Quantcast

What Every American Should Know about the Biblical “Definitions” of Marriage

Thoughts Concerning a ‘Biblical Definition of Marriage,’ and in Response to Umpteen Biblically-Ignorant Memes that have Sloshed Back & Forth across the Social Media High Seas e’er since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Landmark Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, and with Hellfire Spit Aimed at any Idiot who Buys the Rights to a Stock Photo of Two Aryans on a Beach and has the Holy-Ghostly Gall to Suggest this Represents God’s Eternal Vision of Connubial Bliss (& with Apologies to those who heretofore did not know what a Fleshlight is)

For the love of God—literally—please share this article with anyone you know who maintains there is such a thing as a ‘Biblical Definition of Marriage’ in any manner approaching what chicken fast food executives, Michele Bachmann and the rest of the deluded Christian Right spouts.

If there is one thing I simply cannot stomach—other than cardboard chicken sandwiches and the miscreants who hawk them—it is the egregious misrepresentation of the Bible. The Bible is not Paula Deen’s Southern Cooking Bible. If you call yourself a Christian, do not pretend that respectable theology consists of pulling out a few KJV verses from your lard-laden pantry and whipping up some peanut butter and chocolate balls to adorn your Tea Party potluck picnic table.

Biblical Marriage Peanut Butter & Chocolate Ball Buckeyes
3 cups – Adam & Eve
1 cup – Creamy Quote from Psalms (use Proverbs for substitute)
4 tablespoons (1/2 stick) – Pauline Epistle-Churned Butter, at room temperature
1 teaspoon – Gospel Quote
3 cups – Semisweet Sodom & Gomorrah

Before we begin our Two-Minute Drill Survey of “Biblical Definitions of Marriage”—yes, plural—let me suggest that if you are naïve enough to believe in a Biblical Definition of Marriage based solely on the misguided hermeneutical assumption that there was an historical Adam and Eve, then you also need to fess up that your personal theology includes a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for sibling incest—unless you have some other suggestion for how Adam and Eve’s children managed to propagate our species.

Probably never thought of that, have you? I’ll give you a 90-second time out to let the concept roll around in your head.

“Oh, but that was a one-time exception in the eyes of God,” you might offer. Or perhaps you’ll proffer this silly explanation: “Yes, but incest was okay before The Fall.”

My prepared response to whatever pops out of your mouth other than a realization that you haven’t previously exercised critical thinking in your interpretation of holy writ: Really?!

Good. Now you know that either (a) Adam and Eve are metaphorical creations, or (b) the Board of Directors of the Creation Museum should start building a Pro-Incest Wing to complement its Biblical Monogamy Wing. (Yes, maybe the folks in charge of the Creation Museum have stopped evolving, but the biblical concept of marriage has not. And for what it’s worth, other than swans, the animal kingdom almost universally refutes the concept of monogamy—unless you include insect species where the female happens to digest the male following procreation.)

Next.

Okay, everyone. Get out your flannelgraphs and fleshlights and cover your children’s eyes. Thus begins the Two-Minute Biblical Survey Drill!

Adam & Eve and Other Polygamous Ponderings from Genesis

We already covered Adam and Eve. Enough said.

When is the last time your minister preached on the story of Onan? Never? What a surprise. Permit me to quote Genesis 38:8-10:

“Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his seed on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight, so he put him to death as well.”

Ouch.

So, our biblical definition of marriage now includes incest for the sake of species preservation along with summary execution by Jehovah if a man refuses to bed his brother’s wife once his brother dies. In case you’re following along at home with your Bibles, flip ahead to Deuteronomy 25:5-6, where this concept of Levirate marriage was ultimately etched into Judaic law.

Now, who’s ready for some Pentateuchal polygamy? I know who! Lamech, the first polygamist mentioned in the Bible. Flip back to Genesis 4:19. Lamech had two wives, Adah and Zillah. Would have made an amazing HBO drama in the day. And of course that crotchety Old Testament Yahweh made mincemeat of Lamech for daring to following marital cultural norms by striking him with theistic lightning. What?! You mean God did not smite Lamech for polygamy? That simply cannot be!

I mean, God struck down Onan for masturbating rather than knocking up his sister-in-law. Well, I’ll be. So it is possible to sneak an inside curveball by God. Or maybe, just maybe, God understands that human culture evolves at its own predictable pace.

Here are some other evil polygamists one finds in Genesis: Abraham, Jacob, Esau. Um, don’t we consider at least two of these gentlemen Mt. Rushmore patriarchs of the faith? As the song goes: “Father Abraham, had many wives / And many wives had Father Abraham.”

The Rest of the Old Testament

Judges 19. If Quentin Tarantino were ever going to turn a Bible story into a film, this is the one. It is a tale so befuddling that space simply does not permit full exegesis. Let me just quote the first and final verses:

Verse 1: “Now a Levite who lived in a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim took a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah.”

Verse 29: “When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.”

What follows is a godawful war against the people of Gibeah who perpetrated the all-night rape of the Levite’s wife—er, concubine. Well, maybe there is one other verse I should include:

Verse 25: “So [the Levite] took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night….”

It is perhaps understandable why the producers of Veggie Tales never devoted an episode to these final chapters of Judges. Equally, it is somewhat predictable as to why the Southern Baptist Convention entirely skipped over the whole “taking a concubine and throwing her out to the bastards for an all-night rape-fest” clause in its 2004 On Supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Next. Wise King Solomon.

I Kings 11:3 says that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. In deference to the Christian Right, the text adds that these women “led him astray.” So there you have it: a proper biblical definition of marriage puts the limit of opposite sex partners at 1,000. And to my knowledge, the only people who have ever violated this tenet are Peter North and Wilt Chamberlain.

The Gritty Gospels

Time is running out in our Two-Minute Drill, so let’s skip straight to the Hail Mary pass.

Question: How old was Mary when she married Joseph?

Answer: As near as I can tell, so young that Joseph would have been arrested in any state in the Union with the exception of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. (Can someone please do a follow-up article on why females are allowed to marry in the Land of the Red Sox at the age of 12 with parental consent?)

At any rate, here’s an unexpected addendum to a biblical definition of marriage: girls who are barely pubescent can get married—though possibly this rule may only apply to maidens who have conceived via the Holy Spirit. Still, can’t you just hear the wedding bells ringing across the Fruited Plain? Someone better size down those Vera Wang bridal gowns.

Let’s fast forward to Jesus, where things start to get real:

How often do you hear Matthew 19:9 quoted from the pulpit other than never? “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Just thought I would throw that out there for the 43% of adult Evangelical Christians who are divorced. I’m not going to compare this against a national statistic, which appears to be murky at best. So let’s just be equitable and say that Evangelicals are no less human than the rest of us—not matter what they contend.

For those who really care about authentic biblical definitions, here are a few ditties about love and judgment from Mary’s celebrity son:

“‘If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her’” (John 8:7).

“’What is written in the Law,’ he replied. ‘How do you read it?’ [The expert in the Law] answered, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind,’ and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ‘You have answered correctly,’ Jesus replied. ‘Do this and you will live.’” (Luke 10:26-28)

And just because I can, here’s a non-biblical quote from folk rocker Stephen Stills:

“And if you can’t be with the one you love honey / Love the one you’re with.”

The Apostle Paul: Tanner, Missionary, Anti-Marriage Advocate

Nearly 2,000 years since the advent of the religion, and people still do not universally recognize that, at least with respect to history, the spread of Christianity has as much to do with the Apostle Paul as it does with the religion’s lord and savior. So with just a few seconds left on the clock, I cannot help but give the Pharisee Formerly Known as Saul of Tarsus some props:

I Corinthians 7:8:  “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.”

Feel free to continue slogging your way through I Corinthians 7 and the other Pauline epistles. Just keep in mind that all of the strange marriage pronouncements made by Paul the Tanner make a lot more sense when you recognize that he, along with the other early Christian Church leaders, were convinced that Christ would return in glory at any moment to save the planet from Rome and the likes of such pagan assholes as Nero and Caligula, who, by the way, was briefly married at the age of 21. And just for what it’s worth, Caligula did not marry his horse; he merely promised to make it a Roman senator, yet instead made it a priest.

But that’s out-of-bounds for our Biblical Survey, and for that I deserve a five-yard penalty on the final play of the game.

In conclusion, what really matters is that the Biblical Definition of Marriage compiled during our Two-Minute Drill includes, but is not limited to: “Winks” to Incest, Polygamy, Concubinage (including the right to offer your concubine for all-night serial rape, followed by sectioning her body into 12 parts for distribution to fellow tribesmen), a 1,000 Opposite Sex Lifetime Partner Limit, Marriage at the Age of 13 (especially if endorsed by the Trinity), a Denouncement of the U.S. Evangelical Divorce Rate, and a Pauline Prohibition of Marriage.

For you diehard biblical-literalist Christians, here’s your chance to apply some of those critical thinking skills you acquired when earlier we discussed Adam and Eve.

Honest to God, do you really still think that same-sex marriage represents a blasphemous sacrilege of your religious tradition?

Hopefully you can now see that marriage, just like anything else, progresses naturally along a cultural evolutionary path. And for your spiritual comfort, please find solace in the knowledge that God meets humanity wherever culture happens to be. Day by day. Century by century. Millennium by millennium. E’er progressing.

The following two tabs change content below.
Arik Bjorn lives in South Carolina. His education background includes archaeology, ancient languages and biblical studies. His writing interests include religion, unraveling theodicy and trying to understand why voters commonly vote against their own self-interest. Visit Arik’s website, Viking Word, and check out his latest books, Birds of a Feather and Why Bad Things Happen to Good Parrots. You can also follow him on Twitter @arikbjorn and on Facebook as well. And be sure to check out more from Arik in his archives!

Comments

Facebook comments

  • ShoreBudMike

    OUTSTANDING. Thank you, Arik.

    • Arik Bjorn

      You bet, ShoreBudMike.

  • Carrie Jorgenson

    Brilliant! Thank you!

  • Timm Higgins

    Great stuff. Want to get their panties in a real twist, mention that the Lilith came before Eve. Was an equal. Adam didn’t like that, he wanted a more submissive wife who didn’t ask a whole lot of questions.

    So he bitched and moaned. Instead of making Eve out of the same clay as Adam, The Notorious G O D made Eve from his rib.

    • John Elder

      Errr, Lilith isn’t in the Bible (at least, not as Adam’s wife, that notion comes from 10th century Jewish folklore).
      Hebrew is a bit of an ambiguous language, so the translation of tsela (usually given as “rib”) is the same word you’d use to refer to a rack of ribs, or a slab of meat. In other words, an honest reading includes accepting that God split the original Adam in half in order to make Eve from one of the halves.

      • Sam Brosenberg

        Even by that measure, she was still made *from* him, and thus they can be considered siblings (or genetic clones if you want to get real specific)

      • Eserafina42

        You still can’t use her as an example with biblical literalists, since she isn’t in the biblical story.

      • David Jennings

        Thanks to the Council of Nicea who corrupted the entire Bible,

      • Stephen Barlow

        How many books of the Bible were EXCLUDED from the chosen and filtered and edited 66?

      • Stephen Barlow

        CLONES!!!! Where were you when Bush outlawed stem cell research!!!??????

      • Hosfac

        Actually, she is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which puts the first clear mention of her at about 40 BC. Biblical scholars have used this as a reference to identify at least two possible references to Lilith in the writings that became the bible (one possibly in Isaiah [which is disputed] and one in Proverbs [which is less disputed]). However, there is no indication that she was Adam’s wife.

      • Stephen Barlow

        His FWB perhaps? Since she was his equal.
        How many Bible stories have matching Greek, Roman or other stories. There are many “Great Flood” stories that predate Noah, many virgin birth fairy tales as well.

      • Hosfac

        Possibly. She could have just been intended to be a platonic friend or a sibling, too. It’s also entirely possible that she was intended to be a wife of sorts and the relationship was never mentioned. It’s not clearly indicated one way or the other. All that is known for sure is that they were acquainted somehow before things fell out.

      • Stephen Barlow

        A LOT from the Bible is inherently unclear. This is not the inspiration of a ‘god’, it’s the disparate ramblings of sun stroked bedouins who wanna justify their actions, their land theft and murders ‘as the will of ‘god’.

        A ‘god’ that created the delicate balance of the ever unfolding and expanding universe would at least organize his thoughts and instructions coherently and with some measure of uniformity.

        Why 4 Gospels if it IS the ‘word of God”? Shouldn’t one be enough if it IS directly from ‘gof’?

      • Hosfac

        I’m not arguing the validity of the book. I’m only discussing it’s content.

      • Stephen Barlow

        But if it’s content can NOT be considered NON-FICTION because there IS no evidence to support a verification… and yet much of it IS relatively historically accurate so to dismiss those parts as FICTION would also be wrong.

        I remember logic class (If P, then Q. If not P, then not Q) and if any part of P is false, then ALL of Q is false as well. Because the False part of P MAKES everything after it FALSE. in law, “it’s fruit of the poisonous tree. So all evidence FROM that poisonous tree is ALSO poisoned.

        As a philosophy text, there are few with more value, but 98% of the people who use it, do NOT use it for philosophy. they use it to condemn other’s actions or justify their own.

        Which back to If NOT p, the certainly NOT q!

      • Hosfac

        I am familiar with what you are talking about. It’s called a “mutually inclusive event,” which is the opposite of a “mutually exclusive event” (if P then not Q, if Q then not P). However, the statement lacks some context: not all events qualify as either mutually inclusive or mutually exclusive, because correlation does not necessarily indicate causality.

        Another concept that you should be familiar with from your logic class is that a lack of evidence is not proof that something isn’t true. That line of thinking is called a “logical fallacy,” and is universally considered junk science. Any conclusion drawn from a logical fallacy becomes that aforementioned fruit from the poisonous tree.

        To avoid falling into the logical fallacy trap, you could say: “Due to the lack of evidence, I have no choice but to consider statement X to be of highly dubious origin, and hence, unreliable information.” This way your idea is framed as an informed theory as opposed to a statement of fact. You can then build on that theory and, as long as your progression of logic is sound, your statement cannot be disproven without proving that statement X is true (which can’t be done without evidence).

        Don’t underestimate the power of a theory. Science couldn’t exist without them. Most of the things we consider to be scientific facts are, in reality, just theories that can’t be proven wrong.

      • Stephen Barlow

        But a lack of evidence is exactly what makes FAIRY TALES so cool!!!

        As far as the logic goes, there is so much more to it than I trust any one in this blog can handle, because once you begin using statistical analysis to predict the probabilities of the existence of ‘whatever’, then all bets are off.

        Bottom line, I am glad you have such a hardon for your faith.

      • Hosfac

        This is true, but there aren’t many people who insist that Little Red Riding Hood is an accurate account of historical events.

        As to my faith, I’m an atheist. I just happen to have a background in theological studies.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Then you understand that Islam came from from Christianity. Christianity has too many Hindu and Buddhist concepts that are in STARK contrast to Judaism to deny that Jesus (if genuine) traveled EAST as far as the Ganges and back between “His wisdom in theTemple @ 12 YO and His ministry @ 30.

        NOTHING in Abraham’s religion accounted for the REINCARNATION of Christianity. A decade growing up in Egypt may have cultured an AFTERLIFE ideology in a young Jesus, but It was the confirmation of the Eastern theosophies that launched the idea…

        “I am the way, the truth and the life…”

        There is NO Swiss in this cheese. My explanation of original Christian thought makes the most sense.

      • Stephen Barlow

        And by your claims, you have NO WAY of knowing that because, a LACK of evidence is NOT proof that an event DID NOT HAPPEN.

        CheckMate.

      • Hosfac

        The only reason I bothered to engage you in this is because I thought you had something intelligent and interesting to say. I’m sorry to discover that I was clearly mistaken. The fault is mine, however, as I should have guessed you had no idea what you were talking about when you first mentioned your “logic class.”

        The strangest part is that you, for some inexplicable reason, have begun to take my continued discussion with you personally, like it was some sort of contest. Honestly, if you didn’t want to have a civil conversation, you shouldn’t have attempted to start one.

        The reasons why don’t actually matter anymore, since I will engage you no further. I have better things to occupy my time than being attacked because I attempted to have a friendly conversation.

      • Stephen Barlow

        No you didn’t douchejuice.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Boo hoo

      • Stephen Barlow

        A SCIENTIFIC theory and a theological one are two incomparably different things.

        Newton’s three laws of motion came from a THEORY based on a simple observation of an alleged apple. Do I need to school you on the scientific method in public?

      • Hosfac

        I do wish you the best of luck in your attempts to “school” me. I’ve been at this a very long time.

        The subject concepts are different, yes, but the methodology of logical deduction never changes, regardless of what the subject is. A logical fallacy will ALWAYS lead to flawed conclusions.

        And perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you keep changing the subject First we were discussing the content, then the validity of the content, then logic, and now the difference between science and theology as theoretical concepts. That’s quite a distance to veer off tangent.

      • Var Enyo

        I know at least one church group who literally believes that men have one less rib and won’t look at anything to the contrary. You saying they didn’t read honestly?

      • John Elder

        I’m saying they don’t know their Hebrew

      • Victoria Dee

        The old testament is the Torah revised to fit into a edited “Christian” way of living. Lilith does appear later in the bible as a demon that makes men stray from their wives and kills children with her two sons- which Adam is the father of.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Many Torah Characters were written out of the KJV.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I am saying they LIE honestly.

      • Tamara Jeanne

        One common misconception by many christians that I often run across concerning the Adam & Eve story is the belief that since the bible says that god made Eve by taking a rib from Adam, that all men born ever since are missing one rib. I was tought this as a child. Of course anyone who has even a basic education of the human skeleton knows that’s is incorrect. In fact the only real differences between the skeleton of a human male and that of a woman are width of the pelvis and the size of the skull, which are The what fronesic scientists use determine the sex of sskeletons of murder victims.

      • Stephen Barlow

        ALso bone density and generic difference in the size of the skeletons.

      • Don Sbragia

        Actually, Lilith IS in the Bible. You just need to know how and where to look….

      • Stephen Barlow

        But Genesis is a JEWISH Book. Which might explain WHY Adam & Eve has an alternate ending, like every good HBO special.

    • David Jennings

      Lilith is the wife every man needs.

      • Tamara Jeanne

        Lilith was the first feminist.

      • Stephen Barlow

        If Adam couldn’t have sex with her, maybe she was the first lesbian? Or maybe Adam was scraped and reformed because the first Adam was GAY?

    • Terri Kenison

      That’s garbage as is the rest of this article. Incest was not incest until it became a law that you couldnt have sex with a close relative. It’s no different then any other action that was previously not a law becoming a law. Until something becomes a law there is no breaking of a law. Another thing, Adam and Eve were literal as stated in Romans and several other new testament books.

      • Jay Jonstone

        So Laws are arbitrary, and subject to change? Did God’s opinion concerning incest change? Or did men change the laws to prohibit incest?
        Until recently there were no laws prohibiting same sex marriage. Did God’s opinion on the subject change in the last 20 years? Did God write these new laws?

      • terri

        God can so choose to change laws that He puts in place. He is after all the creator of this world. Dietary laws were put in place in the beginning to protect the people whom He called His own. As things became more sanitary and health concerns were reduced those foods were no longer a concern and He removed the law. Regarding Gods opinion changing on incest, no it did not change. He allowed for a time of intermarriage to populate the earth. When the time was that it was no longer beneficial to humanity and began causing health and wellness problems He then put a law in place for our protection. Laws regarding same sex marriage are man made and are not of God. God already established from the beginning that marriage was between a man and a woman and that is was for the means of being fruitful so that humanity would multiply on the earth. God has already made it clear in both the old and new testements that this practice is detestable to Him. Romans tells us without a doubt that God turned this world over to it’s immoral practices since it continued to turn away from His teachings. He will not force Himself on us. He has granted the wish of the wicked to practice what is destesable. Will you be so willing to embrace those who are even now pushing for changes in the law that will one day allow pedophilles to also practice their sexual preferences freely? It will happen just same way as divorce and now homosexuality is considered to be the “norm”. It’s a slippery slope and it only goes lower and lower.

      • Melania Gulley

        Gee, the all knowing God didn’t realize that incest would cause health problems.. pretty damn dumb diety. Pedophilia will never be allowed because unlike your screwed up God most of us think kids should be allowed a childhood.. Go play with your pretend friend

      • terri

        Melania, It makes me shudder that you would blaspheme God almighty this way. Whether you believe in Him or not every person will be judged for every utterance and every knee shall bow on the last day. I pray that you would call on His name that He would save your soul before the end comes.
        Sent from my HTC One™ S on T-Mobile. America’s First Nationwide 4G Network.
        —– Reply message —–

      • Stephen Barlow

        Since WHEN is the TRUTH blasphemey?

      • Stephen Barlow

        HAHAHAHA!!!

      • Lucie Landry

        Wow, you didn’t drank the koolaid, you bathed in it! Your post makes absolutely NO sense to a logical person.

      • terri

        Yes Lucie I have bathed in the river of baptism as I repented of my sins and claimed Jesus as my Lord and Saviour. I do not expect you to understand my logic as it is not the logic of the “world” but it is the wisdom of God and His Word. I am not concerned with what you believe me to be but only with what God has claimed me to be and that is His child through His Son Jesus. I can only pray that one day you will have your eyes opened to the truth of God’s word and the fallacys of this world.

      • Stephen Barlow

        The Bible actually said that Jesus came to REPLACE the law with 2 new commandments, neither of which most modern Christians keep. Jesus came specifically to make a NEW and everlasting covenant…

      • Stephen Barlow

        NO!!!! If ‘god’ is love, then love between 2 ‘god’ made spirits should transcend their bodily functions and gender.

      • danb

        So, rape was totally legit before we made it a law? Btw…rape is not listed in the 10 commandmants. Also, when did god tell cain not to kill able, yet he punnished him anyway.

      • Stephen Barlow

        BINGO!!! Remember when it was legal in the South to hang a negro from a tree and deny other’s a vote and an education?

    • Stephen Barlow

      HEHEHE HAHHAHAHAA! A checkmate point Mi amigo!

  • David D’Champ

    One has to wonder if God was an adulterer or a rapist when he made Mary pregnant with is son.

    • Hosfac

      Clearly a rapist, as he didn’t tell her until after the deed was done.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Did ‘god’ ruffie her as she only awoke pregnant and didn’t remember a thing. She hadto be told ‘god’ diddled her.

    • Var Enyo

      It sounds a great deal like Zeus who was really into that kind of thing. Now, if you are talking about Mormon God, maybe he just considered her another wife although his wives bear spirit babies.

    • EdEKit

      I thought God and the Holy Spirit and Jesus are one. Which makes Jesus his own father.

      • Lis

        Seriously, just spit water all over my screen! Brilliant!

      • Jealith

        Yeah I told my Priest that when I was 12, about the same time I mentally left the church although I was forced to continue to go on Sundays until I was old enough to get a job.

      • Susan Heart

        Technically, that’s why it is an “immaculate conception.” No sex was involved, not even with God.

      • NobodyHere

        That’s not what the immaculate conception is. The immaculate conception has to do with Mary being born, not Jesus.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Guess again friend.

      • Stephen Barlow

        So ‘god’ is a virgin AND the father of us all?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Humn? You sure the Holy Land isn’t West Virginia?

    • Pkanext

      As a kid I was totally confused by why God would do something SO MEAN!

    • Stephen Barlow

      She was ONLY wiling AFTER the fact. Does that make Joseph a Cuckhold?

  • Jerry Wilson

    Brilliant!! Freaking Brilliant!!!

    • Arik Bjorn

      Thanks, Jerry.

      • Jerry Wilson

        Anytime

  • Thom Cameron

    That was very very good
    It has enough fodder for them to chew their pud…I mean cud for quite some time. Now if I could just remember 1/10 of it to arm myself for future discussion

  • Quinn Lollis

    THIS ARTICLE SIMPLY VERIFIES THAT… Satan is alive and well
    and still trying to twist the Creators words to deceive as many people that
    would believe his lies! Don`t be fooled or deceived by this latest set of twisted
    mangle lies!

    • Awakened

      How does quoting directly from the bible twist the word of god? Sounds like someone doesn’t like the truth….

      • Hosfac

        Christians actively campaign against critical thinking and their mortal enemy is the truth.

      • Lydia

        Some “Christians” may not want to think critically, but “reasoning” and “proving” is encouraged all through the Bible. But in Islam and in some “cults”, people are discouraged from asking questions and they are supposed to have blind faith in their “leader.” Apologetics Press offers a free “Christian Evidences” home-study course at their website and I have not taken it, but it is available to anyone who wants hard evidence of why there is reason to believe the Bible. I don’t agree with everything Apologetics Press puts out (I tend to believe that the earth is old and the 7 days of creation is a “re-creation” of what God created “In the beginning”,” but that is not something I can prove or argue, just lean in that direction). I am not afraid to read stuff that tries to disprove the Bible, because my faith is strong and science and history defend my position. But people who don’t believe the Bible are not likely brave enough to study anything that might enable THEM to take a look at both sides of the story. If you have studied both sides of an issue with an open mind and believe there is a correct “side” to be taken,then you should be able to defend your position confidently and honestly. You may still be wrong, but at least you have reason for your belief that is based on something concrete. If I went to a church that told me I could not ask questions or look critically at anything, I would not trust that “church.” The mortal enemy of Christianity is deception. Satan is also called, “The Deceiver.”

      • Dave

        You just twisted Quinns words. You lack an understanding of truth. He didn’t say “quoting directly from the bible twists the word of God.” He said “Satan is trying to twist Gods words” but not necessarily by quoting. Arik twists Gods words through his conclusions about the Bible. 31 people like your response, and that is just plain scary. Let me provide you with an example. John8:7 says ““‘If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her’” nothing wrong with quoting the Bible, but it is against reason and all who love logical thought processes to take it out of context. Jesus is able to say this because he knows no one in the crowd is without sin. He is teaching the people that they are all with sin and therefore should not judge each other. He is not advocating violence. Arik has blinded himself with his love of hate. For further logic, read more from “Dave”. And no, I am not judging Arik or you. I do not think I am a better person then anyone. Ask me and I will tell you I am the chief of sinners, a worse person then you, hateful and self centered but only capable of love because of the power of the Holy Spirit.

      • William Harvey

        Thank you, Dave.

    • Obviously

      Quinn, I think you’re right, but probably not in the way you think you are.

    • laughingatyou

      The lie is that people like you believe that the Bible has never been altered by corrupt men throughout history to benefit their oppreasive bigoted ideals.. .

      • Lydia

        I think if I were trying to alter the Bible to make the great Patriarchs and other people in the Bible appear to behave in such as way as to support “bigoted ideals,” i would have left out stuff that makes them look bad. Just because somebody in the Bible did something contrary to God’s instructions doesn’t mean that God endorses that behavior. I believe there are some parts of the Bible that we may not understand fully, we don’t have all the answers, some issues are not clear, BUT it is very clear on the issue of sexual immorality, including homosexuality. It is not okay. People taking advantage of “no-fault” divorce laws is also not okay, no matter if 43% or so evangelical Christians do it. I am divorced, but totally against my will. So, I ran into questions about how to handle my sex drive–I have children and I don’t want to marry somebody just for sex. Some people said I can’t remarry no matter what and have a chapter and verse that they base that idea on. Some people think I can remarry, but only to a Christian. I personally believe that even though there was no adultery in our marriage, when he got a new wife, that was equivalent to him committing adultery and I considered myself divorced at that point. As long as there was not another woman involved, I was holding to the “remain single, or else be reconciled,” We all have to make our own interpretations of the Bible, if we want to live by it. What we shouldn’t do is look for loopholes (like I did when I was trying to figure out how to be a “concubine” and not a “fornicator” ) and we should not try to rewrite the Bible to fit desires. And we shouldn’t try to make one sin out to be worse than another. I think adultery is worse than fornication because it isn’t just having sex with somebody you aren’t married to, it is ALSO stealing what belongs to another person. Homosexuality is just one sin. But when people do it and also encourage others to do it, that is compounding the sin. Just my opinion! Christians have to love each other and everyone else. Many are not very good at that! One thing that really bothers me about the homosexual issue is that if you say anything against it, you are branded as being “hateful,” but if someone said something against lying or stealing or murder or child abuse, it would NOT be considered “hate speech.”

      • toucanne

        Lydia, that would be because homosexuality is not at all like stealing, murder and child abuse. Some people are truly born gay. It’s like faulting someone for being blonde or having big ears. I feel sorry for you. Your misguided beliefs prevent you from enjoying life. You sound like an intelligent, caring person. Please do some reading and rid yourself of the religious nonsense!

      • Lydia

        I have done a lot of reading and thinking and I never stop and never intend to stop.. When it is a lifestyle choice, I believe homosexuality is behavior that God tells us to avoid because it isn’t good for us . If “LGTB” issues are from some biological reason, whether in the brain, the chromosomes, or the sexual organs or hormones, I consider it a birth defect and I truly feel sorry for people who struggle with it. How can I know when LGTB is a “choice” or not? I can’t! There are still things we don’t know. We all struggle with something. I leave it up to God to sort out the details in the exceptional cases. I mean, God is the only one who really gets to judge. I don’t know what goes on in someone else’s heart and I don’t know how far God’s mercy will stretch. And I love my homosexual friends and family members. I just don’t think it is something to be proud of or to promote. I believe I am reasonably intelligent and I am certainly caring. But I think my religious beliefs are good for me and I won’t give them up unless and until I have evidence to prove otherwise.

      • Sally Strange

        When it is a lifestyle choice, I believe homosexuality is behavior that God tells us to avoid because it isn’t good for us .

        Add it to the list of things God was really wrong about. Like slavery, masturbation, and whether Jesus is really coming back.

      • Lydia

        When did God ever say to enslave people or mention masturbation and how do you know Jesus isn’t coming back>?

      • William Harvey

        according to Egyptian rule (which was mentioned in the bible, and don’t ask me where exactly), there were slaves. Slaves were mentioned all over the bible, in fact. I don’t recall it saying it condemned or condoned it, but it was mentioned. But, it DEFINITELY addresses divorced women.

      • Lydia

        As far as I know, God has never told anyone to enslave anyone. In the Old Testament there was a whole lot of bloodshed and wars and such. But you would have to read the Bible to get the context and what it all boils down to for me is that people are better off doing the best they can to do what God tells them to and avoid what God tells them to avoid. You can get that message very early in the first book of the Bible. There is plenty in the Bible about how to treat your slaves. I think it is a misconception to think that the “slaves” in the Bible were beaten and abused like they were in “Roots”. People VOLUNTEERED to be slaves sometimes because it was the only way to survive. There are many examples of enslaved people who were very happy with the arrangement and had a good rapport with their masters. I think a lot of “slaves” were happier and had better relationships with their “masters” than people these days have with their jobs and employers. God never said slavery was a good thing, but it was apparently part of the culture in both the Old Testament and the New Testament times. God had a lot to say about slavery. I know everything the Bible says about marriage and divorce. I have studied it extensively.

      • William Harvey

        As far as YOU know? I thought you had read the Bible? I’ve read the Bible, not necessarily from cover to cover, but I’ve studied it….You just contradicted yoruself with your acknowledgement of how to treat your slaves…but, you never mentioned how a divorced woman (which is VERY CLEARLY stated in the bible) should be treated. She’s considered a whore and should be stoned. Lydia…you need to study your Bible a bit more, and educate yourself on how you are picking and choosing scripture. You are the religious zealot that has actually defined why I don’t believe in organized religion anymore. You are so full of telling me how I should live my life, when the largest divorce rate, at THIS time, is over 50%. More people have fornicated before they’ve ever gotten engaged in the first place. There have been more marriages to have taken place while the bride was pregnant as she walked won that aisle in a white dress because it was her “dream”. Please don’t make me bring up the sins of our most recent favorite “guilty pleasure” to see her crucified: Paula Deen. She used a racial term…But, that’s only one end of the spectrum…what about that Jodie Arias?

        GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE.

      • Lydia

        Of course, I have read the Bible. Many times. I read and/or study it on a daily basis. I cannot off the top of my head come up with any scripture in the Bible that I could interpret to mean that God wants us to enslave people. I don’t have time to do an exhaustive search for it right now, and I wouldn’t do it because I think it is looking for something that does not exist. You can consider it as an invitation to prove me wrong, though, if you care that much about it. I am not sure how you think I have contradicted myself. I know some people “pick and choose” scripture to justify a position, but I believe that you have to consider the entire message of the Bible as well as the context of the scripture. Someone who has an “agenda” and is unwilling to see any viewpoint besides the one he is trying to support will “pick and choose,” but a statement taken out of context will never convince me of anything, one way or the other. I am curious as to why you believe that the Bible says that a divorced woman is a whore and should be stoned? Just because I know what the Bible says doesn’t mean that I have complete understanding of everything in it. I am always trying to understand it better, which is why I didn’t just read it once and put it on the shelf. I expect to still be studying it on a daily basis till the day I die. I don’t know about Jodie Arias, other than she killed somebody. I believe the divorce rate is shameful and I feel sorry for the children who were not able to grow up in a home with a mother and a father who loved each other and taught their children by example what commitment and faithfulness is. I believe sex belongs within marriage and I strive to live a chaste life and even though I have had plenty of my own failures and I struggle on a daily basis with them, I am still a Christian, my sins have been redeemed, and I strive to live in a way that is pleasing to God. I am not, by any means, a “paragon of virtue,” but I have confidence that the rules God gives us to live by (if you have read the whole Bible, you should understand that we are not held to the “Law of Moses” as recorded in the Old Testament) are good for us and should be promoted. I believe that living in the way we are taught by Jesus and by the inspired writers of the New Testament is good for us. There are certainly portions of the Bible that I don’t understand AT ALL, and I may never understand. But some things are clear to me. I am not responsible for any one else’s behavior, but I believe that I have an obligation to support and encourage what I believe God wants and to discourage what seems contrary to what God wants. First of all, I believe in the God of the Bible. Second, I believe the Bible has been preserved and tells us in a way we can understand what we need to do and how we need to live (there are gray areas I can’t take a firm stance for against, although I can take a position for myself—not everyone has to do and believe everything I believe. That is made abundantly clear.). I know that many people don’t believe either of those 2 things. William, from what you said, “You are the religious zealot that has actually defined why I don’t believe in organized religion anymore,” it seems to me that you used to have some faith and you lost it because of how “religious zealots” treated you at some point and you still carry a lot of pain from it. Far too many people who claim to be “Christians” do not live according to Jesus Christ’s teaching and example. Too many “Christians” don’t read the scriptures themselves, but rely on some “religious leader” to read it and give his own interpretation of what it means. If you have not done so, or at least have not done so in a long time, I encourage you to read the New Testament. Maybe just read one of the Gospels….maybe Luke or John, and read Acts and the epistles–especially Romans 14. You will see what it really means to be a “Christian” (there are no Catholics, Presbyterians, Mormons, etc. mentioned in the Bible, by the way) and when you come across someone who identifies themselves as a “Christian” but who is hateful (1 John 4 :7-8, John 13:34-35) or proud (the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 18:9-14 is priceless!) call them on it! You can (figuratively) beat them over the head with their own scriptures and encourage them to show more of God’s love, even as they speak our against what they see is wrong. I don’t love perfectly and I don’t live perfectly, I sin or am tempted on a regular basis. NONE of us is “righteous” and if anyone thinks they are, they are fooling themselves and is likely to find themselves falling off the pedestal they have put themselves on. Do not use the “Christians” that you see in the world or who have hurt you as the example of what “Christianity” is. Look to Jesus Christ. I have been mistreated by “Christians,” too. But Jesus Christ has not only done nothing to hurt me, he suffered a horrible death to save me. Very few, “Christians” can display that kind of sacrificial love, but that love is the kind of love we should strive to have for each other. If you want to confront a “Christian” who isn’t showing much of a “Christ-like” attitude, bringing up stoning won’t make much of an impact if they understand “The Big Picture Of The Bible” like Ken Craig explains so well, in an hour’s time on youtube if you watch the “flip chart” version. Christians were not taught by Jesus Christ or any of his apostles to stone people (John 8:2-11). Something that might give them pause is Galatians 5:22-23 which describes the characteristics that should be evident in a Christian’s life and they are referred to as “fruit of the spirit”: love, joy, peace, patience (or long-suffering), kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Even as I am working on fighting sin in my own life, I want to fight against it how and when I can in the world. I have as much of a right to have and express my own opinion and beliefs as anyone else. I have always liked the quote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!” I think our family situations in this country are already too messed up. I believe heterosexual marriage is best for children, families, and society and I will continue to take that stand until someone convinces me otherwise. There are plenty of “non-religious” people who believe that “marriage” should be between a man and a woman, so it isn’t purely a “biblical” argument. I am pretty sure I will see “gay marriage” become recognized in all 50 states before I die, but I don’t think I will ever think it is a good idea. I am glad to live in a democratic society, even if I
        don’t always get my way. I keep responding to you, William, because you keep inviting me to. I respect your opinion but I want to try to clear up any misunderstandings. My heart really hurts for you because you have been treated badly by people in the name of “religion.” Hold the PEOPLE responsible, not God. I hope you will be able to heal from that hurt and it is okay with me if we can agree to disagree. I hope you find peace and love and joy and don’t hold hold on the the hurt and anger and bitterness.

      • Lydia

        I watched the video in the link you sent for me. Thank you. I can’t respond to it in any way you would understand or appreciate because we simply don’t speak the same language and trying to address the issues we have would not be a good use of time for either of us. I wish you well.

      • William Harvey

        NEVER make assumptions about whether I would understand or appreciate. That is another classification of the condescending “Christian”.

      • Lydia

        Okay, William, does that mean you WANT me to respond to this video? Without giving you any unsolicted advice, of course. I just thought you could put your time to better use than continuing this discussion. But if you really want to, I guess I can invest a little more time in this discussion if you really want to. We agree on so many things and I don’t have any animosity towards you and I have told you that I am sorry you have been hurt by people who, like me, call themselves “Christians.”. I have told you that I believe everyone has to come to their own decisions about what to believe and nobody can control your thoughts or feelings for you. You are entitled to the same human rights as I am. Anybody holds whatever position they have because they believe it is superior to alternatives. You don’t like unsolicited advice from people who don’t know you personally. I welcome advice from wherever I can get it and I choose from among various opinions what I think is best for me and my situation. I treat other people the way I would like to be treated until they tell me that it isn’t right for them. That’s why I offered you unsolicited advice until you told me not to. That’s why I read and considered what you had to say and watched that short video at your suggestion. I believe that I have as much right to believe what I want to and to EXPRESS my beliefs as you or anyone else. I say “should” and “shouldn’t” a lot as I express my opinion, but that is just me expressing my opinion and you are of course free to consider it, or to dismiss it out of hand. I have had my feelings hurt and have been harshly judged by other Christians for things I have believed and said and done, just like you. Sometimes I think it was justified, and sometimes, not. I am constantly “examining myself” and when people make a critical comment, I pay attention. I have been unable to live my life the way I want to because the laws of the land and some people who think differently from me won’t allow it. Are you and I really so different? I don’t think so. Like I said before, I am not trying to hold a gun to your head and force you or anyone else to do anything! I am really very confused about why you keep lashing out at me. What have I—personally—done to hurt you? Why are you being so hateful to me? Because I disagree with some of your views? THAT is what I would call “The pot calling the kettle black.” The reason I said “I wish you had read all of my comment” was because you said in YOUR comment that you had only made it about half-way through my long-winded post. I guess you went back and read the rest later. Sorry that I jumped to any conclusions. I hate it when people do that to me and I hate it when I do it to others. If you do want to hear what I think about that video, send me the link again. I can’t find it for some reason.

      • William Harvey

        Whatever…I’m about tired of your longwinded excuses for discrimination in Gods name.

      • Ken Shepherd

        hey idiot, it is LGBT, or actually now it is LGBTQ, get your acronyms correct before you start your preaching!

      • badmoodpixie

        the order of the letters is irrelevant.

      • Andrew Releford

        Actually, it’s QUILTBAG. Get with the program.

      • William Harvey

        What does it matter where the acronyms are placed…hell, even I mess it up sometimes, and I’m a gay man.

      • badmoodpixie

        “How can I know when LGTB is a “choice” or not?”

        it’s not. did you hit puberty and have to make the decision of whether you would be attracted to men or women? i’ll assume not, because that’s not something people deal with, it’s not a choice, it is encoded in them before they are born. and, if there is a god, wouldn’t he/she/it have made all people? why create lgbtq people if it’s so “wrong”? are you saying god makes mistakes? because, if you believe in god, you believe that god is omniscient and omnipotent and does not make mistakes. therefore, lgbtq people would not be judged by god any differently than “straight” people.

        also, the bible was written, re-written and re-interpreted and re-translated so many times by inherently flawed MEN (worth noting since a lot of men have hang-ups regarding homosexuality because it makes them uncomfortable), so even if the bible is SUPPOSED to be the word of god, it’s very likely that some of his words weren’t transcribed properly by his flawed creations.

      • William Harvey

        You need to be stoned. You are also an adulterer. Therefore, you should be banished from your community as a harlot. You are a divorced woman. Therefore, according to Biblical text and Biblical interpretation, if you even so much as have sex with even one other person, even after a divorce, you are nothing more than a common whore. THIS is YOUR BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. Again: you remind me of the Mother in “Carrie”.

      • Lydia

        I have never seen “Carrie.” I remind myself in some ways of the mother in “The Water Boy” though! No, this is not MY Biblical Interpretation. It is YOUR Interpretation of PARTS of the Bible. What gave you the idea that I have come to those conclusions?

      • Cis

        Let me ask you this, did you “choose” to be attracted to men? Did you “choose” to feel like a female? Who would honestly “choose” to be homosexual or transgender knowing how they are treated, especially in our society? Who would “choose” to be ostracized, ridiculed, eviscerated, beaten up and the other terrible things that people do.Stop and ask yourself those questions when you start to believe that homosexuality is a choice. We love who we love, it’s the soul of the person that touches us, not the body.

      • William Harvey

        who’s encouraging anyone to be a homosexual? Do you really think, in your twisted mind, that I would want anyone to go through the opinions of the likes of the hatred you are spewing “in God’s Name”? Not no, but HELL NO.

      • Dave

        These passages don’t even benefit oppressive ideals. they simply state facts about things that happened.

    • Sally Strange

      Hahaha! People who believe in Satan make me laugh! I mean, I can kinda get the people who believe in a fuzzy amorphous “god is love” kinda deity, but Satan? And Yahweh? Hilarious!

      • Var Enyo

        You have millions of Mormons who think the garden of Eden was in Missouri and white Jesus showed up over here, God turned people brown so as not to be delightsome, and God lives on Kolob with a bunch of spirit wives having spirit babies. People can truly be made to believe anything.

    • Baaly

      You know your god isn’t the creator god, right?

    • William Harvey

      Oh, wow…the Bible also says to beware of “False Witnesses”, and that the anti-Christ will appear to be a man of God….At least the writer is using the same Bible you are reading. YOUR kind remind me of the mother in the Stephen King movie “Carrie”…such hypocrites.

    • Baaly

      Who do you mean by ‘creator’? Elohim or Yahweh? Be careful now….

  • Heather Long

    Unfortunately, a majority of this article has a lot of missing pieces and is highly inaccurate. I would suggest doing a little more research before making such bold protests on what’s right and wrong.

    • Really!?

      Heather, missing pieces and inaccuracies is exactly what this author is criticizing. Can you honestly say he’s wrong?

    • NIV. Look it up.

      Then refute it. But the quotations are spot-on.

      • Lydia

        All I can say is “wow.” Just because the Bible says someone did something doesn’t mean God is endorsing the behavior! As far as I know, Abraham had only one wife at at time, he was not a polygamist.(The song is “Father Abraham had many SONS (or descendants) I am one of them, and so are you. So let’s just praise the Lord”) He did take a concubine to act as a surrogate mother for his wife, but I think the Bible spells out pretty clearly that that didn’t work out too well. There are several instances of incest in the Bible. I don’t think a man taking in his dead brother’s wife is the same as committing adultery with your live brother’s wife. I don’t pretend to understand everything in the Bible. I do know that the “gold standard” is one man and one woman loving and living together till death parts them.I see that in the New Testament. I don’t know that polygamy is sin. I don’t know that concubinage is sin (actually , I was hoping that concubinage is condoned and that somehow I could meet the “requirements” of concubinage when I was having monogamous sex with a man who was not my husband, but I never got to the point where I thought God was 100% okay with what I was doing—I still had a nagging feeling that it was “fornication” and not “concubinage” ) I know I should not want to engage in or encourage others to engage in something that I am not sure is right. God ALLOWS people to do all kinds of bad stuff. But it is still bad. And there are consequences. And sometimes because of other people’s evil actions, we are put into positions where we feel like we have no choice but to do something bad in order to keep something worse from happening. Why, in the story of the concubine, is the negative focus on the man for giving up his concubine? Something similar happened with Lot, who almost gave up his daughters to be raped (and those daughters later got him drunk and committed incest with him). I think the man with the concubine loved her (obviously, she had some issues with him, or else she would not have left him in the first place) and hoped for a less horrible outcome when he sent her out, and he was clearly willing to keep her with him and he was very upset when he found that she had been abused to death. Who is really the guilty party here? Hacking her to pieces was pretty grisly, but I believe he did it to make a point and get the attention of the leaders of the other tribes that the men were out of control and something needed to be done. She was already dead. She had been abused to death. There were steps taken to make sure that the crimes were punished, and that might not have happened if he has just quietly buried his concubine. The Bible is very clear that sexual immorality is wrong and that divorce, except for adultery is wrong. It is very clear that husband’s should love their wives and they should live in harmony. What does the fact that the incident of divorce is 43% among “evangelical Christians” prove? It proves to ME that people who claim to be “Christians” are not doing a very good job of living they way the Bible tells them to. And it probably has a lot to do with “no-fault divorce” laws. You can’t always stay married in this country just because you want to. The Bible doesn’t say where Adam and Eve’s children got their spouses. It does not say that the brothers and sisters married each other. I don’t know why it would not be possible for God to have made other couples. If he made Eve from a rib, he could have easily made other men and women from different “dust of the earth” or from Adam or Eve’s hair or toenails…nobody has the answer to this question! As far as the age girls should marry, I think 12 may not have been too young in that day and time. I am sure girls matured sooner emotionally if not physically. Not many 12 year old girls that I know have any interest in getting married, but from reading the news, there are plenty of girls around that age who are sexually active and getting STDs and pregnant.. I think they need to have hit puberty to be “old enough” to have sex and marry, but that is one of many considerations. . But that is just my opinion. The Bible does not say how old Mary was when she married, but it does say Josiah became king when he was 8 years old. None of these things have anything to do with the issue of God’s intention for people to marry people of the opposite sex and reproduce (if possible). On the subject of Onan. I don’t think he was masturbating. I think he was practicing the “withdrawal” method of birth control, which I don’t think is wrong in general, but it was in this situation and he knew it. I don’t know of any place in the Bible that addresses the issue of non-procreational sex between married people as far as saying it is sinful or not. But I do believe sex is meant for pleasure as well as procreation and for strengthening the emotional bond between a husband and wife. I personally don’t believe masturbation is sinful in itself. It CAN be wrong, for example, if it is associated with lustful thoughts towards someone you aren’t married to or if someone is neglecting their spouse’s sexual needs or if somebody feels like they have no self-control in this area. If God only wanted us to have sex for the purpose of procreation, I think he would have made us like rabbits….women would ovulate when they had sex and every sex act would be during a “fertile period” unless the woman was already pregnant. Or women would have cycles of “heat” on a periodic basis and would not be interested in sex at other times. This is all just my own opinion. I have studied the Bible on these issues and thought about it a lot, and also talked about them with a Catholic friend who has very different views than me. There are a lot of things that God leaves up to us to figure out and we should not argue about them. The issue of homosexuality doesn’t seem to be one of those issues to me. But people have to come to their own conclusions, hopefully after looking carefully at all sides of the issue at hand. There are a lot of things I don’t have a strong opinion about either way. This article seemed to be basically throwing out a lot of red herrings and trying to put doubt in the minds of people who don’t want to read the Bible and try to understand it. I see that the author of this article include “biblical studies” in his “background.” He sure hasn’t studied it from the point of view of that I have. Which is good, because I like being able to challenge my beliefs and that wouldn’t happen if we all had the same point of view.

      • Melania Gulley

        seriously.. god is one big psychopath if he exists at all

      • William Harvey

        now, after that long-winded response, and only getting through about half of it, seems to me you are making excuses for your behavior in the name of God, as a way of justifying your behavior. You just threw quite a few red herrings to justify your own behavior. BTW: YOUR point of view is not the end-all of point of views. Again, a persons relationship with their God is a very personal thing, and if you impose your beliefs on me and my relationship with MY God, you will be opening up a can of worms with ME. I happen to agree with the Author of this article, yet, I see so many that have taken the time to dismiss him in the name of their own interpretations of the Bible. It is a hot topic for everyone. But, to make your OWN interpretations of the compilation of books called the Bible, that, according to one book, is called “blasphemy”. In fact, the KJV is exactly that: the King James VERSION: key word: VERSION. There are MANY interpretations of the Bible, and there are also books of the Bible that have been left OUT of the KJV. The KJV was actually TRANSLATED under order of King James so EVERYONE could have access to the Written Word, not just the Rich and Famous of the day. Things DO get lost in translation, as well. SO, according to your point of view, you could have been studying something that was taken out of context in the translation for your entire life.

      • Lydia

        I just now saw this. I wish you had read all of my comment but you still might have come to the same conclusion. . People are always free to choose what to believe. I don’t know how I have “excused” my behavior (and I am not clear on what “behavior” you are referring to) “in the name of God.” I have no idea why you think I my point of view is the “end-all of point of views.” It isn’t even the “end-all point of view” for me because I seek to keep an open mind and I am always trying to learn about other people and their point of views and why they hold them. All I have done is shared my opinion. How is that any different from what everyone else here has done, including you and people you agree with? Yes, I agree that a person’s relationship with God is VERY personal and I am sorry if I ever made you feel like I was trying to IMPOSE my beliefs on you. I simply want to share them. Why are you so threatened by that? I guess somehow it feels like I am re-opening some old wound caused by “religious” people who hurt you so deeply. I am so very glad to hear you share your feelings. I am not sure why you think there is something wrong with me studying and coming to my own interpretation of what I study. I believe that is what everybody should do for themselves and with others and not enough people do it. I am not preaching a different Gospel (which IS condemned), I am simply sharing my beliefs and the conclusions I have come to thus far based on my study. Who told you that that was “blasphemy?” You are right, I COULD be studying something that was taken out of context in the translation, but I do not believe that. I believe God made sure that nothing of critical importance was “lost in the translation.” I have faith in God and in the scriptures. I COULD be wrong about my perception of everything. Maybe I’m not even REALLY sitting here typing on my computer at the moment, but it is all some illusion. But have you considered that I may be right about something? Whether I am right or wrong, I am going to share my beliefs and consider the viewpoints of others. And I am not trying to force you to believe what I do. God has ALWAYS given people freedom to think and do what they want. I believe there are more positive consequences to doing the best I can to avoid what I believe he tells me to avoid and do what he says to do, and that there are more negative consequences to living in a way contrary to his instructions. If you are happy living the life you are living and you think it is right, I don’t see any reason why you would want to change. Believe what you want to believe and try to not be so angry and defensive towards people who don’t see things the same way. That is a suggestion, not an order, by the way. I am not going to hold a gun to your head until you agree to be more tolerant of letting people believe what they want to.

      • William Harvey

        Yes….I’ve been “burned” by a church I went to every time the doors were opened. I’ve seen black children rejected from a day-care center one of the churches I went to every time the doors were opened. I’ve been refused my “transfer of letter” to a church I wanted to have my “letter” transferred to where my Grandparents are buried (they knew me since I was a babe in arms). I’ve seen people leave a church because they couldn’t decide on the color of the carpet. I’ve seen members go at it tooth and nail in business meetings that embarrassed the HELL out of me just for being there. And you flippantly throw around my anger at religion? YES. You are right. I’ll give you that. But, DO NOT EVER condemn ANYONE in the name of God. You can fall back on your Bible if you so choose. I, personally, fall back on my FAITH in what I learned during the time i was very active in the churches. I even had a “preacher” who had preached a sermon about how the New Testament made the Old Testament obsolete. He emphasized in that sermon that the final commandment was to love one another. If you love one another, you are not breaking any one of the Ten Commandments. Of course, he had an immediate case of amnesia, and couldn’t remember that sermon…as if I weren’t listening. By the way: don’t preach to me about “not being angry” at people who don’t see things as I do. If we were all the same, we’d live in a boring world. I might also add that I don’t appreciate unsolicited advice from someone who doesn’t know me. I have a right to be angry at ANYONE who slaps a Bible and picks and chooses their scripture, yet when I pick and chose my scripture in defense, you people call “foul”….NOT in MY realm of existence.

      • Lydia

        I am totally not making my attitude clear if you think I am “flippant” when I “throw around” your anger at religion. I am not sure what kind of “church” you grew up in, but it grieves me and infuriates me to see people doing things, supposedly “in the name of Christianity” that is opposite of the instructions we have. It is tragic. I feel your pain. I thought I had told you that I have been mistreated by Christians, too. To know what Christianity is, look at Christ and his teachings. People have been screwing things up since the first century. I don’t know what a “letter of transfer” is. I am sorry the preacher was not able to answer your questions. Of course, the Old Testament is not obsolete. The scriptures of the Old Testament are referred to many times in the New Testament. Either he was wrong or he did not convey his message clearly. If he was referring to us not being under the Old Law of Moses, I would agree with him. Jesus says The FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT commandment is love, first to God, then to love each other as he loves us. If you love God first, and others as Jesus does, it doesn’t seem to me that you will be willfully breaking the 10 commandments. If you are loving someone as Jesus loves us, will you lie to them or steal from them or kill them and if you love God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength, doesn’t it make sense that you would obey him? Nobody is perfect and of course we have all broken some of the 10 commandments. The “law” does not save us. Have you read Galatians lately? I am not “you people” and I am ashamed of how they have acted and I do not want to be condemned by THEIR actions. If I am to be condemned, it will be for my own transgressions. And this forum is full of people giving each other unsolicited advice, including you giving it to ME, so how was I supposed to know it offended you for me to give YOU unsolicited advice? I will try to not give you any unsolicited advice from this point on. I want to make sure you understand that I affirm your right to think and believe and behave in any manner you choose, but we all have those same rights. We all have choices to make and all of our choices have consequences. Thank you for stating your feelings with me. And I am serious and sincere in everything I have said to you, even if you think I am wrong.

      • William Harvey

        I grew up in a Southern Baptist church..that’s neither here, nor there, though. The bottom line is how religion treats the homosexual community and has historically been discriminatory against homosexuals. Your rights do not trump my rights, another ‘trademark” of the so-called “Christian” community. You have no right to tell anyone they are wrong in their religious convictions. NONE. I don’t think you are wrong in how you feel about something. I think people are wrong to justify their prejudice by religious convictions, while at the same time, telling everyone to love one another…THAT is hypocrisy in it’s purest form. I’ll NOT be attacked by ANYONE holding a Bible if they won’t let me use that same Bible to use in my argument.

      • William Harvey

        and,by the way: I read EVERY comment you made from beginning to end, actually. And, they are contradictory in their own context.

      • chuck

        Not quite spot on. Verse 23 says something a little different

        22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

        23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”

        25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

      • The Author

        You are correct; I made an scrivener’s error; it is verse “25″ not “23″; thank you for pointing this out.

      • chuck

        How would verse 22 to 24 relate to a same sex relationship? In the context, is the “vile thing” the act of rape that in the end actually happens to the concubine or the act of having sex with the man?

      • William Harvey

        which version is this? The Living Bible? It’s certainly not the KJV…..goes back to INTERPRETATION.

      • William Harvey

        Also, could people be taking this out of context, as well? “So we can have sex with him” might not necessarily mean with HIM, but, have sex ALONG with him as they are gallivanting around bar-hopping and having an orgy with prostitutes and other “concubines”…If I go out WITH my friends, does that necessarily mean we are connected at the hip? We are going out to do the same thing together, whether it’s to the movies, to dinner, to a bar or club, or even an ORGY. Again, it’s a matter of interpretation.

      • Jerrid

        Chuck,
        Could you please quote the original Hebrew/Greek lines here to allow us to make an informed decision as to the accuracy of the translation? There are several red flags in the text you present that cautions me against accepting it.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Heather, you just don’t like the fact that the quotes are correct and that makes your beliefs untenable.

  • Travis

    Wow…..I would probably respect this piece a little more if it actually showed respect for those with a different view, as well as just a teeny bit of respect for Jehovah. I’m all for an open discussion of the issue, and there are sound Biblical responses for the points made (mostly mockingly) in this opinion piece, but this was just a plain old insult/attack. #nothelpfulforunity

    • Turn the Tables

      Travis, there comes a point when a believer gets sick and tired of watching charlatans misinterpret. There is a time for peaceful response and a time to turn the moneylender tables.

    • David Chamberlain

      Travis, Respect for different views goes out the window when those views are easily recognized as false interpretations of Biblical cant. If God is all that he is often touted as being especially in the omniscients dept. than I have no respect for God, assuming even a shred of belief in He/She.

    • toucanne

      Travis, even Jesus got pissed off at some point.

    • Sally Strange

      Christianity is a pack of foolish lies and deserves to be mocked until people stop taking it seriously. Deal with it.

      • danb

        People should take the bible no more seriously than stories of greek/roman/egyptian/viking gods. They are myths. Stories. Read for entertainment, not as a basis to establish laws.

    • William Harvey

      Seriously? You don’t think that Homosexuals haven’t been attacked with the Bible at from every direction possible? You don’t think that there was a time when African Americans weren’t attacked with Biblical scripture? Women’s rights weren’t attacked with Biblical scripture? Even mixed race marriages? It’s not helpful to YOU, Travis. So, if some that think like YOU decide it isn’t helpful to YOUR views, you just dismiss it as insult/attack, thinking in your pious little mind that your attacks are blessed by the Anointed One. THAT is the BIGGEST cop-out used by those that think they have a direct connection to their God and no one else has that connection but them. Who died and made YOU the authority of all things religious?

  • RS

    So, you can knock incest here, but wouldn’t the spirit of marriage equality accept sibling marriage just as much as a same-sex marriage?

    • Knock_onWood

      The author isn’t “knocking incest”; he’s stating that these are not historical figures and, thus, to build a framework for marriage based on people who did not exist is absurd.

      • The Author

        Indeed! Indeed!

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Further, what the religious right likes to believe is the “biblical definition of marriage” is a fairly recent invention. Historically, marriage was a property arrangement, with the woman and her dowry as the property.

      • Vicki Brown

        How can a “biblical definition” of anything be a fairly recent invention? 5000 years (or 2000 depending on which part of the bible) is a long time.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You must not have read the article.

      • Vicki Brown

        You need to do better that that. I read every word.

      • Nipsie

        Historically, verry true, indeed!

    • Vicki Brown

      Yes, actually. The scientific reason for the incest taboo is genetic inbreeding. If the pair doesn’t procreate…

    • Ken Shepherd

      no,! lmao

  • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

    Dark Matter 525 on YouTube has a great take on both Adam & Eve as well as why God decided that he needed a son…..

  • Cactus_Wren

    That whole Genesis 38 story has enough material for a full season on HBO! Judah and his wife had three sons, Er, Onan, and and Shelah. When Er was old enough, Judah bought him a wife, Tamar; but Er died young, and without issue. So it was Onan’s job to impregnate Tamar, so the first son she bore would legally be *Er’s* kid and would inherit Er’s double-sized chunk of Judah’s estate. Onan refused (there’s no textural evidence that he masturbated, he might have just pulled out in time), so God killed him too.

    Under Levirate law, Shelah should have stepped up to bat (as it were) next, but he wasn’t old enough; so Tamar, bought and paid for, remained the dutiful daughter-in-law-in-residence, waiting for Shelah to grow up. (!!) But even after Shelah’s grown, superstitious Judah sees Tamar as some sort of bad-luck woman and apparently exercises his Patriarchal Cockblock, refusing to give Tamar to Shelah. This could be a problem, because if Shelah dies before he’s impregnated Tamar, Judah will have no heirs at all!

    Next to die was Judah’s wife. When the official mourning period was over, Judah went off to Timnath to the sheep shearing, with his buddy Hirah. This is where things get truly worthy of HBO: Tamar, bored with waiting, wrapped herself in a veil that covered her face and sat by the road to Timnath, posing as a prostitute. Judah saw her, didn’t recognize her, and negotiated a fair price: a goat for a fuck. Not having any goats with him, he left her a pledge of his signet and bracelets and staff, the markers of his position as head of household. She agreed, they did the deed, he went his way, and she hurried back home and put on her dutiful-widowed-daughter-in-law clothes again. When Judah got home he sent Hirah (whom I can’t help imagining played by Joel McKinnon Miller) with a goat, saying “Take that whore this goat I owe her and get my staff and bracelets back” — but in short order Hirah returned and told him, “Sorry, boss, couldn’t find her. I asked around, and nobody’s ever seen any whores around there.” Oh, well, thinks Judah, let her keep it — better than a scandal that might embarrass *me*.

    Speaking of scandal and embarrassment, three months later dutiful-widow Tamar turns up pregnant! And nobody knows who’s the daddy! Judah expresses proper Old Testament pro-life sentiments by shouting “Bring her out and let her be burnt!” As Tamar’s being hauled out, she dumps the staff and bracelets and signet at Judah’s feet and says, “These belong to the man who got me pregnant. They don’t look at all … *familiar* to you, do they?”

    Okay. Judah doesn’t fuck Tamar any more, but he admits that he was wrong not to give her to Shelah. *That’s his only wrongdoing* in this whole sordid affair. They all settle down together, Shelah vanishes from the narrative (not being an eldest son he’s invisible), and in six months Tamar gives birth to twins — actually Judah’s youngest sons, but under law his *grandchildren* who legally take precedence over his already born and living son Shelah.

    Yeah. Biblical marriage.

    • toucanne

      And they all had 90% sons and 10% daughters. Just enough women to keep the story going. So realistic.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Women are still discounted in the Middle Eastern world, in Muslim, Hebrew AND Christian cultures.

    • David

      You get so caught up in making fun of the Bible that you don’t even realize that these actions it is describing are the actions of sinful men and are not condoned by God. I agree that these men are in the wrong, the reason it is in the Bible is to let us know they happened. I take comfort in reading about murders Moses and David, rapists, polygamists, and how often times they would repent and that when they do, forgivness and grace would be poured out onto them. I take comfort in knowing that faithless lowlife morons like the 12 disciples were loved so dearly by Christ. Your last 3 words “Yeah. Biblical marriage.” are the only three incorrect words of your entire post. Your reasoning is shallow and false.

      • Dave

        Its like listening to your WWII history professor and accusing him of being a Nazi.

      • emilymarshall

        Why did God reward men *with* wives and concubines if He is against polygamy?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Why does ‘god’ repeatedly have women get their men drunk to sleep with them?

      • NyteShayde

        Translation: I shall throw a temper tantrum so hard that all of your facts fly straight out the window! Then I can call it a miracle and an act of God!!
        You’re a Twinkie.

      • Stephen Barlow

        hehehehe

      • Tony

        You have this one right. The bible tells us all kinds of stories only to prove why we all need god. God sees all sin the same and gay people and straight people who live sexually immoral all need forgiveness the same.

      • Stephen Barlow

        But ‘god’ never appears, not in 6000 years, except to chisel commandments into flat stones… in the form of a burning bush. Is ‘god’ that much of a coward he is afraid to show himself? So impotent he can not appear as one of us and actually do some GOOD for earth for once?

      • Don Sbragia

        If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times; repeat after me, class; it is not “making fun of the Bible” to simply say what it contains….

      • danb

        Except the text just mentioned how god was smiting men for NOT doing things like empregnating their brothers wives! Side note: does god even care how the women felt about this?

      • Nancy B

        The cognitive dissonance in strong in David.

      • Stephen Barlow

        WE haven’t even mentioned all the “post Birth abortions” smitten on their conquered enemies by putting all pregnant women and all male children to the sword…

      • Stephen Barlow

        I see what you are saying, the Bible is a textbook of WHAT NOT TO DO. Which explains why “god” is a complete failure at being perfect.

    • Evelyn

      Someone who is not a theist with a bias should make a series where the Bible is literally interpreted and acted out with a full faith best effort to act it out exactly as it is written. Greatest service to mankind ever!

      • Edward Krebbs

        Evelyn, should be a hit show. Of course you realize (along with questions about the scholarship of how the King decided any disagreements about the Bible) that the KJV release was greeted with criticism of its violence, sex, witchcraft, mythical beasts, …….

      • Stephen Barlow

        It was also a POLITICAL commision to JUSTIFY King James the I as the rightful heir to the English throne. I do admit that 13,000 manuscripts were consulted (so the authenticity says) and many were sort of dupe licates of each other. As in copies of an original made over 1200 years of monks copying manuscripts.

        but there IS ZERO verification of the authernticity of the Bible as ANYONE’S actual writing. Nor is there ANY authentication possible as the pseudonyms of the authors were the names of people who could NEVER have possibly been first hand witnesses to the actual events of the Gospel.

        The Bible has enough fraud and controversy in it to qualify as a HOAX, as in the case of Stephen Glass, who disgraced the New Republic, and George Bush who duped Congress 530-1-4 with his tale of WMD’s and an Iraqi conspiracy… and “Janet Cooke, a journalist for The Washington Post, won a 1981 Pulitzer Prize in Feature Writing for “Jimmy’s World,” an article about an eight-year-old heroin addict living in urban Washington, DC.” She won a Pulitzer for her fabrication and it was made into a TV movie!!!

        The

      • Stephen Barlow

        Would you do one in a kinda Mel Brooks/Monty Python/Bennny Hill farce? Just for fun? Reenact the Bible in 70′s Disco style!!!

        the other we do in the classic Shakespearian style, with all the best stage actors, sets, costumes and historical props.

    • Stephen Barlow

      I love your modern “Biblespeak”!

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    Getting married at 12 probably wasn’t a big deal when one’s life expectancy was probably 40.

    • Vicki Brown

      Some of those biblical guys lived to be hundreds of years old. I read that, it must be true.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I’m guessing that was again metaphor

      • Sally Strange

        Metaphor for WHAT?

      • Dizcuzted

        Really bad clocks?

      • Vicki Brown

        No, I was being facetious.

      • William Harvey

        I’m with you, Vicki…”For the Bible tells me so”….

        it must be true…

  • GirlWithTheShamrockTattoo

    I remember mentioning how incest was very prevalent in the OT and my friends scoffed at me. All you have to do is the Genesis 19:30-36.

  • Dave_Adams

    I have to ask; regarding the biblical account of Onan, at the specific time that he “spills his seed on the ground”, he’s lying with his brother’s wife. This story is always interpreted as a prohibition of masturbation.

    But if you think about it, doesn’t that story imply that you will be struck dead if you practice the Rhythm Method?

    • Ren

      Not necessarily. In that cultural time frame, a woman without an heir had no rights in society and no ability to obtain monetary security. Culturally, women had very little right to remarry until Levitical law, as they were considered property in a household in the ancient world. But, without a son, the inheritance of the household couldn’t be passed to a woman, therefore, if there wasn’t a son, it was a automatic sentence to become homeless or a prostitute. Even by remaining in the house, she was seen as the shame of the household by not having a child, which is culturally how she brought ‘worth and financial security’ to the family. By sleeping with Tamar but not allowing her to get pregnant, his intentions were to pretend like he was doing what he needed to do to ensure her financial security and make sure that she would be legally and culturally taken care of, but in actuality use her for his own sexual gain while at the same time, leaving her to be destitute and essentially saying to her “I don’t care if you become a prostitute.” He basically made her a concubine for himself through his actions, while pretending to do what was culturally expected to ensure her security and well-being. He also wanted to secure as much of the inheritance for himself, so as long as he could get some ass and get more money, he saw it as a win-win for himself. Also, culturally, a woman who couldn’t get pregnant was shameful, so the more he went on sleeping with her without her having an heir, the more her shame in society increased. All that being said, It wasn’t the concept of ‘birth control’ or use of rhythm or withdraw method that was the issue, it was Onan’s intentions and selfishness and degradation and abuse of Tamar.

      I’m not trying to condone anyone’s actions in this story, or justify cultural norms that were clearly absurd. I think it is easy to forget that simply because something is recorded in the bible, doesn’t mean that it is condoned. Rather, the intention was to record God interacting with man, even though man often acted and believed things that were very unrighteous.

      • Dave_Adams

        That’s information I was not aware of; thanks. I was of course being facetious at the expense of those who recommend the Rhythm Method as a religiously-sanctioned form of birth control.

      • Ren

        Exactly! So rest assured, God doesn’t kill a kitten every time someone masturbates, contrary to what is taught in youth groups across the nation (though I think the gratuitous feline population is enough evidence to disprove that). There really isn’t any biblical scripture at all about masturbation being a sin. But, there is lots of biblical scripture that refers to taking care of widows, orphans, refugees, homeless, hungry, imprisoned, foreigners, and the oppressed. God seems to have a lot more about those who are ‘on the bottom of the societal totem pole’ than masturbation, per-marital sex, and same-sex marraige (Levitical references to homosexual acts are listed within holiness laws, which means that they were most likely in reference to acts committed for idol worship, not in the context of monogamous, loving relationships. And, contrary to popular belief, Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for for homosexuality, but rather for gang rape and abuse of travelers [a severe violation of Mid-East hospitality codes, this reason is also referenced by Jesus n the Gospels], refusing to help the poor and being ‘arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned’ [see Ezekiel 16:49-50] ). But, arguing about gay marriage and telling teenagers not to masturbate is usually easier than feeding the hungry and taking in widows and orphans.

        And, I did catch and appreciate your facetious approach! I always think its funny when people decide what is ‘holy birth control’ and what is not. Really, there is nothing mentioned in scripture anywhere about birth control (although there were quite a few methods used and widely practiced during that day). There’s no talk about abortion, only accidental killing of a fetus by another individual, though various herbal aborticides were well known and used as well. But, Christian’s often want to create rules whenever they can. It’s not easy to live in that ‘grey area’ that deals with the the heart’s intent that Jesus so often talked about. Legalities and rules (the very thing that Jesus scolded the pharisees about creating) are far, far more simple.

        I appreciate your thoughts and comments!

      • Terri Kenison

        Garbage…. your denial of Gods wrath and condemnation of Homosexual relationships does not change the fact that He has said it is detestable to Him and that those who condone or practice it will be destroyed.

      • Jay Jonstone

        However, was it not God who instructed Onan to commit Adultery with his sister-in-law?

      • terri

        God did instruct Onan to marry his dead brothers wife and raise up a child for him. But because he was dead it did not cause him to commit adultery with her.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Technically correct.

      • Stephen Barlow

        NOPE, it was his father, who art on earth. MEN created all the hebrew property laws. If ‘god’ were just, then every child would inherit, not just the first born. And DOES NOT the story of the Prodigal Son REFUTE the ancient LAW about first born inheritance?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Yet 5% of America is out and 20% are latent homosexuals who fight their very ‘god given’ spirits. If ‘god’ made everything under the stars, then he made homosexuals in HIS OWN IMAGE AND LIKENESS too.

      • Stephen Barlow

        NO punishment for ANAL sex either.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Women had no rights in society at ALL.

    • Don Sbragia

      More a condemnation of “pulling out” than of ‘bating or the Rhythm Method… ;-)

    • Stephen Barlow

      FUC* yes!!!! But there is NO punishment for oral copulation.

  • anon

    Were Adam and Eve ever really married? She’s created in Gen 2 and referred to as his wife or, more literally, as “his woman” but marriage is never defined. And, she’s not really his sister/mother/daughter so is it incest? Just sayin… Regardless, you missed one of the more important facts overlooked about traditional biblical marriage: women were considered property. Their marriages were arranged. They were sold when they started to menstruate. If raped, they were usually sold to that rapist (Deut 22:28-29) since the rapist destroyed the woman’s monetary value. Then there is the slave thing: slave owners forced male slaves to marry (or lay with) female slaves in order to produce more slaves. But if you really want to talk about strange definitions of marriage, you need look no farther than the Catholic church: married to God? Actually it was a financially struggling church that imposed celibacy on priests so they would create no offspring. Without heirs, the church inherited their estates when priests died. Now that’s twisted.

    • The Author

      Great points, Anon!

      The whole Adam/Eve/Incest thing was tongue in cheek. I don’t believe they are historical people; in fact, I think it’s ridiculous to think so. But so many Christians use Adam and Eve as the basis for a biblical definition of marriage, that I thought I would point out that if they WERE historical, then you have a huge other problem with trying to figure out how our species ever started.

      I didn’t forget the “property” point; it was something I considered, but there’s only so much space when conducting a brief survey of a text as massive as the Bible. And I thought that point might be better known broadly. I’m glad you and others have brought it up, though.

      What I didn’t consider (but knew) is the fact that the Eastern and Western Church went opposite ways with respect to marriage for the priesthood. I wish I had considered that and built in a little “overtime” paragraph on Post-Canonical Evolution of Marriage. But good observation!

      Thanks!

      Arik

    • Vicki Brown

      The implied incest isn’t between Adam and Eve. The implied incest is between Adam and Eve’s children.

      If Adam and Eve were the first people, then Cain & Abel were #3 and #4. Cain kills Abel and marries(?)… who? what? A goat? An unnamed sister? Or does the line die out? But if so, then…?

      Who populates the world? Where do Judah and Onana and all of those people come from?

      • Stephen Barlow

        YEAH!!! Who did Cain and Abel marry if it was NOT their sisters. Adam & Eve had no siblings, therefore Cain & Abel had no cousins to ‘go all Alabama’ with.

    • Nipsie

      Now we’re getting closer to the origins of marriage – tribal contracts which create bonds between clans! You take my chattel – one of my daughters – as a token of our mutual protection and bond. Oh, by the way, you also get a couple of goats, a camel, and an ass to boot. Voila! we got a bargan. Both tribes feast, get drunk and celebrate. The sheet gets hung up after consumation proving she was a virgin. That’s the true origin of marriage, folks. Predates the old testiment by about a couple of thousand years, I’d say.

      • Stephen Barlow

        More often than not, the BRIDE got the ‘ass’!

    • Stephen Barlow

      If they were the first 2 humans, who was the Minister, who wrote the vows, who issued the marriage certificate and filed it in the courthouse (which wasn’t built yet) and who were the witnesses? Who catered it, who did the flowers and who took the pictures?

  • Phil

    It’s a no win argument. The quotes here are mostly correct but so far out of context they make no legit sense & are used to run a circle around no real point. Scripture can be quoted to justify any point you want, as can any writings. Sadly some claiming to be Christians also misrepresent that claim & quote scripture to suit their own wants. The judgement will be God’s & you either believe that or you don’t but if you truly study scripture you will see today’s world outlined vividly & exactly, judgement will be Gods…

    • Sally Strange

      Scripture can be quoted to justify any point you want, as can any writings.

      Which makes Scripture exactly as useless as “any writings” as a guide for moral behavior.

    • William Harvey

      Again: Christians NEVER take anything out of context…NEVER! I cannot believe the number of the Christian “right” that is acting all shocked by an interpretation, when Christians are ALWAYS falling back on one or two verses to justify something they do that is clearly WRONG (judge not, lest ye be judged), just to make themselves feel better.

  • French

    Onan didn’t masturbate. He withdrew before ejaculation. He was supposed to impregnate her to keep the family line going.

    Judges 19 needs a closer read. The concubine cheated on him and ran away. He loved her and went back to get her. He tried to bring her home. The owner of the house sent out the concubine to protect the man. She was raped and killed. He cut her corpse into pieces and sent it to the regions of Israel to get them to come together and decimate the city where she was murdered. He loved and valued her enough to take her back after an affair, and then to avenge her death, which was inevitable anyway because the crowd in Gilbeah was bloodthirsty.

    Quite a bit if a different reading when YOU PAY ATTENTION.

    I’m a Christian who supports gay marriage.We do exist. But this article is rife with errors and it isn’t going to change a single heart if it can’t stand up to scrutiny. Work harder or move on.

    • The Author

      You have got to be kidding me. Let me repeat this verse to you: ““So [the Levite] took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night….” I’m going to let the text stand for itself.

      • david

        French is right your article is rife with errors and what you are doing is no better then those you oppose…posting 1/2 truths to make your point..his concubine was dead already he cut her up to get support against the men who killed her by raping her…read verse 20 and that is clear……When her master arose in the morning, and opened the doors of the house and went out to go his way, there was his concubine, fallen at the door of the house with her hands on the threshold. 28 And he said to her, “Get up and let us be going.” But there was no answer. So the man lifted her onto the donkey; and the man got up and went to his place.

        29 When he entered his house he took a knife, laid hold of his concubine, and divided her into twelve pieces, limb by limb,[c] and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. 30 And so it was that all who saw it said, “No such deed has been done or seen from the day that the children of Israel came up from the land of Egypt until this day. Consider it, confer, and speak up!”

      • The Author

        David, please show me where I said she wasn’t dead when she was chopped into fish bait.

        I didn’t post half-truths; I demonstrated that there is a helluva lot more to say about marriage in the Bible than what so many fundamentalists preach on Sunday. And I did it with QUOTATIONS–quotations and tales that never make it to Sunday School flannelgraphs.

        Once again, I am going to let the biblical text stand for itself: “So [the Levite] took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night….”

      • david

        the way it is written is an insinuation that she was not dead….when he cut her up…facts matter, and the right is terrible with facts, all i am saying is lets not be like that.. the bible is clear on marriage how it is supposed to be, now the truth is mAN has made a mockery out of marriage the way it is treated with the divorce rate as high as it is, and the fact that the infidelity rate is ridiculous, so when they accuse gays of making a mockery of it it is extremely hypocritical and i get why you make fun of fundies who attend on sunday, they have earned it….but God is clear on how things should be it is man that has corrupted it. even the story you quote no where in the bible does it say that the actions were right actually it says it was wrong!!!…..so dont twist when you dont need to twist..that is what the extreme right wing does…

      • William Harvey

        And, Christians don’t take anything out of context, do they? (please note the sarcasm in my tone)

      • david

        yes they most certainly do..oh so that makes it right….

      • William Harvey

        And, that’s how you handle that argument? Do not homosexuals get the right to fight fire with fire? Or, are you saying homosexuals are excluded from using the same tool you are telling us we are wrong with?

      • david

        you do not have to lie, deceive and misrepresent with false propaganda like so many so called Christians do. there is enough proof that so many so called christian s misrepresent the bible, and it is overwhelming…in other words you are saying it is ok to take things out of context to prove a point? when is that ever ok..is that not what the extreme right wing does when they attack the poor? is that not what they do when they attack unions? is that not what they do when they use God as a political football and trot him out every 4 years to excite the uneducated poor white southern vote that continue year after year to vote against their own self interest, while blaming illegal aliens, gay people, black people and every other group for their failings, and not looking in the mirror and getting up on their own two feet to fix their own lives.

      • William Harvey

        So, I guess semantics make it ok to desecrate a dead body?

      • david

        that isnt the point..back in biblical times it was brutal and they had a different set of morals..no one is doubting that..but what isnt ok is doing exactly what the right wing radical Christians do….tell 1/2 truths to make their point seem valid..great example is the way that they twist the founding fathers beliefs to be that of their own when in reality many of the founders were deists…I am Christian and I do believe what the bible says, all of it, and i don’t take out parts i don’t agree with..

      • William Harvey

        It IS the point. You cannot, in a valid argument, say a point can apply to your argument without recognizing the validity of the other person’s argument as well. If I’m going to accept your point as “valid” or even respect your resources, you cannot exclude that same resource from MY argument.

      • david

        but i know the context of that scripture, and what the author did was as I stated prior, exclude things that many people never would have seen because they would have just read the piece without researching the whole thing….have you ever seen how many false quotes there are on Facebook from the right about the founding fathers and what they supposedly said? many people just believe it was said without checking how valid it really is because they want to believe it…the Truth Matters!!! propaganda is bad no matter what said it comes from…

      • Jay Jonstone

        David, Do you propose that they raped her corpse?

    • William Harvey

      In my reading of the article, nothing was said about masturbation. I picked up that Onan “pulled out”…Regardless of semantics (no pun intended), maybe you should re-read the article. Regardless of who got killed, who cut who up, concubine or not, it really doesn’t sound very good that a guy cut ANYONE up and mailed it off to people. That’s just NASTY. So, he avenges her death by dismembering her. Yeah…sounds like a man who loved his concubine. Oh, how I LOVE how Christians can twist a story around to justify sin of any kind, as long as it suits their own needs. No one interprets the Bible the same way. Their relationship with God is a personal one. I’m with the person that earlier said someone should make a literal interpretation of the Bible in movie form, complete with the murder, incest, polygamy, homosexuality, bigamy, graphic violence, “smiting of others”, rape, thievery. EXPOSE EVERYTHING…even the goodness it shows…but, unfortunately, that wouldn’t show up until the New Testament. All the fire and brimstone that takes place in the Old Testament would be so violent, I doubt even an X-rated theater would allow it to be shown there.

  • Heaven

    Isn’t it interesting that everyone challenges Gods word, yet no one challenges Satan. I believe Satan does his work through non-believers. Salvation is so easy. John 3:16

    • Andrew Releford

      Let’s not forget that Satan was actually the (arch)angel Lucifer and worked directly beneath god. So he’s not just some evil force, he’s an individual with feelings and his own motivations. And if god is benevolent, why would any angel feel the need to rebel?

      • Madison Blane

        If Heaven is a sinless place, how could he rebel?

      • danb

        And took 1/3 of the angels. It was prolly the ones who were sick of singing holy holy holy to this divine asshole all day (rev 4:8)

    • Jerrid

      The idea of an individual Satan does not even exist in the Bible until Job. Nowhere in the Garden of Eden story is the serpent identified as Satan (especially in the ancient Hebrew). The word, roughly Shaitan in Hebrew, that has been translated as Satan in English merely means a block or stumbling point. There is no implied evil or wrong about it.

      • Baaly

        The point also seems to be missed that Satan is the great tester of faith. I love the way xtains have no concept of what they are supposed to believe in, or even know.

  • Mike Armistead

    This article presents a straw-man view of biblical history, and then dismisses it as if the argument was sophisticated, which it is not. It spends most of its time dealing with the tribal world of early Hebrew society up to the time of Solomon. That’s stuff from 3,000 years ago. A lot more has happened since then – prophets, exile, Jesus, apostles, etc. Marriage and sexual ethics became much more refined by the time all that was done, and Christians follow Jesus and the apostles rather than the weird practices of tribal period. As far as Mary being young when she became pregnant with Jesus, every Sunday School kid knows that. You didn’t specify an age, and we don’t know it specifically, but she was probably about 16, which is not the near-infant that this article implies. She was old enough to be engaged and to travel on her on to see Elizabeth, which a child would not be allowed to do. And it would be a great honor for any girl to be the vehicle that God graciously chooses and uses to enter the world as the Incarnate Son and Savior of the world. As for preaching about divorce from Matthew 19, I have done that and most pastors I know have done that. It is Jesus’ toughest standard on any topic in the gospels. Jesus is very serious about marriage. That’s why we take the current debate about redefining marriage so seriously today. We messed it up a generation ago when we redefined it to include no-fault divorce, with disastrous results. We are trying valiantly to head off a similar mess with a second redefinition to include same-sex and other relationships that are contrary to God’s revealed will in scripture.

    • Andrew Releford

      “Jesus is very serious about marriage. That’s why we take the current debate about redefining marriage so seriously today. We messed it up a generation ago when we redefined it to include no-fault divorce, with disastrous results. We are trying valiantly to head off a similar mess with a second redefinition to include same-sex and other relationships that are contrary to God’s revealed will in scripture.”
      Jesus said to love thy neighbor, so by that logic if you’re a man and fall in love with your best male friend, you should be allowed to marry him.
      Yeah, you don’t really take “redefining” marriage seriously. You’re just trying to control Americans.
      Where in the Bible does “god” state that same-sex marriages are against his will? And don’t cite Leviticus b/c that’s an irrelevant text.
      Thank you.

      • Neil Earnest

        Okay Andrew, does your discredit to Leviticus debate exemplify your attempt to discredit Jesus Christ in the NEW TESTAMENT (let’s be modern the OLD TESTAMENT(Lev.) is irrelevant right?)when Jesus said according to John—-I was in the BEGINNING—uh–with God at the creation–oh that would be OLD TESTAMENT or would you also discredit the TEN COMMANDMENTS? (again OLD TESTAMENT) Leviticus does apply!

  • hereNT

    I get what you are saying, and I’m not religious in any way. But what you are calling incest in Genesis 38:8-10 wasn’t. It was the treatment of a wife as property, and her only use to produce heirs for her husband. She would have been from a different family than the man who was supposed to impregnate her to continue his dead brother’s lineage.

    It does show a deep misunderstanding of basic biology, that it’s not the semen that determines parentage, but who you are originally married to.

    Just wanted to point it out, because most of the people you want this shown to would throw your whole argument out based on the fact that if your reading comprehension doesn’t allow you to understand that sleeping with your sister-in-law is not incest, how much credibility can you have on the rest of it?

    • William Harvey

      and, the fact the he was only using her as a place to park his semen was ok?

      • hereNT

        When did I say it was OK? I’m saying that if you are trying to convince someone using an example, you should actually _understand_ what you are posting and make sure you aren’t making crap up. Or mixing up what the message is.

        It’s kind of like if I wanted to make the argument that fossil fuels were bad by talking about how dangerous nuclear power is. The author put in a huge hole for people to attack his whole premise as wrong, because he’s calling it incest when it isn’t incest.

        Obviously, your reading comprehension is about the same as the author’s.

      • William Harvey

        Obviously, your comprehension is close-minded. I’m also guessing that someone died and made YOU God, as well. Thank you fro sharing.

      • hereNT

        Close minded? Against religion, yes. Against stupidity, yes. Against misogyny, homophobia and racism. Against a _whole_ lot of things.

        As I pointed out above, your reading comprehension is pretty low. I’m not in any way shape or form advocating what that biblical piece says a family should do when someone dies without an heir. I’m not saying that homosexuals should be denied marriage – in fact, I am a strong supporter of their right to do that. Honestly, I think ‘marriage’ should be removed from the political debate completely, it should be a legal contract of a civil union. If people want to make it religious, they can do that, but keep it out of the government’s control altogether.

        I’m saying that the example he uses is labeled wrong, and that puts a hole in his credibility with the people he’s trying to refute. It’s completely wrong to treat someone as property yes. So SAY that’s what the problem is. Don’t call it incest if it isn’t incest.

        My problem is not with the intention of the article, but with the execution.

        Pretty sure that there is no god, BTW.

      • William Harvey

        Who cares if there’s a God or not…you are just trying to introduce that argument in there as a “jab” against anyone who may or may not be Christian. Also, who cares about the definition of marriage? It’s really about the RIGHT to get married. BUT, I certainly don’t want to have to get married to someone, as a gay man, and tell everyone “oh, this is my partner under a civil union”, yet, if I’m married to a woman, I can say “oh, we are married”….so, what are you trying to say? you think the word has proprietary means?

        By the way: next time you try to say something about my intelligence, I’m going to go off on you. Be WARNED. I don’t play that. Back off on the personal attack, else, I’ll be prepared to be sure this argument is cleared up quite quickly.

      • hereNT

        Why should the government be in charge of anything with religious connotations? I don’t think straight people should have to get married either, they should be able to get a contract from the government documenting the fact that they’re in a union. That’s it. If you want a ‘marriage’ which is seen by your god, take it up with your church. Not with the government.

        The ‘there is no god’ comment was in reference to you saying I’m god. I’m not. Pretty sure there are no other ones, either.

        You seem to keep saying I’m supporting things that I’m not, that’s why I keep saying you’re not getting what I’m writing.

      • William Harvey

        you again?

      • William Harvey

        I could care less whether you believe in God or not, to tell you the truth. LET THAT BE CLEAR. THAT is YOUR decision, and it’s personal to YOU (see: I acknowledged your choice not to believe in God…and it wasn’t too difficult)…

        Yet, “marriage” is, technically only a WORD. Why are yo defending a “word”? You are hung up on your “God” comment, and I could care less about what you believe in or don’t believe in. I stated that pretty clearly..where is YOUR reading comprehension?

        Therefore, I’m coming to the conclusion you are being a troll.

      • hereNT

        I’m not defending that word. Quite the opposite. I’m saying it has no place in our government. It’s being used as a wedge to foster anger and hate for political and social gain by people in power.

        And no, not trolling. Just replying to these notices that keep showing up in my email inbox. I’ll make sure to filter them as spam from now on.

        I’ll also try to remember not to point out factual errors in articles on the internet from now on. Far be it from me to try and help the author bolster their argument.

      • William Harvey

        the word “marriage” is not proprietary to the ANY church…You are defending semantics, and, not the right. Get over it.

      • hereNT

        The people who oppose it oppose it on religious grounds, and on the fact that it’s going to ruin ‘traditional marriage’ right? It’s not proprietary to the church, but they _do_ feel that they own it.

        So why not change what the argument is about?

        Honestly, I find all government ‘perks’ for forming committed binary relationships discriminatory against ME. I will never, ever be in a relationship that would get the tax incentives and social incentives that others take for granted.

        I’m not defending anything, either. I’m saying that the entire dialogue is flawed. And designed to divide people. It keeps people from looking at the real problems. Do we even know what percentage of gays want to get married? No.

        We know how many face violence, discrimination, being kicked out of home as teenagers, etc, though. By focusing on this one issue without paying attention to others, we’re really not doing anything to _actually_ make the world a better place. It’s just making people feel better about one tiny thing, that in the end, doesn’t really matter as much as thousands of other things that need to be fixed.

        But, yeah, I don’t expect you to understand that point, either. You will keep thinking that I am saying gays shouldn’t get married. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying everything should be equal. And there has to be a LOT of change for that to happen.

      • William Harvey

        So, the design of equal rights for women and other minorities was to divide people. You are still straddling the fence. Yes, everything needs to be equal for anyone. Whether you are for or against gay marriage has still not been clearly stated in your basis for argument. Who really cares how many gay couples want to get married or not? And, what do you mean by saying you would not “be in a relationship that would get the tax incentives and social incentives that others take for granted”?

        You’ve already told me I lacked in reading comprehension. Now, you are telling me you don’t think I can understand what you are saying. You are making statements that I find quite contradictory, and I’m asking questions that I think you should clear up. You are right. I don’t understand what you are saying, because you straddle the fence.

        I’m VERY clear on what I’m saying: EVERYONE deserves a right to their own happiness and to have the same benefits as a “married couple” (yup…50% divorce rate, and all)…Tax exemptions, insurance benefits, ALL OF IT. We are on that path to that change. The Federal Government has just acknowledged those marriages in the states that allow it, and also stated that they will have the same federal benefits in any other state. It’s up to the state to continue on. It’ll only take one lawsuit against the state to go to the supreme court to set a precedent. In the end, all they have to do is say, “hey..everyone has the same rights”…it’s a new POLICY, and, I could care less about how the churches feel about it, and neither should they care about how I feel about my chosen partner.

      • hereNT

        Ugh. For the last time, yes, I did say I support it. My first statement was NOT saying that gays shouldn’t marry. It was pointing out that the author left a huge hole in his argument that would allow people to refute him on technical grounds, no matter how valid his points are, if there are factual errors, he’s doing something wrong.

        I’m a sex-positive feminist who believes in equality for all.

        However, I don’t think it’s the issue that we should focus on, and just allowing gay marriage is not where it should end.

        You don’t think that the debate over gay, women’s, and minorities rights is designed to divide the country? It’s all polarizing people and keeping them fighting in the left/right conservative/liberal dichotomy. Our focus needs to be much, much broader.

        Why are you so up in arms about this issue? Because both ‘sides’ have been fanning the flames to keep us enraged, I think. It seems like you see me as an enemy of basic human rights, when it is very much the opposite.

        But it is a war to keep us from paying attention to other issues. Sure, it’s a fight that needs to be fought, but if we attack the systematic problems in our society that lead to these divisions, we’ll be far better off.

        As far as my statement about how I’ll never get those benefits… Not everyone is hetero or homo, or even sexual. Not everyone believes in binary relationships between two people. Where are the rights for people like me? If I make a commitment to live in a communal non-sexual arrangement with 5 other people, there’s no protection for inheritance, sharing insurance, visiting loved ones in the hospital, etc.

        I’m not on any fence. I’m so far off the scale on the liberal side that most people, as I said, don’t understand the points I’m making. You obviously don’t.

        Have a nice life.

      • William Harvey

        The subject is not where he places his semen, in the first place. he’s offering examples, as you were asking. You are not helping your argument by offering the suggestion that a wife can be used as property, yet, homosexuals are not allowed to marry….

      • William Harvey

        that is, unless I’m completely confused by your post…who’s side are you on, anyway? you offered no “real” indication of which side you were arguing for..

      • hereNT

        I’m for gay and women’s rights. I wasn’t advocating for one or the other in my reply, simply pointing out that the author didn’t do his research properly.

      • hereNT

        Oh, and trans rights, too. :P

      • William Harvey

        I’ve also read quite a few of your responses, man…and you spend a lot of time pointing out where everyone else is wrong and you are right, yet, you don’t even acknowledge where the person you are responding to has a point to the nth degree. I’ve also read where you are so busy trying to correct other people in their way of thinking without saying which side you are on. I’ve also read where you criticize a lot without thinking about what the point was in the first place. Man, I don’t have time for trolling.

  • Dave

    testing…

  • Dave

    This article is a testament to the absolute stupid logic liberals have. This article does not quote God or Jesus even once (except John8:7). All it does is point out the sin in many Biblical peoples lives (Judah, Solomon, Lamech. [Moses and David are both guilty of murder as well!]) which we can all agree on. The Bible does not condone these mens actions. John 8:7 is grossly taken out of context, and if you can’t figure out why I promise you you either can’t overcome your own bias or you really are incapable of reason.

    • badmoodpixie

      “this article doesn’t quote god or jesus even once (except once)”

      slightly paraphrased to point out your ridiculous, immediate, correction of your own statement…you could have rephrased and come out sounding a bit more intelligent.

      • Dizcuzted

        Not really, but at least he wouldn’t have seemed grammatically challenged as well as logically challenged.

    • The Author

      Dave, that is a most unusual comment. It does not “quote God”? Pray tell more what you mean by this. Also, there are two quotations of Jesus. Please read the article more closely, as with Scripture. Blessings!

    • Andrew Releford

      The Author has actually turned your would-be arguments against you.
      “This article does not quote God or Jesus even once”

      Since the Author quoted from the Bible, which you people seem to think was “written” by god, then you’re basically agreeing that the Bible is not the “Word of God.”
      Good job, conservatives!

  • Val H.

    This article contains so many assumed theological fallacies that I don’t even know where to start refuting them, so I’ll focus on one thing only: the whole of the old testamint exists only to show man’s need for a merciful God’s undeserved salvation. NOT to show man’s great wisdom, or chrisianity’s great unsinful performance.
    Please don’t assume that all christians are as the Republican right-wing agenda chooses to portray them. I shudder to think that because I’m a christian, some fool somewhere automatically assumes that I’m also a republican or a misguided fool who can’t think for myself, and therefore takes what a politician says as the gospel truth. Yikes.

    • Jerrid

      Val. When the Christians that do not accept the Right-Wing Fundamentalist Credo get up and denounce them, and take their religion away from the wackos, then you can begin to be upset about how we non-Christians view Christianity. Those who sit aside and do nothing are no better than those who commit the atrocities.

    • Madison Blane

      I shudder to think that because I’m an Atheist, some religious extremist fool somewhere automatically assumes that I’m also a nihilist Hitler supporter, a ‘Libtard’, or an aggressive person who is ‘angry at God’ and just wants to sin, who hasn’t ever read the Bible, and therefore, having never even interacted with an Atheist, that person believes the stereotypes and assumptions that politicians and preachers and even Oprah says as the gospel truth, believing that I will hurt others without remorse, Can’t have morals without a God, and can’t experience joy or love and ‘just KNOWS’ that I can’t feel awe without accepting Biblical Unicorns, Satyrs and Golems as totally real (along with a lot of other absurd claims).

  • Forgiven

    This a pointless correction but I didn’t want you to sound dumb so the song goes father Abraham had many sons not wives. And cactus-wren has the full story on Onan. You should at least put issues in context.

    • The Author

      Forgiven, I was making a joke. I know the correct lyrics of the song; I grew up singing it. I am also aware that the Peanut Butter and Chocolate Buckeyes recipe does not really call for Pauline Epistle butter. Further, I am quite aware that Onan “withdrew.” Who knows how he did so; to call it something other than masturbation really is quibbling with nonessential details, in my opinion. Thank you.

  • Edward Bolduc

    Mans rectum is for other uses and not sex. sticking your penis in another mans rectum and having a ejaculation does not mean that it is the right thing to do. wisdom is the right use of things including sex. sorry it is un natural and is a choice not a born that way thing.

    • Lis

      How do you KNOW people aren’t born that way?

    • William Harvey

      So, some of you straight guys choose to stick your penis in a woman’s rectum,a nd that’s ok….and there are also fetish guys that like their ladies to wear something they can put up a mans rectum…so, it’s ok for the straight man to make that choice, but, it’s not ok for a gay man to have an attraction to a man…and, by the way: what makes you think ALL gay men like to have a penis put up their rectum? WOW, man…do I need to sit you down and have a talk with you about the facts of life? If you want to bring up the bedroom, and what you think should be going on in there, apparently, your mind doesn’t get out of a mans bedroom that much….

      I can really take it to a level that people would be offended by on this site, and really give you a graphic EDUCATION on what what is involved in a homosexual relationship…but, I dont’ think you are quite ready for it.

  • katherine norton malek

    Sincerely enjoyed this Bible perspective. Clever, entertaining & fact-filled. I’m so bloddy sick & tired of hypocrites who cherry- pick Bible quotes to live by. One cannot call for Biblical law according to the passages THEY prefer. It’s the whole enchilada or nothin’. It’s a very very old book. Interesting historical reading, perhaps one of greatest books ever written, no, compiled. There are so many different authors who contributed – which one’s your fave? Callin ancient historical compilation “Law” is just stupendously stupid. It’s no more relevant as a “How-To” guideline to live by than ancient medical journals thats ascribed to lobotomy, bloodletting and leeching as cures for diseases.

  • Allen Reeves

    Marriage is equal now. Can we just stop with the back and forth and start ignoring these religious idiots unless they do something REALLY stupid like the governor of Ohio did?

    • William Harvey

      Marriage is NOT equal now. There are still 37 states that do not recognize gay marriage.

  • Bill Rubin

    As if I care about what the Bible and its Christian conservative fundamentalists say about anything. Egyptians had their gods and beliefs. Greeks had their gods and beliefs. Romans had their gods and beliefs. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have their God and beliefs. When will humanity recognize that every society has their gods or God and their own set of beliefs, all of which are pure mythology meant to instill control by the ruling set on the masses and provide a uniform set of societal norms in order to set one’s society apart from another?

  • HeardItAllBefore

    Lame. Just the same snarky shit that people always spout when they have nothing else to say.

  • Evelyn

    Onan didn’t get slain for masturbating, he got slain for pulling out!

    • Andrew Releford

      Isn’t it funny that the right-wing doesn’t try to use this as proof that safe-sex practices are bad?
      Funny, that.

  • Pingback: Forward Progressives — The Bible: Rated X()

  • child of God

    may God forgive all of you ,one day you will bow to Him and pray for His forgiveness and he will say depart from me I never knew you and ,you will go to hell.

    • Andrew Releford

      Sorry, but if hell existed our scientists would have already found it ;)

      • Neil Earnest

        Andrew,they haven’t found heaven yet, either.

    • William Harvey

      condescending much? That’s all you have to say in defense of an intelligent argument? Apparently, the most you read on a daily basis IS the Bible, and your social activities are all in the church functions, church suppers, Now…between me and the God I worship, YOU are going to go to hell because you have no tolerance for anyone but yourself and your God. You were put here for a “special” reason, so YOU could rid the world of all sin. YOU are the one ENTIRELY” responsible for that, YOU are the “CHOSEN ONE”…uh-oh…according the the Bible I’ve read, you are representing yourself as a “false prophet” which we are told to beware of…that means, I should follow you….uh-oh…that scripture we were discussing said BEWARE of false prophets….oh, man…..you are TOAST!

    • The Author

      No, may God forgive you for judging the rest of us. You have no right to speak for God with respect to my metaphysical future. It’s comments like this that inspire me to write the articles I do. I hope and pray you have no sway over any children or vulnerable minds.

  • Eserafina42

    “I mean, God struck down Onan for masturbating rather than knocking up his sister-in-law.”
    ___

    You hurt your case here, since the idea that the “sin of Onan” is masturbation is only believed by the people you’re criticizing. What he did in “spilling his seed” was what is commonly known as “pulling out early.” He was perfectly willing to sleep with the girl – he just didn’t want to get her pregnant since any child she had would be considered his brother’s and would get his brother’s share of the inheritance from dear old dad and, presumably take care of his mother in her old age – a form of social security, as it were.

  • Michael Emery

    Don’t really understand how this is still an issue. Religiously speaking, gay marriage IS blasphemous, It’s clearly laid out as “The Word Of God”. This however has no bearing whatsoever on modern day human rights. This country is supposed to have a secular government which recognizes every individual’s right to the pursuit of happiness so long as that pursuit does not infringe upon the rights of others. Nowhere in our constitution is it written, that I know of; that those others have a “right to force their religious lifestyles on others”. Marriage has already been established in this country as a secular contract rather than a religious bond. If it wasn’t we’d all have to go to religious leaders and their courts for all marital disputes. Neither could we be married in the first place outside of “recognized” churches. Those who would argue against the rights of gay individuals to marry I think would actually love this type of scenario. This would be a dark and oppressive path to follow, leading closer and closer to a church run state. No sane individual could possibly want that.

    • Darrian

      That is the best response I have heard on this issue, of course it will fall on deaf ears, unfortunately religion and reason are not synonymous.

  • Cis

    I haven’t read all the comments, but just so you know, the children happened after The Fall from Grace. The stories in the Bible were chosen not only by the Council of Nicea who decided what books should be there, but also by other translators who decided what books should be there (see the Apocrypha of the Catholic Vulgate version of the Bible) it’s been translated from an oral tradition, which we all know how fish tales and family stories get changed as they are passed around, from Aramaic to Hebrew, with it’s lovely ambiguity, to Greek, to Latin, to Old English to it’s current translations. Things are often changed and lost in translation. Up until the Renaissance the common people weren’t even allowed to have a Bible, much less be able to read them. They were instructed by the church… if people can have different interpretations of what Pride and Prejudice, then how can we not expect them to have different interpretations of the Bible. People pick and choose what they want to hear, usually those that fit their already established belief system.

  • mark_in_toronto

    You all might as well be debating (and believing) the Lord of the Rings.

    The bible is no more legitimate. Fairy tales are just that.

    And people wonder why there are crazy people who do terrible things.

  • Jack

    A couple of additional points: When you discussed Abraham, you forgot to mention that his wife Sarah was also his sister (Gen 20:11-12).

    Also, according to the Bible, God did not assign gender and reproductive roles until after the Fall – before then, there was no procreating; not for the two humans or any of the animals. Until God’s big gender-assignment surgery, Adam and Eve were most probably physically identical. you know; the same.

    Finally, to all those evangelicals who believe in the Bride of Christ: in order to be “one flesh” and “one body”, not only will you be married to Christ (uh, aren’t you also suppose to be “children of God”?), you will also be marrying every other member of the Body! Same-sex, opposite-sex, polygamous and incestuous marriages all rolled into one.

  • Pingback: Biblical Definitions of Marriage | ScRiMac()

  • Anthony Fowler-Rainone

    Arik I have a question about modern definition based on biblical definition of marriage: I live it Texas (should be enough said but it gets better I promise). I’m Married to a man in NY and now 12 other states but am not recognized in Texas so I’m single. I can still marry a woman in Texas since I’ve never been married but that would be bigamy in the same said states. So either Texas has to legalize bigamy or say I’m married. I called the Governor’s office and they I can’t marry but I can but I can’t…

  • Valuhrie

    You had me at “What Every American Should Know About The Biblical ‘Definitions’ of Marriage,” but you wasted 11 paragraphs on sniping, petty, condescending language. If you really want to educate us conservatives, allow us the opportunity to keep an open mind to read your fine points. Beating us up while getting us to the gate does nothing to enhance your argument. Thanks for a provocative article.

    • Guest

      How do you think LGBT people and their supporters feel every day about what others say to, of, and about them. They don’t want to listen because what their opponents say is mostly harmful (Telling people they are going to Hell, using derogatory terms, telling people they can’t love someone). Nevertheless, I think what people want is to simply be left alone to do what they please and not having someone telling them what they can or can’t do. Two men or two women getting married is their decision and doesn’t have to affect anyone else unless other people choose to get involved.

    • William Harvey

      Wow…pot, meet the kettle….don’t like it when we do the same to you, huh? get over yourself. Don’t go whining just because you got a good pop in the mouth with facts that you didn’t like to read. Go do your own research and soul searching, and make up your own mind. Some of us are getting tired of hearing the same old arguments and the some old whining about “you used my book to defend your argument” kind of thing. Believe me: It’s happening, it’s going to happen, and the LGBT community is going to have the right to marry in all 50 states in the next 10 years or so. Get used to it.

      • Valuhrie

        William Harvey, you missed my point. I was interested in LEARNING, which is why I read the article to begin with. “Some of us are getting tired of” hearing “embrace tolerance” from intolerant people…you bring people to the water trough, and then push them away. Y’all are your own worst enemies.

      • William Harvey

        After hearing so many people in the religious sector push us away while “embracing tolerance” in the same breath, it’s kind of hard decipher if a person is ignorant (meaning that in the most respectful definition) or just plain “homophobic”. If I offended you, I’m sorry. The intolerance works in both directions, y’know. Don’t come preaching to me about who is the worst enemy. When you start pointing fingers, remember, you have three of them pointing back at YOU. Those that have their minds in gutters and in another persons bedrooms do not have a right to tell me how to live. Understand? If you’ve never walked a mile in my shoes, I’ll be glad to loan you a few pairs…would you like that?

      • Valuhrie

        One step forward, two steps back.

        Obviously, the intolerance works in both directions. Even when someone is open to learning– not homophobic– your shotgun anger fires off to pay back all those who’ve hurt you peripherally, real or not. You don’t know *me*, and truthfully, I don’t give a rat’s behind about what you do in your bedroom. Pointing fingers? I stated the obvious. There is hardly a post of yours that isn’t toxically angry, you poor soul. Wishing you some peace.

      • William Harvey

        don’t try to psychoanalyze me. Now, it IS a personal attack, and you haven’t even SEEN me go ballistic on anyone yet. You don’t like my writing style, don’t read it. You don’t like what I say, go away. Don’t read it. I’m a person that DEFINITELY is opinionated, and I could care less what you have to say about how I say it. If you don’t like it, don’t read it, and your personal attacks are not welcome. I’ll definitely let you know how I feel about it…any further questions? If not, shut up. I’ve got no problem with telling you that, too,.

      • William Harvey

        it’s definitely a two-way street. So, please do not condescend to me. I am who I am, and I could give a rats behind about what you do in your bedroom, either. It’s about our CIVIL rights to the SAME benefits “straight” couples enjoy. Trust me, there are enough “straight” husbands/wives stepping out with a gay man/woman than you even know. I’d be checking my own back yard before you start trying to keep ME in check.

      • Valuhrie

        Now you just sound silly.

      • William Harvey

        oh? you don’t think that happens? Should I go to some of the gay sites and provide the links for you? Should I take you into a gay bar and point out the married men? Should I take you into a lesbian bar and point out the women? You think I’m lying to you? You don’t think there are married men stepping out with men? Which delusion of reality are YOU living in? This is exactly why I don’t like having these conversations with you, because YOU are so delusional to think that “no married man/woman” can be gay. GET A GRIP on yourself. I’m letting you know this is REAL, and I’m about to get REAL on YOU, the next time you make a comment like “you just sound silly”….Believe me…you really need to get out a bit more, make some gay friends, find out what they do..if you are as “open minded” as you say you are. Other than that, you are a phony, hiding behind the coat-tails of the Bible, your religion. You are living in a world, that, without the Bible, you have NO understanding of what it’s like to have to be judged by you…yet, you preach to ME about my anger and hatred towards those of YOU who dismiss the fact that I was born gay, I AM gay, my so-called “Christian” family doesn’t and has NEVER EVER in 30 years, met ANY PERSON in my life because it was FORBIDDEN in that household. Call me “silly” one more time…I haven’t let loose you you YET.

      • Valuhrie

        Oh, I get it. You can rant and bully someone for ideologies you infer on them, without knowing what their background is, but I say the word “silly,” and you, again, explode. Anytime anyone expresses *their* opinion, you accuse them of “preaching.” You’ve accused me of theologies I haven’t pontificated, assumed I have no gay friends, no knowledge of heteros in the gay world, and blah blah blah. Get over yourself. Let go of your anger. And quit bullying people. Only then will your hands be free enough to accept an olive branch when someone comes to you to learn. Until then, I can’t take you seriously for your cause.

        The first to anger, loses. – Sun Tzu

      • William Harvey

        Seriously? No one is bullying here. You deliberately were condescending in what you already know is a heated argument in politics. You offered nothing in the way of an olive branch. You are preaching, and hoping you can make a conversion. Please: pontificate somewhere else in this context of conversation. I am a person who stands up for what he believes in and how I believe in it, as well. Looks like we are at an impasse, huh? Yo made it personal when I stated CLEARLY that there were married people who are stepping outside of their convenient little marriage and doing what it is they want to do in the gay community. You called me “silly”. I say get your head out of your ass and get a sniff of reality instead of the shit you are sharing.

      • William Harvey

        and a condescending attitude is nothing more than passive/aggressive anger….at least I’m able to express my anger at your ignorance.

      • Valuhrie

        Your anger isn’t about “my” ignorance. It’s about what every person who’s hurt you or rejected you, including your family. The truth came out in your previous post. And that, Sir, isn’t me.

      • William Harvey

        It is you. You are a bitch who likes to take advantage of your own situation when you even think you;ve gotten any form of upper hand. Yours is in the fact that we, as a gay culture, are fighting for our rights to be married, and you are of the religious right. you are using your religion as a way of justifying your own behavior, and not even realizing that the person you are speaking to has some form of religious conviction. You are dismissing the gay community as pedophiles and people who are not worthy of heaven. I’ve heard it all from the likes of you, and it doesn’t bother me. i’m not angry at you. I’m angry at your group’s ignorance to being ok with thinking it’s ok to discriminate against a group of people in God’s name. So, you decide to change the subject and make it about ME just because I’m a person that is willing to carry on this discussion. This is what makes you a BITCH.

      • William Harvey

        By the way, bitch: I don’t mince my words anymore with you. If you think it’s ok to be condescending, I’ll call you a bitch. And, hope you are offended.

      • William Harvey

        You can do a few other things, too… 1) use the information I’ve given you and do your own research. Of course, you don’t have to actively participate in any of the activities. 2) ASK gay people how they’ve been discriminated against by the likes of you, and be prepared for the answers. 3) DO NOT call any person “angry” or “silly” because you don’t agree with their response. That’s one of the OTHER parts the gay community is so angry with the religious community. 4) READ UP on what we, as members of the LGBT community have had…not only the generalized articles about the rights we don’t get to enjoy in all states because “we don’t have the rights”, but PERSONAL experiences of couple that have been together for many years. When their partner passes, they have to pay an “inheritance tax” on what may have been willed to them that, if they were married, would immediately inherit, no questions asked. Also, those that may be critically ill can be cut off from visitation from their lifelong partner by family that may have excluded them for YEARS. THAT family stands to inherit, and can, in some states, throw the partner out that helped build a business and a home, leaving that partner out on the streets.

        Put some of those things in your pipe and smoke it for a while. After you’ve done your research and have been a part of living with it, why don’t YOU tell ME why I don’t have the rights to a wonderful life that you so enjoy? Just because YOU don’t like it?

        I can’t believe you pissed me off like this so early in the morning….

    • William Harvey

      Oh…by the way, bitch….you already were at the gate…we are the people fighting for our rights, not you. Now, shut the Fu** up.

      • Valuhrie

        Not all conservatives are religious right, just as not all liberals are Godless cretins. Your rants accusing all conservatives as mindless Bible thumpers makes as much sense as someone accusing all gays of being pedophiles– which obviously isn’t true. Now, you’ve completely lost all credibility with your name-calling, however, I expected you to throw that tantrum 4 posts ago.

        Keep fighting for human rights…it’s important and valid.

        “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” – Margaret Thatcher

      • William Harvey

        yeah…a lot of you “conservatives” have “liberal” qualities until it infringes upon your ‘rights” . Bi-partisanship is about the same as a Bi-Sexual…they get what they want out of the situation at hand. When it’s convenient. Yep…I’ll continue calling you a Bitch. Because you are. That being said, shut the fuck up.

      • William Harvey

        and keep your philosophical quotes and cliche’s to yourself. Remember YOU and YOUR conservative people are a part of this argument. YOU and YOUR conservatives help keep it going. YOU and YOUR conservatives are the ones tying up congress. You and YOUR conservatives don’t like having a black man in the Presidential seat. YOU and YOUR conservatives have BLOCKED virtually EVERYTHING our sitting President has tried to pass for the betterment of the people on our continental USA. YOU and YOUR conservatives have out-sourced jobs, caused a problem with the imported immigrants that YOU brought into this country over the past many years. Lord help me JESUS if anyone should get a slice of THAT pie…

      • Valuhrie

        LOL you should be able to wash that down real easy with that glass of Kool-Aid.

  • Angie

    Is there any evidence to suggest that all concubines had to be female?

  • WellJustSad

    This is just bad writing. Regardless of political opinion, this is just bad. Snide, objective, and hateful. This does nothing to educate, persuade, or aid. This is just terrible. And I’m afraid the author is proud of it. This isn’t what we should aspire to at all.

  • Megan

    You forgot about the men who rape a woman paying 50 pieces of silver to her father and marrying her. And, please, the story of Lot? It might not involve marriage, but COME ON.

  • TJ

    uhhhhhhhhh…I believe the song is “Father Abraham had many SONS, many SONS had Father Abraham” which makes so much more sense when followed by the line “I am one of them, and so are you, so let’s just praise the Lord!”

  • laurie

    adam and eve are not even real people. the whole story is metaphorical and the garden of eden is the female reproductive system. God is not a person…it is an energy and a belief and Love and comes from within each of us – from the inside out, not from the outside in. not from a book. yes, books were written by men/holy ones…and maybe God spoke to some…but they couldn’t even write back then, so by the time there was writing so much was lost in translation. But writings go back much further than the christian bible. the oldest know writings are Sanskrit and the book is the Bhagavad Gita from the Hindu Scriptures. There are facts to support alot more than what christianity believes is Truth. and when you try to talk to a christian in logic…you can’t get any straight facts or explanation to support reason. when asked Why to lots of questions….the responses are such nonsense, or because the bible says so that any logical one has to throw it up and give it to……God!

  • Blake Seitz

    Just goes to show that anyone, including the author of this piece, can take what they want from the Bible and use it to support their opinion. I am for marriage equality, but you didn’t do a very good job of clarifying your initial premise for the article. I generally enjoy your posts, but this one falls short. Keep striving for positivity, it goes farther than attack.

  • JonesRobynj

    Since the Bible was compiled by several priests appointed by Empire of Rome in 350 AD, this book does not have much in common with any of the surrounding books printed in it. These volume was compile for the purpose of giving early Christians a guide to the faith of what they wanted Christianity to be. The public at the time probably couldn’t even read. Marriage was a tradition created by the men of the age in order to lay claim to the women they owned as wives and to keep the genetic line of that man’s offspring, pure. Nothing more until marriage evolved into what it is today. There have always been changes in the institution. Marriage is nothing more than a license for two people to declare their union for personal and monetary security for the family they intend to create. Holy Matrimony is a completely different thing. Every state and country has control over marriage and how to sanction it.

  • the author mike

    The real shame is that none of them will read this or believe it if you show it to them. Sadder yet, this is only ONE religion.

  • moyeti

    Twisting God’s words around doesn’t make your vile agenda valid. May you all pay for you sins in the end.

  • Pingback: Forward Progressives — Christian Right Weekly Round-Up: Hate Speech to Hymnsta Gangstas()

  • David K. Ward

    ‘Before we begin our Two-Minute Drill Survey of “Biblical Definitions of Marriage”—yes, plural—let me suggest that if you are naïve enough to believe in a Biblical Definition of Marriage based solely on the misguided hermeneutical assumption that there was an historical Adam and Eve, then you also need to fess up that your personal theology includes a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for sibling incest—unless you have some other suggestion for how Adam and Eve’s children managed to propagate our species.’

    Wow, just when i thought you could not get more juvenile, i am proved ever so wrong…lmao. This is the best you can do???? Some incredibly trite and tired meme that is dependent on theological ignorance? lmao! i am now retired from ever reading this crap ever again. How do you justify wasting the server space with this stuff? Do you have pictures of the owner of this forum with farm animals?

    i am gone…you are a waste of time to chat with…i came here to hear open, witty discourse about real issues. The only issues i have come across are those in the author’s mind. Please think about all the simple little minds you are poisoning with this drivel.

  • Justin Alexander

    Do you really think the story of the Levite’s concubine is approving of his actions? Read it in the context of “there was no judge…” now here’s a terrible story about what happened when there was no leadership.

  • David Foret

    23
    And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    24
    Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

  • David Foret

    Then the devil came: Now
    the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD
    God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall
    not eat of every tree of the garden?

    2
    And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

    3
    But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

    4
    And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

    5
    For
    God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be
    opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

    6
    And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

    7
    And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

  • Pingback: what every american should know about the “biblical” definitions of marriage | wombs in rebellion()

  • Pingback: Forward Progressives — Christian Right Weekly Round-Up: The United Caliphate of Cruz()

  • Madison Blane

    So how DID Cain have children? Read on…
    I believe the biggest misconception that people have about the Bible (other than its inerrancy) begins in the beginning – the very first chapter of Genesis. Genesis is NOT a creation story which claims that the Hebrew God Yahweh created the world and populated it with plants, animals, and humans. Genesis is a story that sets Yahweh’s people apart as separately created from other humans that already existed, special, with rules that apply only to them.

    Genesis 1 does NOT reference the Hebrew God Yahweh. The translation of the texts say that the Elohim (a grammatically plural noun for “gods”) – a PLURALITY of Gods – created the whole world. In verse 26 of Genesis 1, the Elohim, male and female Gods and Godesses, created humans like themselves “Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness…” The Elohim created the plants, animals, etc. that we all know of today, along with all mankind in its diversity, in the text of Genesis 1 (many believers think this is a short-form explanation of evolution).

    Genesis 2 is a SEPARATE creation story in which Yahweh God, one of the plurality, was not happy with the previous arrangement. Yahweh God wanted his own special people. Notice that AFTER the Bible says man and woman were created (in Genesis 1) God created Adam from ‘dust’ (Eve from a rib) and put him in a ‘garden’ secluded from the rest of humanity, to worship only him. Yahweh God makes only two people and creates a garden. The descendants of these two people became the Jews, the descendants of Adam and Abraham. This garden was NOT full of every type of plant but only those ‘pleasant to the sight and good for food’ (verse 9). In this garden was a tree of knowledge AND a tree of life (verse 9). This garden was eventually closed off and guarded. None of those plants or animals exist today; they only existed in the garden.

    In chapter 3, Yahweh God shows himself NOT to be omnipotent or omnipresent in verses 8-9 when he is heard walking in the garden and is unable to find his creations because they ‘hid’. Adam and Eve ate only from the tree of knowledge, the only one they were forbidden. Adam and Eve had a chance at immortality, that tree wan’t forbidden but they just didn’t get around to that particular fruit. However, the Elohim feared that they would. The Elohim worries Gen. 3:22 “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever.” THIS – this knowledge – is what sets the descendants of Adam and Eve apart from other humans; they are like Gods in their knowledge.

    Further evidence of other humans existing before Adam and Eve can be found in Genesis 4: 16-17 when Cain moves east of Eden and takes a wife from there. That’s where his kids come from.

    If you continue reading the Old Testament, it is a collection of stories of Yahweh God’s favoritism and protection of HIS creations – the Jews – ONLY. It is NOT a story of love for all mankind. Mankind created by the Elohim are enemies of God’s chosen people and the stories that follow tells how, when his people obey his commandments, Yahweh God helps them become powerful conquerors over creation of the Elohim.

    The only conclusion I can draw from this is that I am not a Jew, a descendant of Adam and Abraham, and anything that follows simply doesn’t apply to me (or most of the world for that matter) and that the laws of the Old Testament forbidding homosexuality only apply to Jewish gays if they choose to believe in them.

  • 10 29 65

    Wow, so you can use the internet…to bad you did not cite your sources like your English prof instructed you to. So, where to begin…how about at the incest. Adam and Eve were created perfect, thus they did not have any genetic abnormalities. When their children intermarried and had children they were near perfect as well. The issue with incest was brought up at a later date because of birth defects. Besides, it would be really weird to have sex with a sibling. About Polygamy. Almost every polygamist relationship in the Bible ends on not so good terms…I.E Abraham, David, Solomon, etc. Just because people took more than one wife does not mean that it was right in the site of God, most times it happened because an older sister needed to be married off before the younger one did…but you should already know that…right? I find it interesting that you leave out the portion of Onan’s wife where she dies, and the portion where the people of that tribe were outside making threats and Onan had to make a choice. What about this quote? “How often do you hear Matthew 19:9 quoted from the pulpit other than never?” That is from you :) I have heard that preached several times. I also find it interesting how you accuse “Christians” from using a few snippets of scripture to base their theology on marriage and then proceed to do the same exact thing. I do agree on the divorce rate, accept I believe that it may be a higher percentage than that and I think that there is a growing issue among Christians that they, like the world, are weak and seek an easy way out. Also, in regards to Mary and Joseph, there is no age placed on Mary, she could have been 13 and she could have been 30, if you did your own biblical research you would have already known that. Also in regards to age, it has really only been 200 or so yrs since people decided to get marred at a later age. You pretend to be an expert but I see only mindless conjectures laden with quite humorous commentary. You are far from an expert so why don’t you go study some more and leave the correct exegesis to the experts with the degrees in Biblical Studies…Like me.

  • Mr. Iconoclast

    More cherry picking by another “Forward Progressives” writer who is woefully ignorant of the Bible. Here is my challenge: find *any* homosexual marriage in the Bible. Go ahead, start looking…

    [Jeopardy theme song plays...tick tock, tick tock, tick tock...DING DING!]

    You couldn’t. That’s because you can’t. Everywhere marriage is covered in the Bible–I mean EVERYWHERE–it’s either overtly or contextually opposite-gender! Why? Easy: that’s how God ordained it. It started with Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve) and continues throughout.

    Now that we have indisputably and resolutely demolished, forever and ever, the notion that Biblical marriage is anything but heterosexual, please move on to arguments that actually are based in Biblical truth.

  • 10 29 65

    It is a bummer that you deleted my last comment. But then again, why wouldn’t you? You want to appear to be a “professional” in this field, when all you are is a novice at best. You should know that the stories that you are quoting appear in the “historical” books of the Bible. These were records of Israel’s history transcribed for them to learn about their past, to look back on and see how God had delivered them, and to learn from their past mistakes. What the Bible does lay out specifically on marriage is found in Gen 2:24 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” You seek to look for the shortcomings of men in the Bible to “proof text” your argument. You purposefully leave out the important details of the stories that you have picked. Yes, there is a high divorce rate, yes Christians are hypocrites, but that is not because they are Christians, it is because they are people and ALL people are hypocrites. Paul lays it out in Romans 7 so clearly the struggle of being a Christian. “For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.” Then later on in 7 he states, ” O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” You see your presupposition is that Christians some how think that they are better than every one and that is why they stand up against sin. You could not be more wrong. But out of your ignorance you write these words, and professing to be wise you actually show how much wisdom and knowledge you lack. I hope that you will put down your sword and read the Bible again with a better understanding of it than what you now have.

  • http://www.teamusa.org/usa-roller-sports crash2parties

    Just to point out, much of the OT marriage talk such as Gen 38:8-10 is about one thing: maintaining power & ownership of land and property via lineage. Including wives and concubines, btw. And if there is one thing modern Christians love, it’s male superiority, power and ownership. So really, Biblical Marriage is about maintaining power and the ability – no, the need – to adapt to whatever will best meet that goal.

    See? No internal consistency (or critical thought, or…) needed!

    Also, Jesus was so obviously gay.

    Genesis 38:8-10
    Genesis 38:8-10
    Genesis 38:8-10
    Genesis 38:8-10

  • Stephen Barlow

    If the complete Bible had been published, we would have learned of the human afterlife of Jesus. His marriage to Magdalene, his children and ancestors.

    But we all know Jesus was a GAY virgin who was crucified for ‘coming out”. NOTHING ELSE could really account for all the Jews Praising him on Palm Sunday and scheming his death by Thursday. Look what happens to sports hero’s who come out? They LOSE THEIR JOBS.

    There IS no ‘Biblical Definition of Marriage”. There is only what church leaders have sold their prisoners since the dawn of time. I bet there are fewer Roans and Greeks in hell than lapsed adulterous Catholic and pilfering Protestant Conpreachers.

  • Pingback: Christian Right Weekly Round-Up: Pastor Pillow Buys Some Lube, the Bible Belt Girds Its Loins()

  • John Driscoll

    Mark 10:6-9 This is the Jesus definition of marriage – one man, one woman, for life. It doesn’t preach hatred, fear or judgment, and it doesn’t change, despite what we do or legislate. I should also note that Jesus spoke Adam and Eve as if they were ‘real’ so I’m going with that.

  • Pingback: Christian Right Weekly Round-Up: Pastor Pillow Prepares His State of the Communion Address()

  • Pingback: Christian Right Weekly Round-Up: Pastor Pillow Bets the Farm on Materiality()