danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Normal?

Not really sure about that. It often led to adverse circumstances, including idolatry.

And, if it was really "normal," why did the Jews stop it? I think "normal" is a tricky word. Was it God's ideal? I think not. Certainly, Adam was not given many wives in Eden.

It certainly makes for a good research topic. For every Adam I can name a Jacob. The Jews stopped it post Hebrew Bible, but certainly Solomon had many wives as did King David

Jacob, of course is also Israel. Abraham did not only have two wives, but his first, Sarah, was his half-sister. God told Abimlech (who took offense at such incestral relations) that Abraham was righteous and had a blameless heart.

So one of the most important Biblical marriages was between siblings, and God still chose them to be the parents of a nation.

That's without going back to working out how Adam and Eve got to be grandparents - clearly Cain and Seth married a sister or a neice - and as long as we assume God did not create other people, the only way to get to the third generation was (by design) incest.

Yeah, let's get into genetics and the first family! We'll have so much fun!

Doctor Fate wrote:
Yeah, let's get into genetics and the first family! We'll have so much fun!

Not my cup of tea, thanks (I have seen the post-hoc apologetics about how Adam & Eve were genetically pure or whatever, but as it comes from people who don't accept evolution it's a bit of a cheek on their part). Of course there are problems with incest beyond genetics.

Moving on from the "first family" there is also the family of Noah, which was so small that at the very least cousin-marriage was going to happen.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
Yeah, let's get into genetics and the first family! We'll have so much fun!

Not my cup of tea, thanks (I have seen the post-hoc apologetics about how Adam & Eve were genetically pure or whatever, but as it comes from people who don't accept evolution it's a bit of a cheek on their part). Of course there are problems with incest beyond genetics.

Moving on from the "first family" there is also the family of Noah, which was so small that at the very least cousin-marriage was going to happen.

Okay, you don't want to, but you do. Got it. Just want to be snide and not debate. Understood.

Doctor Fate wrote:Okay, you don't want to, but you do. Got it. Just want to be snide and not debate. Understood.

What is to "debate"? It's what is written in the Bible. If you really think that Seth & Cain marrying a sister or niece is ok simply because of the genetic aspect, good luck to you.

I understand to a certain point why Christians can look at the Bible and see that same sex marriage is bad. But I don't see how they can avoid the other "non-traditional" types of marriage that are in the Bible and happened as a result of God's actions, or were undertaken by the righteous men he chose.

Any Christian who invokes Matthew 19:1-6 against same sex marriage but supports divorce (especially if they are divorced) is clearly not reading the next three verses. And I don't see a concerted campaign by real Christians to undo the divorce laws that allow for more than just "sex sin" as a justification. Why not? If anything that was a more direct break and redefinition of heterosexual marriage, removing the "till death us do part" and allowing remarriage.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Okay, you don't want to, but you do. Got it. Just want to be snide and not debate. Understood.

What is to "debate"? It's what is written in the Bible. If you really think that Seth & Cain marrying a sister or niece is ok simply because of the genetic aspect, good luck to you.

I understand to a certain point why Christians can look at the Bible and see that same sex marriage is bad. But I don't see how they can avoid the other "non-traditional" types of marriage that are in the Bible and happened as a result of God's actions, or were undertaken by the righteous men he chose.

Because "righteousness" is not a human achievement. We are never "righteous." Abraham had righteousness "imputed" (credited, accounted) to him. Like others, he was not, of himself, righteous. There is none righteous, not even one. That's the thing with the Gospel--it's not for good people, because no one is good.

Any Christian who invokes Matthew 19:1-6 against same sex marriage but supports divorce (especially if they are divorced) is clearly not reading the next three verses.

No Christian "supports" divorce. God hates divorce. There are only two justifications for it: adultery and abandonment.

I don't "invoke" any Scripture against homosexual marriage. It is a biblical non-sequitur. It's like "male women" or "wise children."

And I don't see a concerted campaign by real Christians to undo the divorce laws that allow for more than just "sex sin" as a justification.

For starters, because, contra the anti-Christian hysteria we often read, Christians are not trying to "force" their morality on others. We understand that unbelievers act like . . . unbelievers. It is actually counter-productive to force the law of God upon the unsaved. We have no interest in improving the behavior of unbelievers as they march off to eternity in hell. We'd rather expend our energy proclaiming the truth: Jesus Christ saves sinners, of whom I am the poster child. It is His perfect life we should have lived, His sacrificial death we need to redeem us from the penalty of sin, and His resurrection that affirms its efficacy. All who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.

Why not? If anything that was a more direct break and redefinition of heterosexual marriage, removing the "till death us do part" and allowing remarriage.

Remarriage is only permitted, in biblical churches, under the biblically prescribed circumstances: a biblical divorce or the former spouse has died.

One of the most unappealing things to me about Christianity-- the low opinion of people. No one is good. No one is righteous . Only an unseen god can save our worthless, sin- filled lives. I opt for a most positive vision of humanity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... ominations

freeman3

One of the most unappealing things to me about Christianity-- the low opinion of people. No one is good. No one is righteous . Only an unseen god can save our worthless, sin- filled lives. I opt for a most positive vision of humanity.

well, there's a myriad of Christian groups out there. Not all of whom are a dreary as the Calvinists...

freeman3 wrote:One of the most unappealing things to me about Christianity-- the low opinion of people. No one is good. No one is righteous . Only an unseen god can save our worthless, sin- filled lives. I opt for a most positive vision of humanity.

Study history.

Well, I do have a history degree from UCLA...

freeman3 wrote:One of the most unappealing things to me about Christianity-- the low opinion of people. No one is good. No one is righteous . Only an unseen god can save our worthless, sin- filled lives. I opt for a most positive vision of humanity.

Many Christians do, too. DF just represents one strand, which seems to be quite unremitting and plays down the whole "God is Love" / "Sermon on the Mount" stuff for the condemnation and fear thing.

And each Christian believes that their view of the religion is the true one, and people who differ too much are not really Christians. Hence centuries of bitter wars and people moving to new lands to flee persecution or get away from all the heretics.

This is also why it is not a good idea to use religion as a legal guide - too many contradictory interpretations even within the same ones, let alone across all faiths.

Steve - marriage existed before Christianity, and across the world in places well before the Abrahamic faiths reached them. And unfortunately, whatever you may believe to be the case, gay marriage is as much a fact as polygamy and familial marriage was in OT Israel

freeman3 wrote:Well, I do have a history degree from UCLA...

Well then, you have ample knowledge of the evil men to do each other. Eventually, you might come to believe that greed is part of our make-up and cannot be legislated or wished out of existence. Neither can the other flaws in mankind.

danivon wrote:

freeman3 wrote:One of the most unappealing things to me about Christianity-- the low opinion of people. No one is good. No one is righteous . Only an unseen god can save our worthless, sin- filled lives. I opt for a most positive vision of humanity.

Many Christians do, too. DF just represents one strand, which seems to be quite unremitting and plays down the whole "God is Love" / "Sermon on the Mount" stuff for the condemnation and fear thing.

It's interesting . . . Jesus never taught about the love of God to unbelievers.

We don't play down the "God is love"/ "Sermon on the Mount" stuff. Perhaps you remember the end of the Sermon on the Mount?

(Matt. 7:13-8:1) "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. 15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' 24 "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it." 28 And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, 29 for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.

Lots of judgment . . . oops.

And each Christian believes that their view of the religion is the true one, and people who differ too much are not really Christians. Hence centuries of bitter wars and people moving to new lands to flee persecution or get away from all the heretics.

It's a matter of sources. When the source is Scripture, the results are better. When someone becomes "the Authority" (Pope, etc.) instead of Scripture, persecution and conflict ensue.

This is also why it is not a good idea to use religion as a legal guide - too many contradictory interpretations even within the same ones, let alone across all faiths.

Interestingly, I keep saying religion should not be a legal guide. I'm not really sure why that is so hard to read. Maybe using your own lingo will help you understand me. "Religion should not be a legal guide."

Steve - marriage existed before Christianity, and across the world in places well before the Abrahamic faiths reached them.

No, marriage did not exist before Christianity.

(Eph. 1:3-6) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

The Father chose Christians before time existed (before the foundation of the world) with the purpose that we would be adopted by Him through Jesus (i.e. become Christians). So, Christianity (the religion/faith) existed before marriage.

And unfortunately, whatever you may believe to be the case, gay marriage is as much a fact as polygamy and familial marriage was in OT Israel

I don't dispute that homosexual marriage now exists legally. However, it's not "marriage" if the word is to have any meaning at all.

I see now Germany is on the road to permitting incest. http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/09/a-german- ... t-5288510/

Yes, yes, it's only one couple and who knows what the future holds . . .

Meanwhile, people are "marrying" themselves, a man is applying for a license to marry his second wife, and dogs and cats are clamoring for the right to marry.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Steve - marriage existed before Christianity, and across the world in places well before the Abrahamic faiths reached them.

No, marriage did not exist before Christianity.

(Eph. 1:3-6) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

The Father chose Christians before time existed (before the foundation of the world) with the purpose that we would be adopted by Him through Jesus (i.e. become Christians). So, Christianity (the religion/faith) existed before marriage.

Well that's some amazing post-hoc justification that Paul wrote there, but it's at odds with the historical facts. Christianity did not exist on earth before Christ came, even if God pre-determined it. Marriage existed before then. And existed outside of Christianity all over the world. And still does exist outside the religious definitions.

I do wish that fringe religions would stop trying to hijack marriage for their own agendas.

And unfortunately, whatever you may believe to be the case, gay marriage is as much a fact as polygamy and familial marriage was in OT Israel

I don't dispute that homosexual marriage now exists legally. However, it's not "marriage" if the word is to have any meaning at all.

Well, it does have meaning, just not the one that you want it to. Language is like that - words change their meanings. "Gay" didn't use to mean homosexual either.

I see now Germany is on the road to permitting incest. http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/09/a-german- ... t-5288510/

Yes, yes, it's only one couple and who knows what the future holds . . .

Well, that's a biblical marriage, so what's the issue?

What I read there is that some Ethics Committee has recommended (back in September 2014) something, but that German and European HR law has so far upheld the criminalisation of incest. But I see nothing to suggest there's a move legislatively or judicially.

Meanwhile, people are "marrying" themselves, a man is applying for a license to marry his second wife, and dogs and cats are clamoring for the right to marry.

It truly must seem like the end of days. Try to contain your joy for the approaching judgement on us all.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Steve - marriage existed before Christianity, and across the world in places well before the Abrahamic faiths reached them.

No, marriage did not exist before Christianity.

(Eph. 1:3-6) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

The Father chose Christians before time existed (before the foundation of the world) with the purpose that we would be adopted by Him through Jesus (i.e. become Christians). So, Christianity (the religion/faith) existed before marriage.

Well that's some amazing post-hoc justification that Paul wrote there, but it's at odds with the historical facts. Christianity did not exist on earth before Christ came, even if God pre-determined it.

It absolutely did. It just didn't have the name "Christianity."

God never changed His plan, which He determined before the foundation of the world. As a Christian, I see no issue with this. As you are not a Christian, we really don't have a common ground upon which to debate this.

Well, it does have meaning, just not the one that you want it to. Language is like that - words change their meanings. "Gay" didn't use to mean homosexual either.

That's okay. According to some, "male" and "female" are just stopping points on a continuum. If the world wants to go crazy, I don't have to go with it.

Well, that's a biblical marriage, so what's the issue?

No, no it's not.

It truly must seem like the end of days. Try to contain your joy for the approaching judgement on us all.

No joy here. I think all the joy is on your side.

Excuse my blasphemy, but at this point I cannot avoid swearing.

J**** Tapdancing C*****, are you guys really in a Bible-fight?

As the Bible is not the Constitution or law of the United States I cannot see its relevance. I very much doubt that lawyers for either side who made their arguments before the Nine used the Bible as their legal basis.

Personally I do not care what quote you bring up from the Bible. If I did care, one of you---depending on which side I took---would attempt to outquote me. Because of the contradictory nature of many passages of the Bible, and the varying interpretations of it--I did say there were 22,000 plus Christian sects did I mention that?--it makes for a lousy Constitution. And I thank God for that every day, and the fact that I live in a country that is not a religious-based republic (I mean like Iran, for example). And before anyone says something about the founding fathers being religious, or something remotely along those lines, I think you know PRECISELY what I mean when I say "religious-based republic" (cough-Iran-cough)

Now, what LEGAL arguments do either of you have against or for same-sex marriage being legal in the United States? Because your religious arguments have about the same ability to sway people as the placards people carry outside the Supreme Court building to protest/support the ruling likely did.

As the CIA agent in Charlie Wilson's War put it "America doesn't fight religious wars....yeah, that's why I like living here."

Legal arguments, folks? Maybe I missed them on the first few pages (but quite frankly I am NOT going to wade through the first few pages of this crap, no offense to any of you.)

Being gay, I appreciate the arguments put forth in favor of same-sex marriage, and in favor of Christianity being inclusive, rather than exclusive. However, I question their effectiveness, and I think you're fighting a losing battle in it. (Both sides.) As Ammianus Marcellinus put it (as early as the 4th century, no kidding) "No beasts are as viscous to each other as are Christian sects in general."