concerns? What was the reason they were written? Letters were not likely written by the authors, but more likely scribes, who themselves can make mistakes in understanding what they are supposed to write.
I have a Bible that dates to the 1850s, and the ten commandments clearly talk about slaves. Yet, in today's versions, we see the words changed to servants. Additionally, the word and concept of homosexuality didn't even exist until the mid-1800s, yet we have bibles today that use a word that simply didn't exist 2000 years ago! So this process of changing the very meaning of the bible continues today.
If the Bible were so clear, as many make it out to be, then there truely would be only one religion. But the various religions is proof that the Bible can be interpreted to mean just about anything you like.
So when people parse certain language, or seek to find rules to live by today, it's a fools' errend. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the commandment against graven images must be displayed in all our courthouses or else our society will collapse. What's so immoral about photos?
Acts was probably written by the author of Luke (at least, that's what the author implies). Based on a close reading of Mark, it's doubtful that Mark could have come before 60CE (possibly as late as 80, depending on how you interpret the verses about the Temple). Luke clearly draws on Mark, so an early date of 75CE is not unreasonable. We're talking a good 40 or so years after the death of Jesus.
More to the point, we can see in Paul that there are Jewish Christians still out there when he's writing. He discusses his discussions and rivalries with James. I'd say it's far easier to read the death of the Jewish Christians as 1) Due to the eventual ascendency of Paul and 2) The destruction of Jerusalem breaking the back of the Jerusalem church.
RE: And....
....your point here is.....what?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you can't convince them....confuse them?]
RE: Re-Reading v. Understanding
"Better re-read my post, compadre as I mentioned Paul's discomfort with homosexuality." -- J.F. Thomas
But you don't seem to 'appreciate' it.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[For additional information, please re-read this message.]
But, faith is a private matter. Some faiths would kill me for not having a belief in their particular truth. And have done so in the past, and continue to do so in the present.
Some faiths ignore scientific findings because they are contradicted by the founding documents and teachings of their scholars. I have great difficulty, for example, instilling guilt in children for disobeying the God of their fathers. Or teaching them that science is "just a theory." To me, this just another form of child abuse. To be fair, we do celebrate the usual customs of our family: Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy. Consistent? No. Harmless? I don't know. I do think my nine year old son will have ample opportunity to chose for himself when he comes to his own age of reason. Until then, we allow him to be a child and teach him morality by example and familiarity with the laws of our country.
That is, provided our elected representatives keep their personal faith out of the public square.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
RE: Third- [or is it Fourth-] Party Information
"I am, of course, pro-life and fairly conservative. I agree entirely with those who insist that religious faith has a role to play in politics and policy. I don’t see “theocracy” looming behind efforts to, say, protect unborn children from partial-birth abortions. But...." -- Vox Nova, cited by Stephen Bainbridge, cited by Eugene Volohk
Sheesh. This IS getting 'complex'.
However, I'm reminded of a phrase I've heard from decades ago....and heard again last Monday night in City Council Chambers.....
I'll admit I wouldn't know Vox Nova from YOU, on a bump in a crowd. But this phrasiology always catches my attention as being akin to "I say one thing, but believe another".
In reality, I've seen, these last 57 years, that they believe more in the 'BUT' than in the preceding 'disclaimer'. I saw the same think last Monday night in City Council during a hearing, "I'm a supporter/believer in _______________ (fill-in-the-blank) but I don't agree with it this time." [Note: Nor most any other time, if you're keeping track of things.]
Just an observation.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The more he protested his integrity, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]
I'm confused by your update. I re-read Huckabee's sentence, and I see the word "historical[]" and the phrase "human history," but I don't see any "factual[]" "assertions" about actual practice.
I think you are interpreting the word "meant" to mean something like "meant de facto" rather than "meant by law" (to analogize to a con law concept). I guess I don't see why you're interpreting the word "meant" to be the former rather than the latter. And if Huckabee could respond, wouldn't he agree with you that, de facto, we have had polygamy in human history? Wouldn't he also say that that's not what he meant, and what he meant was that, historically, we have frowned upon polygamy? I really think that's what he was saying. After all, he's talking in the context of whether we should change the definition of marriage, which suggests to me that his comment refers not to de facto marriage but to de jure marriage.
To me, he's saying "We've always frowned upon polygamy, and we should continue to frown upon polygamy."
He may be wrong that we have indeed always frowned upon polygamy (as some commenters have argued), but I don't see why you interpret him as denying the "existence" of polygamy.
Does my de jure/de facto idea make sense? I apologize if I misunderstand you.
RE: Welcome....
"My own faith has stumbled and fumbled along ever since I became able to think for myself instead of relying on the assertions of authority, whether biblical, parental, or academic." -- galeH
....to the party!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. There is a way out of the dilemma you find yourself in, vis-a-vis 'faith'. But it takes a form of 'courage'.
Thus, Huckabee, a protestant minister, is essentially denouncing one of the precepts of the protestant faith.
They don't bother. Priestly celibacy is a matter of church policy and discipline, not scripture. And it applies primarily to the Latin Rite anyway. Latin Rite diocese admittedly make up 90% of the Catholic Church, but other rites also exist within the church. And some of the minority rites, such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Rite, permit priests to marry.
That was Mark Twain's point. Given man's limited orgasmic capabilities, polygyny was precisely the opposite of human nature. Solomon could not have kept his 300 wives fully satisifed if he'd had a dozen young assistants to help out. The Polynesian practices were far better suited to human biology.
And of course we do have polygamy. Quite easy to have several spouses. You just can't have two in overlapping time frames.
Interesting quirk: Arizona's Enabling Act forbade it to ever legalize polygamy. Congress was scared that its Mormon population, doubtless aided by a lot of cross-over votes, might do just that.
The state responded with a constitution that requires that illegitimate children be treated the same as legitimate ones (which required amendment to the Uniform Probate Code when adopted here). That way a fellow could marry one wife before a judge, and marry the others in a purely church ceremony, and the kids would be taken care of if he died, etc.
I know the fellow who was AG of Ariz. back when there was a big outcry and push for prosecutions of some variant-mormons (split off from main church). He responded that they had only one legal marriage, so any prosecution would have to be for fornication. Did those pushing the idea REALLY want him to enforce the fornication statutes? He won the point.
On one level, that's what you see when you read about the Hebrews of the Old Testament and the early Christians of the new testament. They didn't often do what the Bible, or God, told them to do. Sometimes it's because the way that the Bible flows isn't like a rule book, but a story with rules spread out inside the tales, which are often difficult to discern. Other times we don't follow because our hearts desire things that are not of God and we'd much rather do that and so we justify it despite clear edicts saying otherwise.
So the issue of David's harem (or any other for that matter) is put into that light, and we read that David and Solomon and Abraham and others had multiple wives. God allowed this for some reason, but there's nowhere in the Bible where it says that God sanctioned it (prophetic chastisement listing wives as assets non-withstanding). And indeed, besides patriarchs of any given nation or people, polygamy wasn't all that common. Recall that wives were often traded by heads of state for foreign policy reasons, not religious ones.
As unhelpful to Huckabee's own campaign as it was, I don't think that it's helpful for Eugene or anyone else to go off about what's in or not in the Bible without considering how difficult it is to understand history from such a document (for the same reason Huckabee has to be careful here). Thus we start the firestorm that is this comment thread. However, I think that Huck's statement has a basis in fact, that the vast majority of peoples stretching out through written history were monogamous.
Prophetic chastisement listing wives as [God given] assets.
A prophet of God on errand from God chastising David on his misuse of a gift from God. While I agree that it isn't a "Thou shalt marry more than one wife" 11 commandment, it is a strong statement. Would God not sanction a gift He gave?
RE: Another Case of Ignorance....To Go, Please
"Christian dogma emerged complete and perfect approximately 36 A.D. and has never been altered a hair since." -- Mark Buehner
'nuff said.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I am always amused by how frequently the ignorant expound so 'effectively' on what they have no idea about.
Moreover some of Gods favorite people had multiple wives- Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. Now the Old Testament God wasn't what we might call the live and let live type, right? I mean, failure of obedience in some fairly 'trivial' matters could get you turned into a pillar of salt right? And marriage is hardly a trivial matter in any era. The idea that God just kinda tsk tsked the corruption of this vital institution is hard to swallow.
Wasnt there also a provision in Deuteronomy compelling you to marry your brothers widow? Didnt that compel polygamy?
Anyway- point being, I dont buy the argument the Huckabee either didnt think about the history or was speaking of the idealized marriage. I think he was taking a swipe and running fast and loose with the facts. Hardly a big deal, but he seems like that kind of guy in general, which i dont like.
Most Christians don't 'appreciate' the laws against masturbation either. And that doesn't seem to worry them too much.
As for the government's compelling interest in regulating marriage, I'd say it lies in society's interest in replacing its members with good citizens. Families have performed an essential function not only in producing children, but also in bringing them up, civilizing them, teaching them the values essential to the society such as a work ethic, self-reliance, respect for law and the rights of others, etc. Judeo-Christian religions traditionally have reinforced these functions of marriage and provided valuable service in stabilizing and promoting society.
One of our biggest problems today is the number of women left to raise families on their own when the fathers of their children move on to greener pastures. We impose a duty of support on such men, but that hardly makes up for the terrible example they set for their children, or the gap this absence leaves in their emotional development.
The Mormons who practiced plural marriage were Victorians. They were hardly the libertines they were depicted to be. They took their obligations to support and rear their big families seriously. Indeed they saw the institution as a means for raising more posterity, the family being seen as an eternal institution. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all had multiple wives and bore children with them, which was seen as a means for fulfilling God's promise to Abraham that he would be the father of nations.
This aspect of marriage is absent in same sex marriages, except through adoption, in vitro fertilization or impregnation of one of the partners by a third party. Our laws aren't equipped to deal with these situations, and treating marriage as a right between same sex couples is hardly a sound way for setting policy. The common law recognized impotence or failure to cohabit as grounds for annulment.
The real crisis with marriage is in the ease with which we allow couples with children to break up their families. Part of that is the fault of our popular culture, the sexual revolution, feminism, and our increasing focus on and expansion of rights without acknowledging the responsibilities that citizenship in a free society entails.
And thank God for it. The real marriages break up is because they were bad marriages to begin with. If one spouse is an emotional or physical abuser, or a substance abuser, better for everyone, including the children, to divorce and get away from that.
Recently, referendums were held in Ireland and Peru to allow for divorce, and they passed overwhelmingly, despite strong opposition from the Catholic church.
The real cause for the rise in divorce rates is that women no longer need a husband to live. Years ago, their options were highly limited, but today, a woman can earn as much as a man. Therefore, fewer people are stuck in bad marriages. Studies show that whenever a society has strong economic opportunities for women, divorce increases. This is a good thing.
I agree divorce is bad -- in general -- if children are involved. There are no easy answers, of course, but to assume that all divorce is bad simply isn't true.
"This aspect of marriage is absent in same sex marriages, except through adoption, in vitro fertilization or impregnation of one of the partners by a third party. Our laws aren't equipped to deal with these situations."
But of course, they are. Same sex marriages who adopt children are no less a family than others, and are just as capable of " bringing them up, civilizing them, teaching them the values essential to the society such as a work ethic, self-reliance, respect for law and the rights of others, etc."
C'mon, Randy, this is a democracy. We vote. The Jesus Seminar has put it on an assembly line basis. See their 'The Five Gospels' for the results, although possibly some upstate precincts and Chuck are yet to be heard from.
More seriously, thanks for the remark about the age of the word 'homosexuality.' I'd have bet next week's pay you were wrong, but I looked in the Oxford English Dictionary and you're right, it's not there.
Doesn't show up until the Supplement, with a first reference in English in 1892.
Of course, the word 'prehistoric' is of similar vintage, but that doesn't mean there weren't cavemen.
RE: Citation, Please
"This is the book that commands you to stone disobedient children mind you." -- Mark Buehner
Book...Chapter....and Verse....if you will.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Don't you just 'love' out-of-context citation?]
RE: Once More....with 'Feeling'
"Most Christians don't 'appreciate' the laws against masturbation either. And that doesn't seem to worry them too much." -- Mark R.
What was the 'context'? Please cite, Book/Chapter/Verse, in your reply.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
RE: 'Apologies'
You guys all sound [ignorantly/obtusely] alike to me.
I apologize for confusing your monikers here.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[So many opportunities.....so little time. Lord! Please help me to do what is right.]
RE: The 'What'??!?!? Seminar???!?!?!
"The Jesus Seminar has put it on an assembly line basis. See their 'The Five Gospels' for the results...." -- Harry Eager[ly]
Never heard of em. What's their take on it, as you seem to know more about them than I do.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Contrary to common misconception, I am not, repeat NOT, my 'brothers' keeper. However. If I see him I may counsel him on a think or two.
RE: An Additional Thought
"Most Christians don't 'appreciate' the laws against masturbation either. And that doesn't seem to worry them too much." -- Randy/Mark/Whomever R.
Why the change of subject? Inability to address the comment under consideration directly/effectively?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Or something to do with schitzophrenic-subject-matter-jumps?
"even without knowing anything of the history of law, one can see that this is false, since almost all of them would clearly be unconstitutional and/or contrary in other ways to our legal tradition, e.g. by creating thought crimes."
I don't really disagree with your point, that some people overestimate the influence of the Old Testament on law. However, at least four of the Ten Commandments:
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against tht neighbor.
... seem to me to be compatible with both the Constitution and our legal traditions. That leaves 60% incompatible with one or the other. I thing 60% is a bit shy of "almost all."
Like I said, it's picking a nit.
More seriously:
"'The real crisis with marriage is in the ease with which we allow couples with children to break up their families.'
And thank God for it. The real marriages break up is because they were bad marriages to begin with. If one spouse is an emotional or physical abuser, or a substance abuser, better for everyone, including the children, to divorce and get away from that."
There's a big gap between allowing divorce in cases of genuine abuse -- which I'm all for -- and making divorces easy. So I think there's a fallacy of the excluded middle creeping in here.
I don't want to see divorce so difficult that the law ends up enabling abusers. But I have a problem with making divorce easy for a parent who is bored with his marriage and attracted to his intern.
This is transparently conclusory. Who says that same sex couples must stay together in cases of impotence or failure to cohabit? I don't mind preachers except when they get preachy, and this is waaaaay too preachy.
NB. If you don't approve of same sex marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex, OK?
I think you'll find that our laws are, in fact, "equipped to deal with these situations." See, i.e., the laws governing adoption, in vitro fertilization, and third-party impregnation. Where novel issues arise, as with the support duties of sperm donors, courts and legislatures seem to be handling the legal developments with their usual competence. The issues are often substantively the same for same- and different-sex marriages, as well; see, again, the support duties of sperm donors.
Kent, I appreciate your point that some commandments are consistent with modern law. It's worth pointing out that (A) the consistent modern laws aren't based on the pertinent commandments, and (B) two of those four commandments are only partially compatible with modern law. Bearing false witness (assuming the commandment refers to more than just sworn testimony in a court of law) is only a legally cognizable wrong under certain circumstances, and adultery is generally just a ground for divorce--essentially a contractual violation.
Can we say the commandments are 70 or 80 percent incompatible? Or we can just all agree, as you say, "that some people overestimate the influence of the Old Testament on law." Seems like a fair and accurate summary.
Right. I meant that I didn't think Huckabee had a broad definition in mind.
Also, more specifically, I meant that there's a presumption that "a" means "one or more" (see KCJ, AbTox, and another case decided this week)
My point is that Christians will enthusiastically point to passages in the Bible that condemn gays, such as you did with Romans 1 and 2, but are strangely silent about laws that might actually apply to themselves, such as masturbation. The Bible clearly prohibits masturbation, but I have yet to hear of a case where an employee seeks to fire an employee for engaging in such behavior.
Why not? IF there are no children involved, then it's really not your issue to decide. If someone is bored with his or her marriage so easily, perhaps he or she is not the marrying type. Forcing them to stay in a marriage isn't going to make the situation any better.
If there are children involved, then the problem is a little more serious, I agree. Perhaps therapy should be a requirement before divorce is granted in such cases to see if the marriage can be saved. But even then, if it can't save the marriage, then perhaps the childen and other spouse would be better off apart, rather than living with a spouse who will only become more angry and resentful as time goes on.
That is an awfully strong statement to make "without knowing anything of the history of law." For better or worse, your assumptions about history are incorrect and your analysis is no better than the "mythical history" that you attribute to fundamentalists. Twelve of the thirteen colonies adopted all ten of the Commandments as law. Even the Commandments that are purely religious (as opposed to those that outlaw crimes against other persons, such as stealing or murder) formed a significant part of our legal system. The northeastern states still enforce "Blue Laws" originally designed to honor the Sabbath. There were prosecutions for the crime of blasphemy well into the 19th century. When you testify, you still swear an oath invoking God, because the law's presumption is that you will neither bear false witness nor take the Lord's name in vain.
Before you attack people for "construct[ing] a mythical history," you should be a little more careful not to do the same thing yourself in your very next sentence.
RE: Actually....
"My point is that Christians will enthusiastically point to passages in the Bible that condemn gays, such as you did with Romans 1 and 2, but are strangely silent about laws that might actually apply to themselves, such as masturbation. The Bible clearly prohibits masturbation, but I have yet to hear of a case where an employee seeks to fire an employee for engaging in such behavior." -- Randy R.
...your point is only to change the subject because you realized that the initial point, vis-a-vis homosexuality was about to be hammered.
So you decided to try to obfuscate.
But, as I'm sure you are aware, your schitzie subject-matter jump can be equally well hammered.
I repeat my question.....
Please cite Book/Chapter/Verse regarding 'masturbation'. Something to do with some character named 'Onan'?
And what was he doing?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. If you understand what's in that old Book, you'll also understand, and be able to cite, the passages from the new part of that old Book that relate to what you're actually thinking.
Please demonstrate your understanding of your 'enemy' by describing what I'm alluding to.....
What do you think, Chuck? Does Matthew 5, 27-30 condem masturbation?
RE: Matt 5
"I'll take Matthew 5, 27-30 as a pretty good condemnation of masturbation." -- Milton
On the nosey.
The question is....did Randy/Mark/Whatever R. know that?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Someone once told me that Brigham Young married his wives (widows or singles who couldn't find a husband) to give them a household.
I rather doubted it until I saw photos of them. Out the 15-20, there was one who was rather cute. The rest were in the "we can get married, so long as you don't mind me staying in my bedroom and reading a good book" category. I suspect the pillar of the community and leader of the religion could have done better had he been out to do so.
....nobody's perfect. We mere mortals all have our personal problems to deal with.
Indeed. The only Guy I know of who was 'perfect', got nailed to a tree for His efforts.
But just because we aren't perfect—even I have my problems—doesn't mean we're worthless.
The real difference between Christians and everyone else is best described in a song by the Newsboys....Shine.
Hope that helps....you and Randy/Mark/Whomever....reads this.
The question is....did Randy/Mark/Whatever R. know that?"
Does it matter if they didn't? Is their point less valid?
RE: Does It Matter?
"Does it matter if they didn't? Is their point less valid?" -- Milton
In a manner of speaking.....YES!
After all, all he was doing was trying to change the subject.
RE: Back on the Original Sub-Tread
What do you have to offer regarding new part condemnation of homosexuality?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
And as Luther wrote in "Von den Ehesachen" (1530): In an earlier work (the original edition of "De captivitate Babylonica") he writes: and two pages further on:
There is something very refreshing about thinking of marriage in the same vein as agriculture, architecture, shoemaking and hair-cutting. Makes you wonder what all the fuss is about.
Regarding Matthew 5:27-30, in the Good News Version, at least the one I have, that passage states "anyone who looks at a woman..." so, no it wouldn't apply to man-man homosexual marriage. Or man-man lust. Literally, it would apply to man-woman lust or woman-woman lust. No same sex lesbian marriage, I guess. Oddly, women can lust men, according to that passage. Lusty harlots.
And, no I don't think the passage has anything to do with homosexual marriage.
Does that include the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, Shinto, Wiccan, and Zoroastrian words of god? I hope none are rejected without actual study.
Yep. Odd. The use of the Bride/Bridegroom image to represent the Church/Christ is easy to find in the NT. Matthew, Corinthians, Ephesians, Revelation all contain variations on this theme. But perhaps the Reformers didn't consider Christ's relatonship to His Church to be a sign of God's grace.
Because nobody ever had to be miserable for a year and spend thousands of dollars to get out of a haircut, or return a pair of shoes? (grim grin).
Earliest view: it was a contract, and like most others could be made verbally with no official intervention. Problems: teenagers making pledges to each other, and questions as to whether marriage existed when one swore the words had been exchanged and another denied it.
One church council decided to make it official: the vows had to be exchanged in front of a priest.
Teenagers found a way around. Just walk up to a priest and say they agreed to be married. Parents were MOST upset.
I think it was Trent that finally decreed it had to be a formal ceremony, with three weekly announcements (the "bans") beforehand, just so it was on record, and everybody knew.
Christopher Columbus' grandson had a few problems here. He exchanged verbal vows with one lady (while they were on opposite sides of a locked iron gate, that was enough). The families hushed it up. Then he formally married a second lady.
He later had his eyes on a third. Decided to get his second annulled on grounds he was already married to the first (and he had separate grounds to annul the first... who was in any event formally married to someone else).
[It didn't work out and he got convicted of bigamy into the bargain].
But while he had the annullment action underway, putative wife #1 visited his jurisdiction on vacation with family -- and he had her arrested as a material witness! Her angry husband had a jab back (and understand that in Spanish, cuckhold is about the foulest of insults): "Just think,sir, if you win, I will be able to say that I not only slept with your wife for many years, but sired five children by her,"
As I said, I was not. But believe as you wish.
"RE: Back on the Original Sub-Tread
What do you have to offer regarding new part condemnation of homosexuality? "
Very simple. I deal with it the same way I deal with anything that the Bible gets wrong. such as evolution. The ancients had no concept of homosexuality, and certainly no concept that being gay is something that is innate to a certain percentage of the population. To take the Bible as the literal truth on any thing is, as I've explained, just silly.
Re: Masturbation. No, I had NO idea! I just pulled that out of my hat and crossed my fingers I would be right.
(sarcasm off).
Still waiting to hear how the commandment against graven images is folded into the basis of our law. Any takers?
That's actually quite comforting. As a gay man, I often see people condemn us in all sorts of ways in Jesus's name. We are certainly reviled and accused of all kinds of evil -- basically the downfall of all civilization!
Thanks!
The Greeks and Persians would differ. Xenophon drew the line when it to interfere with good military order, when the Greeks began to confuse prisoners of love with Prisoners of War, and when he had to order his men to leave their lovers of both genders behind because they were encumbering the army on its march.
Easy. I don't have the statute at hand, but it is a federal offense to wear a Smokey the Bear or a Woodsy the Owl suit. I am not kidding. It is still legal to use their name in vain, however. And I suspect you could make a statue of them, so it's not quite the same, but the core concept is there.
It is a seminar including many (most?) of the NT theologians at the trendier N. American universities (including some some from frankly biblical colleges, but mostly at secular schools).
They view the Four Gospels and Acts (thus, 5 gospels) as containing authentic sayings of a prophet, Jesus, overlain with lots of accretions. They voted on the authenticity of each saying.
The results are ranked according to whether a large majority thought the saying was from Jesus, a smaller majority did, or whether a majority thought it were spurious. (Ecumenists may see a parallel here with the way Muslims separate the sheep hadiths from the goat hadiths.)
They then published the 5 gospels, with each saying separable into the three categories by color of type. (Unfortunately, for me, the positive votes are in shades of red or pink and I am red-orange color blind so I can't tell them apart.)
With each saying, there is extensive commentary about why the saying was judged the way it was.
I would not expect you to accept any of this. (Nor do I, I don't believe in no kind of spook.) But I would have thought that a vigorous gospeleer such as yourself would have made the Seminar's acquaintance as an opponent to be forearmed against.
Well, since you quoted my comment, I can only assume that you also read the following sentence: "Twelve of the thirteen colonies adopted all ten of the Commandments as law." I would say that this alone is sufficient for the relatively modest point I was making. While we are on the subject, though, it bears noting that the Commandment against worshipping idols was offered in the Revolutionary era -- in Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," no less -- as a reason for fighting the British monarchy.
Let's keep this in perspective, too. I am not saying that each Commandment was one of the top ten greatest influences on U.S. law. I was merely responding to the incorrect assertion that the Commandments (taken together) were not a significant part of our law's development.
However, even in Greece, it was not common at all for two men of adult ages to be together in a relationship, and in fact was often frowned upon. Additionally, an adult man who was a bottom was scorned by general society. Persia was similiar, but a bit different as well. Rome, again, different but similiar.
This is all very different from the concept of homosexuality that we have today, that a certain percentage of men and women are attracted only to their own sex for both sexual and romantic reasons, that the attraction is innate and doesn't change within a person.
Now, perhaps English law was based in part on the 10, although I haven't seen any real arguments for it, but again, I'm sure there was some influence, but not a whole heck of a lot that endured.
There have been several posts that have exceeded 200 posts, but I can't say by how much more.
It might be an interesting parlor game for Christian lawyers to figure out which 5.
I find that a shockingly uninformed distortion of the topic of marriage and Christian history.
First, with the institutionalization of Christianity displacing traditional (pagan) religion in Rome (Rome equating to the relevant portion of civilization at the time), marriage laws were amended to undermine marriage due to (early) Christian emphasis on chastity and abstinence. Traditional marriage law and mores in Rome - and in Israel, and even in ("gay") Greece - penalized and stigmatized the unmarried and non-reproductive.
Second, the Christian church (or the State for that matter) had little role or interest in marriage until the 12th century. The (Catholic) Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the 13th century. That is, for the majority of Christian history the Church's role in marriage rarely exceed the theoretical (with a certain Pauline distaste for the whole enterprise). These changes were primarily the result of secular needs to document and regulate the people using the only persons likely to have even a minimal literacy sufficient to record marriages ... the village priest. (A little ink, a blessing, and after a few generations, voila, a "church wedding" tradition is created where none existed before.)
Third, marriage for the vast majority of these 20 Christian centuries was as marriage had always been: a mechanism of alliance between two families characterized by one family giving or selling their minor(!) child to another family. Notions of love and individualism that pervade the modern understanding of the institution of marriage only begin with the Age of Chivalry and only become predominant in very recent times. So much for "no change" marriage.
Finally, Christian history and the history of the Western State have never been the same thing and the distinction between the two has been growing steadily since the Middle Ages (not just since "the '60s"). Huckabee basically wants to not only conflate the two subjects but make the State subservient to Christianity, at least as it involves certain topics of his own idiosyncratic choosing. Marriage as a legal status in these United States is, and always has been, defined as a civil matter separate and independent from ecclesiastical law (cf. civil divorce law versus Catholic divorce law).
"Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?" asks the Governor. Apparently back to the 13th-17th century European model the Founding Fathers thought they had rid themselves of, where dissenters and non-believers nevertheless MUST marry within the strictures of an Established, State-imposed Church.
Um, can we please put a lid on at least one myth. Nowhere in the Bible are cotton or polyester, either alone or in combination, forbidden. What is forbidden is clothing made of linsey-woolsey, a blend of wool and linen. Orthodox Jews do keep this law, and don't find it at all funny.
Actually, Jewish tradition defines "too many" in this case as "more than 18", which ought to be enough even for a king, so Solomon was not within the law. He also broke the law against a king having "too many horses", and "too much gold and silver".
That's exactly what I'm afraid of when I walk down a dark street alone at night...a religious fundementalist.
/sarcasm
Well . . . this is my wife's area of research. She doesn't think that this represents anything like a scholalry consensus. The discovery of the Qumran Scrolls--which are her sub, sub, subspecialty (gotta love academia)--have introduced a number of questions about the "originals" of the Hebrew Bible manuscripts. Even the Pentateuch. There appears to have been a considerable amount of "Mosaic" writing floating around, and debates get nasty about when something can accutaelty be labelled "Pseudo-Moses."
The Qumran Scrolls have helped scholars determine which versions of some books of the Bible are /older/. (Eugene Ulrich, for example, has found that Hebrew texts used by the Protestant Reformers were not as old as the texts of the Vulgate that they rejected as containing too many later interpolations.)
But to speak of the original manuscripts is dicey for Hebrew and Greek Bible alike.
The sort of error that could and did creep in over time is the sort that wouldn't be caught by this process: variant spellings that don't affect the meaning or pronunciation. It's easy to miss those, not just on one reading but even on multiple readings. To catch them you really have to unroll two scrolls side by side and compare them, and that's hard work that not a lot of people would do without a good reason to suspect something was wrong. Over the course of time that sort of error multiplied, until the Masoretes undertook the project of comparing hundreds of scrolls and producing what is probably very close to the original spelling of each word, though we can't be sure of it.
The point is that the prohibitions against homosexual acts in the old testament are in a laundry list of restrictions that we, and even but the most orthodox Jews, do not follow. If you are going to point to that one prohibition as absolute, then why not the rest (like not wearing blends of cloths)? Regardless, I doubt God was really concerned whether or not his chosen people wore linen/wool blends--but I'm just a damned Presbyterian.
When such criticisms are directed at those who don't follow all those laws, they may have a point. It's not for me to say. But when they're directed at all religious people, and the speaker assumes (or actually says) that nobody follows these laws any more, and that it's ridiculous to even suppose otherwise, then they fall flat. Even more so when they're directed at observant Jews (such as Dr Laura was at the time that the famous letter to her was circulated), who do keep the laws. All of them.
Yes.
Well then you must hang out with different Jews than I do.
No. Any more than you go out and shoot murderers, or kidnap them and keep them in your cellar for the rest of their lives.
I'm quite sure I do.
On the other hand, taking De Lawd as a serious person becomes difficult with rules like that.
No."
Then she isn't keeping to the law, is she?
Thanks for the info, bro! The next time my wife is leaving for campus, I'm gonna be all like: "Hey, wife! The Dead Sea Scrolls don't mean much. Now get back in here and make me some damn WAFFLES!"
While we're doing away with popular misconceptions, can we also tackle this one? The abandonment of polygamy had nothing to do with any desire for statehood. The federal government had recently:
a) imprisoned many of the church's leaders (forcing wives and children to testify against their husbands and fathers, which is why Utah evidence law now grants such a broad marital privilege) and forced the rest into hiding;
b) confiscated many Mormon churches, temples, agricultural cooperatives, and other church-owned property (and was initiating processes to confiscate the rest);
c) In Idaho specifically denied Mormons the right to vote, and in Utah revoked women's sufferage (after it had been granted by the territorial legislature) because it knew Utah women generally favored polygamy; and
d) passed legislation basically prohibiting Mormons from entering the country.
Mormon abandonment of polygamy was an issue of survival, not statehood.
And the Utah War (a/k/a Second Mormon War) showed how messy things might be....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War
One of towns near here, St. David, AZ, was founded around the time of the Reynolds decision -- the object being to establish small towns on the path between Utah and Mexico, in so there would be headquarters and supplies ready in case the Mormons had to flee en masse to Mexico. The Mexican gov't had, as I recall, suggested that while polygamy was unlawful there, if they got thousands of hard working settlers and taxpayers nobody would get picky about their marital status.
Of course she is (or was). (Even assuming that any of her kids ever gave her cause to bring charges against them, for which you have no evidence.) Just as you are keeping the law when you fail to go out shooting murderers (if your state has the death penalty) or kidnapping them and keeping them locked up for life (if that is your state's penalty for murder). Or do you think by failing to do so you are in fact breaking your state's laws?
I'd suggest nobody with half a brain needs the TC to figure this out. Advocates of the TC are trying to take credit for the work of every human society for thousands of years. they all did it without the TC.
In terms of our own law, did our history start with the TC? Did the Greeks have law? Romans? Were those folks gobsmacked when the first Jew wandered through and said the TC said no killing or stealing? "MY GOD!!! What a great idea. Thank you wandering Jew for pointing this out to us. We had no idea. We sure are stupid! Now Plato will have to stop filching my stuff."
Perhaps it's more reasonable to say that both our laws and the TC are based on a universal human behavior that that owes nothing to Genesis.
Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."
(Tricky stuff, this "keeping the commandments.")
RE: Beggers, Wishes, Horses and Such
"Chuck: "After all, all he was doing was trying to change the subject. "
As I said, I was not. But believe as you wish." -- Randy R.
No wish about it, compadre. I've seen the pattern before. I've learned to recognize it.
You can protest your 'innocence' all you like, but the proof of it is there in black and white (see above).
RE: The Proof
"Very simple. I deal with it the same way I deal with anything that the Bible gets wrong. such as evolution. The ancients had no concept of homosexuality...." -- Randy R.
You even prove the point by doing a bit of disinformation...in TWO areas (1) evolutionary theory v. what is written in Genesis and (2) that there was not such thing as homosexuality as known by 'the ancients'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
RE: Comforting Thoughts
"That's actually quite comforting. As a gay man, I often see people condemn us in all sorts of ways in Jesus's name." -- Randy R.
Let me help you in dealing with these 'people' you are referring to.
Next time they 'condemn' you remind them that Christ did not condemn that adultress.
All He did was (1) save her life from immediate destruction at the hands of the Pharisees/Sadduces and (2) tell her to go and "sin no more". Whether she followed the good advice is unknown. But we Christians have hope for her.
As I've been telling others who hate christians, "Know your 'enemy'...."
You, obviously have a LOT to learn.
RE: Revilings
"We are certainly reviled and accused of all kinds of evil -- basically the downfall of all civilization!" -- Randy R.
I neither hate nor condemn you. Not my 'job'. It's His to 'judge'. And He WILL do that, in due time.
As for your evil conduct....well....that's your personal choice. [Note: There has not been sufficient evidence that it is NOT a 'choice'.]
Keep learning about your 'enemy'. And use that information to (1) defend yourself from people who call themselves christians, but don't act like it and (2) educate yourself.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If the Truth be known — Everybody gets their shot; it'll cost you everything you've got. -- Newsboys]
RE: Jesus Seminar
"Chuck, I am surprised you don't know the Jesus Seminar, although I did not expect many of the antiliteralists here to have encountered it.
It is a seminar including many (most?) of the NT theologians at the trendier N. American universities (including some some from frankly biblical colleges, but mostly at secular schools). " -- Harry Eager
I'm not into 'trendier' thinks. Maybe you didn't quite catch onto that. Hope this clarifies thinks for you.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If the Truth be know — Truth is more than "To each his own". -- Newsboys]
RE: Tell Me If....
"The results are ranked according to whether a large majority thought the saying was from Jesus, a smaller majority did, or whether a majority thought it were spurious. (Ecumenists may see a parallel here with the way Muslims separate the sheep hadiths from the goat hadiths.) " -- Harry Eager
...heard this one before....
Get the drift?
Regards,
Chuck(le
[If the Truth be known — ignorance here is less than bliss. -- Newsboys]
Gee. thanks for, um, not condemning me by calling me evil.... and I'm so glad that you know me better I do myself. Glad you have everything figured out!
RE: As I Said (Above)....
"Gee. thanks for, um, not condemning me by calling me evil.... and I'm so glad that you know me better I do myself. Glad you have everything figured out!" -- Randy R.
...you've got a LOT to learn.
I didn't call YOU evil. I said your CONDUCT was evil, if you're telling me the truth about your homosexuality.
There's something of a difference. Don't you think?
If you want to identify yourself as BEING 'evil', that's strictly up to you....and Him.
Hope that helps....but I have my doubts.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.]
Ever see the movie Ghost, with Demi Moore, Whoopi Goldberg and Patrick Swayze?
My feelings for you are akin to the way Patrick looks on his just-deceased associate.
In other words, I don't hate you....
Sorry, I grew up surrounded by tyrants like you in East Tennessee, who didn't want me to play basketball on Sunday because it was unbiblical.
To a greater degree than I liked at the time, we Catholics (as I then was) had to put up with people like you because in a democracy a sufficient concentration of bigots can control the civil power.
Game over. We're playin' basketball now.
RE: What I Want....
"Well, yeah, I get your drift, Chuck. You not only want me to believe the nonsense in your book, you want me to behave as if I did, even if I don't. " -- Harry Eager
....has nothing to do with what you 'believe'.
What I want is to tell the truth as best as I understand it.
Whether or not you, or anybody else, picks up on it is totally secondary.
I don't get 'points' for gathering converts. Indeed. It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to do so. Something you don't seem to be able to 'grasp'.
After all, isn't telling the Truth, what is important in Life? Or do you think otherwise?
"Game over. We're playin' basketball now." -- Harry Eagar
You play whatever game you like. It's not important to me....except if I catch you playing a game of 'Lies'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. About some forms of 'games'....
"....people like you because in a democracy a sufficient concentration of bigots can control the civil power." -- Harry Eager
I do believe that you are describing what you'd like to do. And, in the not-too-distant-future, I'm sure you'll get what you REALLY want.
However, I do believe you'll be thoroughly dissatisified with the final outcome.....
"Sorry, I grew up surrounded by tyrants like you in East Tennessee, who didn't want me to play basketball on Sunday because it was unbiblical." -- Harry Eager
I really don't care what you do on Sunday. Or any other day, for that matter. As it is written, it doesn't matter what people do on any given day, as long as they believe they are doing it for God.
That applies to playing basketball on Sunday as well.
Indeed. I don't 'work' on Sunday, unless there is some compelling reason, e.g., figthing a forest fire threatening the town.
You play all the games you like, but, I counsel you to stop playing the 'bozo', as you've done with that preceeding post.
We all sin. A sin is a sin. We are all forgiven. That's the beauty of grace. Just as the person who lies or swears or drinks too much or doesn't give enough to the poor or sometimes lashes out in anger... It doesn't mean they are condemed for their "evil" acts, as long as they accept the Big Guy. Same with the homosexual.
RE: Good Point
"Remember Matthew 5:22 before you call another a bozo. It's not the Christian thing to be doing." -- Milton
I should have couched that as "....please don't play the 'bozo'."
See! Nobody's 'perfect'. Not even me.
Thanks,
Chuck(le)
RE: Faithful Sinner?
"And remember Romans 4:20-27. A faithful homosexual has, according to the bible, just as much of a chance at heaven as the rest of us sinners, so long as that homosexual believes in Jesus. It's not about laws. It's about faith." -- Milton
Please explain to me how being someone who practices something that Christ says we shouldn't do is being 'faithful'?
If I claim to be a follower of Christ and despise my neighbor, for whatever reason, how am I being faithful to Christ?
I seem to recall something from Matthew about Christ, in the Judgement, says....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
RE: Additionally
"It doesn't mean they are condemed for their "evil" acts, as long as they accept the Big Guy. Same with the homosexual." -- Milton
But, as I pointed out (above), if they don't do what He requires, how are they 'acceptable'?
I think Matt 7 addresses that quite well.
Sure. I sin. You even pointed that out above. But, I am trying to do better and not commit the same sin over again.
How is the unrepentant homosexual doing that? Repenting, I mean.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The REAL challenge is to be better than yourself.]
....it seems that I stated....
This is not calling someone a 'bozo', or as is written in Matt, 'Raca'.
So...maybe I'm doing better than you thought.
Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.
I'm so glad that I'm evil. Well, not "evil-evil" -- just an evil-doer. It makes me all the more scary at Halloween!
He suggested we violate a few biblical chapters. I suggested role play -- maybe we should really go biblical and make it a threesome, you know, all that polygamy and stuff. Time to spread some evil! Woo hoo!
None of us can ever do all that "He" requires.
That's the point. According to Christ, we all sin! We all sin like a mo-fo, brother. We sin every day. We do the best we can and ask forgivness along the way.
By condeming the homosexual, you are doing exactaly what Jesus warned in Matthew 7:2. Specks and logs, my friend. Such talk does more to turn people away from Jesus than towards him.
Same with telling people they are bozo's, but then claiming it's all right because you were really calling their behavior bozoish. Specks and logs, man.
Must be the NRSV-translation.
So by leaving me alone, you come out a clear winner.
RE: Self-Defeating Philosophy
"None of us can ever do all that "He" requires." -- Milton
On the contrary.
What is it He requires?
And why is it you can't do it?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
RE: If....
"Wondering if the unreptantant masturbator will ever get into heaven. Oh yeah, you just confess it on Sunday, and keep doing it the rest of the week.
Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary. " -- Randy R.
....you keep doing it and you're not trying to stop, are you REALLY 'repentant'?
Most reasonably prudent individuals would suggest you aren't.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
RE: Oh Bother....
"Well, Chuck, if you don't get points from the Big Spook for bothering me, you do get points from me for not bothering me." -- Milton
You DO have a serious problem with English and cognition.
What did I say (above) about what I'm supposed to do? Go on. Re-read it. See if you can begin to comprehend.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[For additional information, re-read this message.]
RE: Once Again
"Same with telling people they are bozo's...." -- Milton
....you demonstrate a lack of skill in understanding English.
Where did I call someone a 'bozo'? I didn't. I said not to act like one, or words to that effect. If you want to consider yourself a 'bozo', that's your prerogative. Just like Randy R's problem with misunderstanding English vis-a-vis evil behavior and evil person.
You guys 'buddies' or something? Perhaps you just drink the same brand of chardonnay?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[As great minds think alike....so do the not-so-great.]
RE: Comprehension
"I'm not Milton. I think someone else has the reading comprehension problem." -- Harry Eagar
True. I've not had my morning coffee yet. My apologies to you and Milton for mis-representation.
RE: Speaking of 'Bother'
Seems like the only people around here who are getting 'hot and bothered' are you guys.
I'm just doing what is 'expected' of me; 'Testify, brother!'
You guys are the ones taking umbrage.
In the military, we refer to that as something of an 'indicator'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You know you're getting close to the target, because they start throwing more flak at you. USAF Axiom]
RE: Guys!
Here I am trying to give good advice on how to deal with 'Christians', vis-a-vis "Know your 'enemy'...." and all you can do is rebuke me?
Interesting.
I just realized the Truth about what He said, around 2000 years ago regarding providing wisdom ['pearls'] to some four-legged form of omnivore ['swine'].
And it appears to be true, when you consider how you've comported yourself when all I've done was tell you how to use your 'enemies' own Book against them.
How VERY 'interesting'. I'll have to share this revelation with my mens' Friday morning Bible study group. I think they'll find my experience here very educational for their efforts.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn and attack you.]
P.S. And before you accuse me of calling you 'pigs', I'm not. I'm saying you're behavior resembles—closely—that which He warned us about.
It's the evangelicals who need advice about how to deal with me.
Down in the old home state, South Carolina, they tell a story about Bob Jones University. There was a fine home on a hill near the school, and one day Bob Sr. knocked on the door and informed the lady of the house that God had divulged or decreed or whatever that that fine house had been chosen to be the home of the president of Bob Jones University.
'Well, he didn't tell me!' said the lady, slamming the door.
I don't know if the story is true, but you get my drift.
On the contrary.
What is it He requires?
And why is it you can't do it?"
Your point is valid, but is only so based on my poor sentence structure and your intrepretation of my meaning.
Perhaps I should rephrase. None of us can ever do ALL that is suggested in the bible. New Testament or Old. None of us can live a perfect life, despite the clear instruction to do so in Matthew 5:48.
And you are fooling yourself if you didn't mean to insult when you made the "bozo" comment. Couch it in grammatical semantics all you wish, but it was insulting. And what was the mention of me and Randy as being 'buddies'? My interpretation of that comment leads me to believe you are stating that I am gay, which would indicate another attempt at insult. Jesus would never behave in such a way.
RE: Yeah....Right....
"I don't need any advice about how to deal with Christians." -- Harry Eagar
You're doing such a FINE job of it. Our discussion here is a prime example of that.
RE: Going the 'Other' Way
"It's the evangelicals who need advice about how to deal with me." -- Harry Eagar
And, for the sake of MY 'edification', what do you suggest?
Got any 'good Book' you can recommend? Such as I recommended to you (above)?
RE: Parables, Anyone?
"I don't know if the story is true, but you get my drift." -- Harry Eagar
No. I don't. What's your point? Even Christ, with His parables, is easier to discern than you are here.
You WERE talking about how Christians need advice on how to deal with YOU. Then you go into some story about someone slamming a door in a Christian's face.
Are you suggesting that the Bob Jones types should kick in your door? [Note: Believe me, I know HOW to do that. Indeed. I'm well-versed in Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain (MOUT). Call it a 'forte' that comes with three tours in combat units; two with the 82d Airborne and one with 4th Infantry (Mechanized).]
Or do you really mean something else that you just can't quite articulate very well?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Personally? My understanding of Christ's instructions to the disciples was in such a situation, not to kick down the door.
The line between implication and insult isn't quite as vast as you seem to thik. But, then again, you didn't mean to really call me a pig or dog. You were just commenting that my "behavior closely resembles", which makes it OK.
RE: Misunderstandings?
"Your point is valid, but is only so based on my poor sentence structure and your intrepretation of my meaning." -- Milton
I don't think so.
I think I understand where you're trying to go with this. Rather, I think you're misunderstanding where I'M trying to go with what you gave me.
RE: No One is Worthy!
"None of us can ever do ALL that is suggested in the bible. New Testament or Old. None of us can live a perfect life, despite the clear instruction to do so in Matthew 5:48. " -- Milton
That's different from what you said initially.....
He, as I understand it being Christ....
...what does He require? And what of that can you NOT do?
I like the way he put it when talking with one person who came to ask Him a question.
The question asked was.....
The answer given was.....
So. What's so hard here? So hard that it is impossible to do?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
In this instance, it is 'neighbor'....
By the way....did you know that Mr. Beirce was a regimental and Army staff officer for the Union during the Civil War?
Just discovered that reading Catton's Never Call Retreat.....no wonder he had such a sardonic wit.
Most reasonably prudent individuals would suggest you aren't. "
For once you are correct! I have no desire to stop being a gay person, even if I could. Even better, I don't consider it a sin. Even if it were a sin, I wouldn't care. I think God has other things to worry about than whether I screw a woman or a man. Even better, I have no concern about other people's sex lives, unlike Chuck, and I certainly don't care what the Bible says about anything at all.
Oh, sure, it has it's value. Just as the Koran has a value, and the Bhagavad-Gita, the Lan-yu, the Talmud, the Hadith, the I Ching, the Book of Morman, and so on. All sacred scriptural writings, all worth reading and gleaning lessons. And of course, there is a corrollary that there might be new sacred writings. Even better, perhaps revelation of God directly to people?
What exactly IS it about Christians that they have to meddle in other people's lives so much, especially when it comes to sex? My experience is that people who have good and satisfactory sex lives really don't care about other peoples'. In fact, they encourage other's to have the best sex that they can have, whether the person is gay or straight.
What about Matthew 5:48? Perfect life?
What about selling your posessions and giving everyting to the poor (since we are in Matthew, I'll take Matthew 19:23, but it's there in Luke and John too).
There is much, much more. Divorce, taxes, being good.
And, yes, no one is worthy in the eyes of man. Worth is decided by God, assuming your meaning of worth is eternal salvation.
RE: We're All Screwed Up
“None of us can ever do ALL that is suggested in the bible. New Testament or Old. None of us can live a perfect life, despite the clear instruction to do so in Matthew 5:48." -- Milton
“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” -- Matthew 5:48
An interesting point. To examine it, let me ask you a question....
How is God ‘perfect’? [Note: I know He is, but I want to understand how YOU recognize His perfection.]
Have patience with this one....it IS leading somewhere you might find useful. And if not you....maybe someone else who reads this.
RE: Fooling Around
"And you are fooling yourself if you didn't mean to insult when you made the "bozo" comment." -- Milton
It is wrong to call someone ‘Bozo’. It is not wrong to counsel someone not to behave like a ‘bozo.
“Couch it in grammatical semantics all you wish, but it was insulting.” -- Milton
I’d suggest that to take umbrage at good advice is to recognize that the behavior is as described.
“And what was the mention of me and Randy as being 'buddies'? My interpretation of that comment leads me to believe you are stating that I am gay, which would indicate another attempt at insult.” -- Milton
Again....taking umbrage at a simple question. If you’re a homosexual, are you proud or ashamed of it?
And please don’t worry about trying to pique my conscience with the idea that I’m insulting you by asking a simple question or alluding to such. I know how to discern.
RE: What Would Jesus Do
“Jesus would never behave in such a way." -- Milton
Really?
I do recall that Christ made a whip of a set of knotted cords and drove people before Him, in order to clear out the Temple courtyard.
All I’m doing here is bantering words with you. I have no ‘whip’ other than what you perceive in your own mind, based on so much black-and-white on your monitor.
Furthermore, He used the Socratic method and REALLY ticked-off the Pharisees and Sadduces, on more than one occasion. Did it so well that they conspired to get Him killed. And all He did to them was ‘talk’.
Howenver, He even went so far as to say...
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” -- Matthew 23:27
That’s a lot farther than I have gone here, with you and Randy and Harry.
But He has the authority to condemn; ‘hypocrites’. I do not. All I do is point out some similarities.
You, and others here, seem to be reacting to me in the same manner that they did, so long ago.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[History doesn't repeat itself. It has a speech impediment....it stutters.]
RE: Correctness, Political or Not
“For once you are correct!" -- Randy R.
Actually....I’m more oft correct than you care to recognize. But that’s another story.
“I have no desire to stop being a gay person, even if I could." -- Randy R.
You make my case.
“Even better, I don't consider it a sin. Even if it were a sin, I wouldn't care." -- Randy R.
Well. On the one hand; it is. In the other hand; I’m not surprised. On the third hand; you will be sadly disappointed....in the fullness of time.
“I think God has other things to worry about than whether I screw a woman or a man. Even better, I have no concern about other people's sex lives...." -- Randy R.
Randy....
....you are so sadly mistaken. It’s not so much about ‘sex’ as it is about ‘love’. And I think your use of the term ‘screw’, as in screwing other people, is very apt.
Can you even BEGIN to grasp the inference?
"What exactly IS it about Christians that they have to meddle in other people's lives so much....especially when it comes to sex?" -- Randy R.
I suspect it has more to do with ‘love’ than it does with ‘sex’.
If you saw someone who was, in effect, killing themselves. What would YOU do?
Ever have, or miss, the opportunity to save a life? What would you do for a friend? A drunk one in a bar who was reaching for his car keys?
Would you stop him? Before he went out the door and killed himself....and possibly some others as well?
If not....what kind of a ‘friend’ are you?
If you were thoroughly convinced of something, something that was good for other people. Would you keep it to yourself?
Take, for example the knowledge of resveratrol or flavanol. They appear to prolong life, cure and/or prevent disease.
If you knew that and were certain in your heart-of-hearts that it would help other people to know that sort of thing....
....would you keep it as a secret to yourself? Or would you proclaim it to everyone you knew?
It’s the same with Christians.
And yet the world rejects it. Just as modern scientists, up until Shoemaker-Levi 9 slammed into Jupiter in 1996, refused to accept the idea that big rocks can fall out of the sky and wipe out most life on Earth.
Such is the nature of ‘pride’.
And, beleive me, Randy....you got ‘pride’. And of a very unfortunate form.
“My experience is that people who have good and satisfactory sex lives really don't care about other peoples'. In fact, they encourage other's to have the best sex that they can have, whether the person is gay or straight." -- Randy R.
On the nosey. They don’t CARE about “other people”. They ususally seem to care only about themselves. Hence the spread of STDs.
How do YOU recognize the sort of love that Christ was talking about when He said....
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man should lay down his life for a friend.”
Regards,
Chuck(le)
RE: The 'Perfect' Life
“What about Matthew 5:48? Perfect life?" --Milton
See one of my previous posts from today.
RE: Possessions? Moi???!?!?
"What about selling your posessions and giving everyting to the poor (since we are in Matthew, I'll take Matthew 19:23, but it's there in Luke and John too)." --Milton
I own nothing. He owns it all.
I manage it and use it for His purposes.
Are we learning yet?
By the way. It’s not “give everything to the poor”, it’s “give to the poor”.
There is something of a difference.
After all....
....I doubt if Christ would have approved me giving ten bucks to a guy on the streets of Denver who had just thrown a smallish brown back with what sounded like a pint-sized bottle into the gutter...where it smashed, when he asked me for a hand-out.
Or should I go out and buy a pound of coke and give it out on the streets so people could commit suicide with it?
It think it has something to do with discernment.
What do YOU think?
RE: Other Stuff
"There is much, much more. Divorce, taxes, being good." --Milton
It all boils down to the two commandements I mentioned earlier today.
The challenges come in with the interaction with people who don’t believe in loving other people at least as much as they love themselves. You know. You encounter them every day. They are the people who are selfish.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Selfish: Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others. -- Ambrose Beirce, The Devil’s Dictionary]
You, and others here, seem to be reacting to me in the same manner that they did, so long ago. "
Very telling.
But when the prostitute was about to be stoned, did Jesus chastise the prostitute, or did he chastise those who were going to judge her? After the crowd dispersed, did Jesus stop to have a little chat with the whore about her dangerous lifestyle? No, he simply said "sin no more"?
So, say "sin no more" to others, but realize that in doing so you are the hypocrite. Just as me to tell you to "sin no more" makes me one. Just as the Pharisees were hypocrites. Jesus can say it because he is perfect. You cannot. That is the lesson. To even imply hypocracy makes both of us sinners and judgers. It is not our job to "point out similaraties".
And, truth be told, regardint Randy, either you see him as a pig or dog not worthy of the pearl of wisdom, or you see him as a sinner, in which case you are looking in the mirror, for you are a sinner as well. Telling you so much does not make me a hypocrite as I am one too.
Check the good book again, sir.
Jesus said to him "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor..."
RE: Checking
"Mr 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor....." -- Jesus the Christ
Where do you see "all"?
Which version are you using?
I use King James as it has been proven to be the most accurate.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
RE: Observations
Down in the kitchen now. Things are 'heating up'.
Just reviewing some of our discussion over the last 24 hours.
I notice that you like to ask a lot of questions. But, for SOME reason, you don't answer questions asked of you.
Why is that?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. More later. Time to stir the 'pot'.
They never stop to consider that everybody else may already be all set up with his own god (or none) and not need any of their advice.
As we can see from your incomprehension about my little story of Bob Jones, Chuck, evangelicals just don't get it. We want to be left alone. We don't want our doors kicked in. We don't even want them knocked on. We want to play basketball when we want to play basketball.
It's a free country, of course, but why cannot evangelicals be courteous, too?
RE: Courtesy, Please
"It's a free country, of course, but why cannot evangelicals be courteous, too?" -- Harry Eagar
So....
....you say that knocking on the door is 'discourteous'?
Interesting.
When are you going to invoke a make-my-day law on anyone knocking at your door?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
....you'd have stopped posting here 72 hours ago.
But....for some 'strange' reason....you continue to 'engage'.
Why is that?
You ask me quesions, and I guess it's tough to figure out where they are...
Oh. Am I gay? No. Do I drink the same chardonay as Randy? Was that a serious question? I don't know the guy and I have never had a drink of alcohol.
And what about this? Earlier you mentioned...
"The answer given was.....
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
If that's it, they what's wrong with homosexuality? As long as you love god with all your heart and love thy neighbour.
1)"I use King James as it has been proven to be the most accurate. "
Wrong. The Qumran Scrolls have disproved that theory, if by "accurate" you mean "older." If by "accurate" you mean "fit with what I already think," then by all means.
2)>>sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor....." -- Jesus the Christ
Where do you see "all"?
What does "whatsoever" mean to you, Chuck?
3)>>NO ONE is worthy!
I am. I invented a really good sandwich.
Anyhow, Chuck, you are the only one here proposing military raids, make-my-day laws, bragging about your manly militariness etc.
I suggest you meditate on the 'blessed are the peacemakers' verse and withdraw your nose from other folks' moral concerns. They're none of yours.
RE: Actually....
"I have the Good News Bible c 1976 (unclear on edition). It doesn't matter." -- Milton
It DOES matter. As our discussion on this particular indicates. All because of a sloppy translation. Or worse, a political agenda driving an improper translation.
In this case, the inclusion of the word "all", where it ought not be.
I've talked this over with other members of my Friday morning mens' Bible study group and we've discovered a lot of significant differences in the various versions.
RE: You and Randy and What You Drink
"Oh. Am I gay? No." -- Milton
Good on you.
"Do I drink the same chardonay as Randy? Was that a serious question?" -- Milton
Somewhat....
I've noticed that either the same air or same water seem to have the same effect on some people. Not all, mind you, but some. Maybe it has something to do with genotypes.
I see my City Council acting 'oddly' on occasion and I wonder what drinking fountain they got their water from before they began a hearing that went rather 'oddly'.
Sort of like asking what color crayon someone was smoking. [Note: A question I used to ask of staffers at echelons higher than my own before I retired.]
RE: What's Wrong With Homosexuality
"If that's it, they what's wrong with homosexuality? As long as you love god with all your heart and love thy neighbour." -- Milton
On one hand, it is explicitly against God's will; old and new parts of that old Book.
On the second hand, it is fornication.
On the third, the vast majority of them, as with all fornicators, don't really love their partner(s). They are only in it for their own self-gratification.
Oh. There might be one or two in a hundred that would lay down their life for their partner. But I've never seen a study done on that.
Maybe some APA aspirant could do a study.....
But, as for them, it is still in violation of items 1 and 2 (above).
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me the Truth. -- Thoreau]
RE: Perhaps....
"Do as I say because I say god wants you to do as I say." -- Elliot123
....amongst those who put themselves forward as God. But, from my understanding, there was only ONE would could really say such. And He got nailed to a tree for it by the jealous others.
Rather, it is more like....
There IS something of a difference. Don't you think?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Don't mince words. Especially God's.]
RE: Really?
"Wrong. The Qumran Scrolls have disproved that theory, if by "accurate" you mean "older." If by "accurate" you mean "fit with what I already think," then by all means." -- Hoosier
And on what do you base your understanding of the Qumran/Dead Sea Scrolls?
I base mine on a study of the Book of Daniel performed, as I understand it by a group of scholars from England and Israel. Something I saw on PBS around 20 years ago.
Please give me a citation of the sourcr of your understanding.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
RE: You Clever Liar, You
"But I do care. I want to be left alone." -- Harry Eagar
If that statement of yours were true, you wouldn't be here....out in the public venue.
As it is, you're so much road-kill on the information super-highway.
If you were REALLY like the little-old-lady you mention in your anecdote (above), you'd not be out here where us 'evil' Christians were able to confront your ignorance/disinformation. You'd be cowering behind your door, reading a book.
Hope that helps....but...I doubt it.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. As for 'bragging' on my 'manliness', the only reason I brought it up was to show you that I know how to 'kick-in' a door that has been slammed in my face. That and so much more.
You want to go there? Fine with me. I enjoy reminiscing on those heady days. But I can assure you....YOU won't.
Bring it on, buckie. I got a million of em.....and I've had LOTS of practice throwing people like you. Indeed. I think others here will find the experience very 'educational'.
RE: Making Peace
"I suggest you meditate on the 'blessed are the peacemakers' verse..." -- Harry Eagar
How many ways are there of 'making peace'?
How did Abraham Lincoln 'make peace' in the 1860s?
RE: Withdrawal Syndrome
"...and withdraw your nose from other folks' moral concerns. They're none of yours." -- Harry Eagar
You don't quite 'get it'.
We, as christians are not required to 'withdraw'. Rather, we're required to 'engage'.
The only people who want us to withdraw are people like yourself. Not God.
Hope that helps....but, as I've said earlier (above)....I have my doubts.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[No one lights a candle and puts it under a bushel. -- Some Wag, around 2000 years ago]
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Care to join us?
Oh. There might be one or two in a hundred that would lay down their life for their partner. But I've never seen a study done on that."
I've seen far more selfishness in hetrosexual relationships than homosexual ones.
"On one hand, it is explicitly against God's will; old and new parts of that old Book.
On the second hand, it is fornication."
There is a bunch of stuff that is specifically against god's will, especially if you lump in the old parts of the book.
So homosexuality and fornication it is sin. Right? I mentionted that we all sin. I even mentioned that there is no way to do everything commanded in the bible. You mentioned that all we need do is what He requires, which is to love god and your neighbor.
Why the double standard?
My point is this. Until you sell everything, give it to the poor and live a life as Jesus and his diciples have as a quest for perfection (basically become a monk), then you are picking and choosing parts of the bible that you follow, while ignoring specific other parts, and judging your fellow man in the process.
RE: And....
"I've seen far more selfishness in hetrosexual relationships than homosexual ones." -- Milton
....how does that contradict what I said?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Working in the kitchen on brunch, I'll be in and out while preparing it.
RE: The Old stuff
"There is a bunch of stuff that is specifically against god's will, especially if you lump in the old parts of the book." -- Milton
Sure is. But Christians tend to focus more on the New Stuff.
What's your point?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Jesus astonishes and overpowers sensual people. They cannot unite him to history, or reconcile him with themselves. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]
RE: Self-Defeating Obstacles
"So homosexuality and fornication it is sin. Right? I mentionted that we all sin. I even mentioned that there is no way to do everything commanded in the bible. You mentioned that all we need do is what He requires, which is to love god and your neighbor." -- Milton
As I said earlier, but you apparently have chosen to ignore or forget, you're defeating yourself.
"Why the double standard?" -- Milton
Where's the double-standard in loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself?
You seem to be TRULY 'confused'. Whether that is deliberate or not is another matter.
RE: Your Point
"My point is this. Until you sell everything, give it to the poor and live a life as Jesus and his diciples have as a quest for perfection (basically become a monk), then you are picking and choosing parts of the bible that you follow, while ignoring specific other parts, and judging your fellow man in the process." -- Milton
[1] About your misunderstanding of Scripture is based on your use of a bad translation of that old Book. What you do about that is your problem. Not mine.
Action on YOUR part is required.
[2] As for 'picking and choosing', I'm not the one doing that. I think you're projecting on this one.
[3] And as far as 'judging my fellow man', you are misrepresenting me. And I don't recommend you do that. The testimony (above) will prove me right and you in error.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Evil has many tools, but a lie is the handle that fits them all.]
If I slip up, I'm confident they'll tell me about it...one way or another.
After all, I'm only human and prone to making mistakes. Criticism from reliable sources is good for the soul. Don't you think?
It's true. We all 'sin'.
The difference between Christians and disbelievers is that the former recognize it and ask forgiveness from God. The latter, who don't recognize Him, don't do either.
[The first step in solving a problem is recognizing that it exists.]
There is no defeat or victory in these discussions. If further understanding is the goal, then, at this point, I don't really know what you are talking about. Unless you are hear to win an argument, and we all know that it is useless to argue on the internet.
I'll frame my position. You can tell me where I am wrong.
1) Homosexuality is a sin according to the bible.
2) A bunch of stuff is a sin according to the bible.
3) We all sin everyday.
4) We are imperfect.
5) To judge the homosexual is just as wrong as to judge the prostitute, liar, thief, person with lust in their heart, or anyone else.
6) To make such judgements, in the name of the Bible or Jesus, turns people away from faith, instead of bringing people to Him.
7) And, I'll throw this in for good measure; to judge by implication is worse than judging outright in that it allows the individual doing the judging to hide behind clever word play, claiming innocent the entire time.
But, then again, you don't judge. You just use judgmental and arrogant words like "you are confused" or "people like yourself" or "you are in error" or "I've had plenty of practice throwing around people like you" or... Well, se most of your above posts for statements that are pretty rude.
Either way, if you think Jesus was telling the rich man (in Luke 18:18, in Matthew 19:16 and in Mark 10:17) to give SOME of his possessions to the poor, not EVERYTHING, well then we have to disagree.
To me, the story is pretty clear.
"did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith?"
RE: Again....
"There is no defeat or victory in these discussions." -- Milton
You're lack of perception and/or openness limits your horizon and therefore your 'vision'. And you cannot grasp what is being communicated to you.
You've built yourself a box, much like Harry's, and you cannot escape from it. Probably due to an over-weened sense of pride. [Heaven forefend that I'm WRONG!]
However. The eggs are done as well as the french toast. It is now time to enjoy the Sunday morning feast.
More later...
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Not the brightest crayon in the box, now are we?]
RE: Sources
You might start with this: Eugene Ulrich, 'The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible' (Eerdmans, 1999)
You might also try my sandwich.
The difference between Christians and disbelievers is that the former recognize it and ask forgiveness from God. The latter, who don't recognize Him, don't do either. "
I made this point earlier. We sin everyday and do the best we can, through Jesus, to make it through life and to Him.
Either way, I don't feel like discussing this further and, according to your standard, I'm in a box of somekind, incapable of grasping what is communicated, apparently. And I'm the one with "pride", even though I've been pretty respectful and I have avoided judgements or arrogant language.
Enjoy your eggs, and french toast, and ask yourself if, through your discussion, you are bringing people closer to Jesus or further from Him. He mentioned to not judge others, but you can certianly look in the mirror.
Either way, I'm out of here. Go Pack.
RE: Readings
"You might start with this: Eugene Ulrich, 'The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible'" -- Hoosier
Generally speaking, most books of this sort seem to be written by people like Randy, Harry or Milton. In other words, words of people who do not, in my personal opinion, have much credibility, i.e., a hidden agenda.
However, I'll try to keep an open mind and see what I can determine of Mr. Ulrich; as I'd not heard of him before.
Additionally....being a single person, does he have the gravitas of a commission? Like that gathered to do the KJV? I kind of doubt it.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
"You might also try my sandwich." -- Hoosier
Perhaps.
Would you care to try my recipe for Grand Marnier?
RE: Last Thinks First
"And, not to argue but to present a point, many scholars feel the King James bible is a poor translation, specifically that it sacraficed meaning for poetry and prose." -- Milton
As I mentioned (above) many learned and respected scientists refused the theory of Catastrophism....until Shoemaker-Levi 9 slammed into Jupiter.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Learned men are the cisterns of knowledge. Not the fountainheads.]
Based on recent-past experience....it would seem that way.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Huckabee meant, "Since the 6th day of creation, God has established marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Our laws shouldn't try to change that."
I think he may well have meant that. It is an honest and honorable position, Of course, if he had actually said that, the secular media, which is to say most of the media, would have jumped all over him for making an overtly religious argument. I'm sure this is extraordinarily frustrating to him and many of his followers.
So he instead made a dishonest argument based on a secular "history." Huckabee may be no more dishonest than anyone else running for president. However, when you are not completely truthful, you open yourself up to people's pointing out your inaccuacies.
But it sure is a b*tch that some dishonesties are more socially acceptable than others.
There IS something of a difference. Don't you think?"
Not at all. The godmakers create god and decide he has given them what they say he should give them. The god reflects the godmakers, and the godmakers then tell us what god says. Has anyone been given the word of god by anyone other than another man?
RE: By the Numbers
“There is no defeat or victory in these discussions.” -- Milton
It all depends....on what one thinks of as “Victory Conditions”. Maybe if you were more familiar with that old Book I keep referring you too, you might actually understand where I’m coming from.
But, if you insist on remaining ignorant, that’s hardly MY problem now....is it.
“If further understanding is the goal, then, at this point, I don't really know what you are talking about. Unless you are hear to win an argument, and we all know that it is useless to argue on the internet.” -- Milton
Furthermore, it doesn’t matter to me if you understand or not.
I do believe that I pointed out (above) that all I’m required to do is tell the Truth, as best as I can. [Note: This relates to the item immediately above, vis-a-vis ‘victory conditions’.
Are we learning yet?
“I'll frame my position. You can tell me where I am wrong.” -- Milton
As if you REALLY ‘cared’.....
Homosexuality is a sin according to the bible.” -- Milton
True.
A bunch of stuff is a sin according to the bible.” -- Milton
True.
We all sin everyday.” -- Milton
True.
“4) We are imperfect.” -- Milton
True.
“5) To judge the homosexual is just as wrong as to judge the prostitute, liar, thief, person with lust in their heart, or anyone else.” -- Milton
Where am I ‘judging’, when I point out something is wrong?
Judgement is the Lord’s. It is condemnation. It is, literally, DEATH; the Second (eternal) Death. Where am I killing anyone?
This relates back to my analogy about seeing a friend drunk in a bar, reaching for his car keys and heading for the door.
If you were to stop them and take their car keys away from them....is that ‘judgement’? Condemnation?
Neither you nor anyone else here answered that when first I proposed it.
Why is that?
“6) To make such judgements, in the name of the Bible or Jesus, turns people away from faith, instead of bringing people to Him.” -- Milton
See explanation in item #5 (above).
“7) And, I'll throw this in for good measure; to judge by implication is worse than judging outright in that it allows the individual doing the judging to hide behind clever word play, claiming innocent the entire time.” -- Milton
Explain yourself.
“But, then again, you don't judge. You just use judgmental and arrogant words like "you are confused" or "people like yourself" or "you are in error" or "I've had plenty of practice throwing around people like you" or... Well, se most of your above posts for statements that are pretty rude.” -- Milton
You’re right. I don’t ‘judge’.
Nor, contrary to your comment. I’m not ‘arrogant’. [Note: I imagine that if you took the car keys from your drunken friend, he’d call you ‘arrogant’ and ‘judgemental’ as well. But...would you be saving lives?
But, what you don’t seem to apprehend is that I can ‘discern’.
There is a ‘right’ and a ‘wrong’. Whether you accept that is another matter.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
RE: Making God In Our Image[ination]
"The godmakers create god and decide he has given them what they say he should give them." -- Elliot123
Your ignorance is showing.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Ignorance here is less than bliss. -- Newsboys, Truth Be Known]
Suppose I said "Democracy has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a government where the power was wholly vested in the people."
Then I would say you are wrong. I would agree if you had said, "Democracy has historically, as long as there's been human history, meant a government that in some sense represents the people."
I would agree even more if you added, "Just how the people are said to be represented has differed tremendously across countries and across time."
And why stop there? "Many people consider many so-called democracies to be anything but."
RE: Eggs &Toast &Brining People to Christ
"Enjoy your eggs, and french toast, and ask yourself if, through your discussion, you are bringing people closer to Jesus or further from Him. He mentioned to not judge others, but you can certianly look in the mirror." -- Milton
Once again....
....you don't 'get it'.
I'm not here to bring people to Christ. I can no more convert YOU or ANYONE to Christ than I can spin straw into gold.
Only He can do that.
You see? You don't understand. And, furthermore, you seem to be adamantly opposed to understanding.
In other words...based on past performance here....
....you'll never learn. Unless you change....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Wise men learn from other peoples' mistakes. Most people learn from their own mistakes. Fools never learn.]
P.S. I'm not calling you a 'fool'. I'm just pointing out a truism. Whether you think the proverbial 'shoe fits' is up to you.
Chuck, if you sin, as you say, that just means you don't really believe that the things you say are wrong to do really are wrong to do.
RE: The Epitome of Ignorance
"I never sin. That would mean doing something I believe is the wrong thing to do. Why would I do that?" -- Harry Eagar
'nuff said, here.
RE: My Sin
"Chuck, if you sin, as you say, that just means you don't really believe that the things you say are wrong to do really are wrong to do." -- Harry Eagar
You've got serious problems with English AND logic.
I recommend remedial training.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[3 ¶ Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.]
"I never sin. That would mean doing something I believe is the wrong thing to do. Why would I do that?" -- Harry Eagar
I can understand your perspective. How can a god 'sin', if it doesn't think it is 'sinful'. Sort of like the 'divine right of kings' business, when you think about it.
It's also in keeping with the typical atheist approach to Life.
They have their own set of commandments, don't you know. The first of which is....
I am the lord my god. Thou shalt have no other god before ME!
The REAL problems start when you consider that all the other atheists consider themselves gods as well.
[Who's in charge here?]
' -- Elliot123
Your ignorance is showing."
Well, help us out a bit. Who has been given the word by anyone other than another man?
You go first, though.
RE: Yeah....Right....
"Oh, OK, I give up, Chuck. I've seen the light. See you at the snake-handling next Sunday." -- Harry Eagar
Stop me if you've heard this one before...
Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test....Get thee behind me Satan. -- Some Wag, around 2000 years ago.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
RE: Who?
"Well, help us out a bit. Who has been given the word by anyone other than another man?" -- Elliot123
Those fortunate few who hear it directly from God. And, God willing, they pass it on to the rest of us; unaltered and unmitigated.
For example...Moses, the prophets, Christ, the Apostles, Paul and other saints...here and there.
Whether or not you 'appreciate' it is not my particular problem. It's more likely yours.
Hope that helps....but.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Believing is seeing. -- Some waggish atheist friend of mine, after a discussion like that above.]
....I've heard directly from Him, or at least from one of his agents over the last 57 years.
If I had not, I wouldn't be here having this charming discussion with you, as I'd be dead, instead.
Go fig.....
It had something to do with (1) plummeting out of the merciless darkness with a malfunctioning parachute and (2) having a 'snit' with an 18-wheeler on I25 one dark wintery night.
And, being told in the last moments of my life, EXACTLY what I should do in order to survive the next minute....and beyond.
Oddly enough....I did as I was instructed....and I'm here to testify to it.
Did a man tell you they hear it directly from god? The godmakers write the story and tell the rest of us it is true. There's nothing wrong with that; people have found comfort in many stories over the years. However, when the godmakers tell the rest of what to do based on their story, it's time to pull back the curtain.
RE: Being....
"Did a man tell you they hear it directly from god?" -- Elliot123
....a bit obtuse, are we?
"The godmakers write the story and tell the rest of us it is true." -- Elliot123
There's a tad more to it than you, in your simple-minded methodology, would care to admit.
One of the aspects being the presence of 'prophecy'.
Or, could you please explain how a man from the First Century can describe a runaway nuclear reactor, in terms his contemporaries would understand, AND name the place of the event?
I eagerly await your reply.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Why is that?
I am pleased you have come to terms with your inner demons. I an not pleased you have not learned to keep them to yourself.
One of the aspects being the presence of 'prophecy'."
Is prophecy when a godmaker says god told him so?
"Or, could you please explain how a man from the First Century can describe a runaway nuclear reactor, in terms his contemporaries would understand, AND name the place of the event?"
I have no idea. How?
OK. What has your own experience been, and why shouldn't we overlook it?
RE: Hmmmm
"Stop the presses! Chuck hears voices! " -- Harry Eagar
And you said you give up.
You're some kinda liar, buckie.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
RE: ....the Clueless
"I have no idea."-- Elliot123
Typical. All too typical.
"How?" -- Elliot123
Not that you really care. If you did, you've have done some reading and googling.
Here's a clue for you.
Revelation 8:10-11.
Then see if you can translate the name of some village in Ukraine—we heard about in the mid-80s—into English.
Good hunting and good luck....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
RE: And YES....
...I do hear voices. And on the occasions when I hear them they've saved my life.
But that's just one aspect.
You don't like it? Tough noogies....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You're just jealous because the voices don't talk to you.]
RE: Oh....Yeah....
....before I forget....
....Remember what I was saying (above) about "Know your 'enemy'"? By reading their books?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Are we learning, yet?]
I'm afraid I'm not up to doing the translation on the Ukrainian village, but I'd be very interested in hearing about "how a man from the First Century can describe a runaway nuclear reactor, in terms his contemporaries would understand, AND name the place of the event?"
Is it a secret, or is it something to be shared with all of humanity?
"You're just jealous because the voices don't talk to you."
You're right. They don't. Do they talk to you? What do they say? Who are they? Is there more than one speaker? What language? Do they speak Ukrainian?