34 replies to this topic

[THE MATRIX]

My link

Quote

Let me tell you a secret about Bible believers that I know because I was one. Most of them don’t read their Bibles. If they did, they would know that the biblical model of sex and marriage has little to do with the one they so loudly defend. Stories depicted in the Bible include rape, incest, master-slave sexual relations, captive virgins, and more. Now, just because a story is told in the Bible doesn’t mean it is intended as a model for devout behavior. Other factors have to be considered, like whether God commands or forbids the behavior, if the behavior is punished, and if Jesus subsequently indicates the rules have changed, come the New Testament.

Through this lens, you find that the God of the Bible still endorses polygamy and sexual slavery and coerced marriage of young virgins along with monogamy. In fact, he endorses all three to the point of providing detailed regulations. Based on stories of sex and marriage that God rewards and appears to approve one might add incest to the mix. Nowhere does the Bible say, “Don’t have sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you.”

[CommunitarianKevin]

THE MATRIX, on 04 April 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

My link

I guess the Muslims got it right...

[WoIverine]

THE MATRIX, on 04 April 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

My link

Eh, not seeing the problem here.  

^

Joking, of course.

Edited by Spid3rCyd3, 04 April 2012 - 09:25 PM.

[Karlis]

THE MATRIX, on 04 April 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

My link

Hhmmm ... seems to me as if the author spent a lot of words to make his point in the last paragraph of his article:   

Gay marriage will come, as will reproductive rights, and these Bible  believers will adapt to the change as they have others: reluctantly,  slowly and with angry protests, but in the end accepting it,

[Sherapy]

Karlis, on 04 April 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Hhmmm ... seems to me as if the author spent a lot of words to make his point in the last paragraph of his article:   

Gay marriage will come, as will reproductive rights, and these Bible  believers will adapt to the change as they have others: reluctantly,  slowly and with angry protests, but in the end accepting it,

Very well said, Karlis.


I myself,  am a seeing this.

Edited by Sherapy, 04 April 2012 - 09:48 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

One thing the author of the article virtually totally ignored is the fact that virtually all people, both male and female, in biblical times had no choice as to who they marry.  Whether the marriage comes from two families agreeing on a price, or whether it is a former slave to be married to someone, they generally were not given a choice.  Occasionally some chose to marry, but it was rare.  Thus, the use of the term "sex slave" and "types of sex slavery" is entirely redundant.  It's emotional language designed to cause a reaction.  It bears no similarity to how people living in that society would have viewed it.  If you travelled back in time and told someone they were participating in "sex slavery" they'd say:



These days we don't own slaves, we don't arrange marriages (generally speaking, naturally some countries are still an exception - an old work colleague grew up in India, she had never met her husband before their parents arranged the marriage).  To suggest that this is what marriage would look like if we followed the Bible, that's just ludicrous.

~ PA

[shadowhive]

The main point (to me anyway) is that the bible has things in it that are unacceptable today but Christians willing gloss those over (as, like PA says, they were acceptable at the time of it's writing). So to the majority of Christians 'the bible says so' is actually not an acceptable reason to do something. However, there's other 'Christians' which claim that because the bible says so, it makes what they're doing correct (especially when 'defending' marriage).

If we had maintained the stance those Christians are advocating now (the bible says so, therefore that's that) society would not be as it is today. We wouldn't have moved much forward from the days when the bible was first compiled. The reality is we as a people can (and have) moved forward, despite what the bible may say. Society we continue to move forward in this fashion and, as the article said, religion will eventually catch up. Right now though it's too concerned with it's own self interest and doesn't much care who it harms in the process (which does more harm than good).

[Leave Britney alone!]

The social change to include same sex marriage is a global phenomena. Christianity on the other hand is just one of the world's religions. It's motive to exist is not to suppress same sex marriage. Had Christianity never rose or if it had since waned this issue of same sex marriage would still be facing the same challenges due to the fact that all progress faces the same challenges when confronting tradition.

All things change including Christianity. The church is rarely the same in any era. The jest of the OP could be said of any past-present cultural comparisons. What if we society was exactly like ancient Greece or Rome. They had slaves but that does not stop us from aspiring to the same democratic ideals of ancient Greece or having a road infrastructure as Rome.

How many Christians claim society today should mirror ancient Biblical times exactly? And if that is what some believe Christians want then which ancient Biblical era? There is not just one. No, wanting to continue what some believe are enduring principles and ideals does not mean desiring all the baggage of any era.

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 05 April 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

The main point (to me anyway) is that the bible has things in it that are unacceptable today but Christians willing gloss those over (as, like PA says, they were acceptable at the time of it's writing). So to the majority of Christians 'the bible says so' is actually not an acceptable reason to do something.

If you asked a person in ancient Hebrew society the following question:  "Does God command you to marry your slaves", the answer would be "no, it's not a command".  An account of what life was like and therefore how to act within that society does not therefore mean that God commands it.  It's the difference between Descriptive Writing and Prescriptive Writing.  Descriptive simply explains how things were.  Prescriptive commands us to be like that.  If we don't have arranged marriages, then the laws about marrying slaves is descriptive, not prescriptive.  So it is not at all the case of "glossing over" something.

Correct?

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 06 April 2012 - 04:08 AM.

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 06 April 2012 - 04:04 AM, said:

If you asked a person in ancient Hebrew society the following question:  "Does God command you to marry your slaves", the answer would be "no, it's not a command".  An account of what life was like and therefore how to act within that society does not therefore mean that God commands it.  It's the difference between Descriptive Writing and Prescriptive Writing.  Descriptive simply explains how things were.  Prescriptive commands us to be like that.  If we don't have arranged marriages, then the laws about marrying slaves is descriptive, not prescriptive.  So it is not at all the case of "glossing over" something.

Correct?

~ PA

Sure, there is a difference between the two. However history shows that when it comes to any form of social change, that difference doesn't matter. If it is in the bible (and done by the Christians/Hebrews of the day), it is considered acceptable. As I see it, you can split Christians into two basic groups: ones which display common sense and willing to accept social change despite what the bible my say and Christians that hold the bible as all important and will resist any social change that isn't approved by the bible, regardless of whose rights they trample over and who they hurt in the process.

The importaant thing is that we are living in 21st century society, NOT ancient Hebrew society. Christians need to be more willing to see and accept that vast difference, rather than clinging onto things that are best left in the past.

[Karlis]

shadowhive, on 06 April 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

~~~ ...



The important thing is that we are living in 21st century society, NOT ancient Hebrew society. Christians need to be more willing to see and accept that vast difference, rather than clinging onto things that are best left in the past.

In the 21st Century marriages end up close to 50% divorces. In the 21st Century a large percentage of children are born outside of marriage. In the 21st Century STD is endemic. Care to go on about the benefits of social benefits of "In the 21st Century"?

It would be interesting if it was possible to realistically compare the basic pros and cons of the social structures -- and by no means ignoring the benefits of modern technology, which by rights should have put Mankind into a Utopian Life-Style today.

[shadowhive]

Karlis, on 06 April 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

In the 21st Century marriages end up close to 50% divorces. In the 21st Century a large percentage of children are born outside of marriage. In the 21st Century STD is endemic. Care to go on about the benefits of social benefits of "In the 21st Century"?

People can choose who they can marry and, as importantly, CAN divorce. Let us not forget that divorces can be for the right reasons (to get out of abusive relationships for example). Also recall that marrying and staying married 'for the children' is a pretty poor reasoning and can do more harm than good. And, of course, there's other things like women don't have to marry their rapists if they get pregnant.

People can also marry regardless of church objections. (Which is something the church seems to have trouble remembering.)

On top of that (in Western countries) you can be gay and NOT be immediately killed or imprisoned for it (which the bible condones), you can have sex before marriage without similar punishments. Also women have equal rights, they can work, vote, hold political office etc. And there's also freedom of religion. In short we have freedom, freedoms which the bible would happily have swept away.

Of course you choose to focus on the downsides, but we've come a long way.

Quote

It would be interesting if it was possible to realistically compare the basic pros and cons of the social structures -- and by no means ignoring the benefits of modern technology, which by rights should have put Mankind into a Utopian Life-Style today.

To be perectly frank we'd likely have advanced more towards a utopia if it wasn't for religion denouncing and imprisoning scientists in the early days. We'd be a century more advanced now if that hadn't happened, maybe more.

Edited by shadowhive, 06 April 2012 - 12:34 PM.

[Mr Walker]

I follow a biblical christian approach to life by choice. My wife folows one by faith.

Heres waht my bible tels me my life with my wife should be like.

First love her as you love yourself. (And thus treat her as you would want be treated)

As i want to be treated with respect, care, love, responsibility and dignity, I treat my wife like this too.

Second. It says, "cleave unto her and take no thers." Ive done that since i met her 40 years ago. And she would not ebven think about doing otherwise .  What is more, ive done it in my heart and mind as well as with my body .

Third it tells me to protect her and to provide for her. Ive always done that. It tells me to respect and accomodate her strengths and weaknesses. It alos tells me that two people pulling in tandem can plow a straighter line and achieve more than those "unequally yoked."

And so we have a cooperative partnership utilising our strenghts, and  minimising our weaknesses. Te bible recognises the need of women for a home for children and for a way to express the intrisic nature of femininity, just a sit does for  the differnt bilogicla nature of men. And so our home is my wifes domain  She chose not to work after marriage so that an unmarried woman could have her job and income.
Instead she creates a haven ofgreat beauty rest and comfort for me to come to it is neat spotless and welcoming with flowers on the table every day  . I do all the cooking because to be hones tI am better at it than she is. I was brought up cooking by my mother and grandmather, while my wife ran free in her farm paddocks and was a little tomboy.  But if i was in charge of the house or the budget, both would soon be in a mess.
I can no more conceive of hurting my wife than hurting myself (and i would never hurt myself) I could never coerce or otherwise  force her to do anything (including having sex with me.) The bible is clear about relationships betwen people and betwen husband and wife You dont compel another human being, either overtly or covertly, without exceptionally good reasons to do so (eg to protect them)


Perhaps as a consequence of the way we live, we have been happily married for 36 years. As i observe my religious and atheist friends and relatives I notice some correlations, but its not all about religious beliefs per se. Its about more basic ethics and moralities  which are expressed in the bible, but also found elsewhere. Our value as a human being, our rights and responsibilities, what form our relationships takes (dependent authoritarian democratic or other)

Divorce and separation is almost non existent in our families, going back hundreds of years. I suspect that this is because certain ideas about; behaviour, rights, resposnibilities, and respect but particularly about the nature and power of love, have been passed down and across, to suceeding generations of people.

My father taught me, explicitly and implicitly in his own relationships with them, how to love a woman and how to treat her .   I have no problem "marrying", biblical precepts, his example, and common sense, to create the relationship in our marriage.i tis interesting The bible says a wife should obey her husband ( and there were good reasons for that in those times, but it  also makes clear tha ta huasband CANNOT simply  command a wife to do something wrong, harmful,  unloving, etc without breaking the other more basic and underlying rules of relationship set by god.

Society got this wrong for a long while. But i have always understood i can not have sex with my wife (for example) without her willing consent, under the terms and conditions of the bible.

The problem is that many christian men (along  with many non christian ones) do not attempt to meet these basic conditions of marriage, about love, protection, care etc. And too many women have been socialised into a lack of respect for themselves, which makes them easy prey, (in marriage and out of it) for men.

Even if i wanted to command my wife to do something she felt wrong, she is a strong and independent woman who would say No.  Submissiveness does not extend to allowing youe husband to coerce you to  do what is wrong. Her faith and religion  builds on an already formidable strength of character, and liberates her from such bondage.

Edited by Mr Walker, 07 April 2012 - 05:46 AM.

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 06 April 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Sure, there is a difference between the two. However history shows that when it comes to any form of social change, that difference doesn't matter. If it is in the bible (and done by the Christians/Hebrews of the day), it is considered acceptable. As I see it, you can split Christians into two basic groups: ones which display common sense and willing to accept social change despite what the bible my say and Christians that hold the bible as all important and will resist any social change that isn't approved by the bible, regardless of whose rights they trample over and who they hurt in the process.

The importaant thing is that we are living in 21st century society, NOT ancient Hebrew society. Christians need to be more willing to see and accept that vast difference, rather than clinging onto things that are best left in the past.

If something is unbiblical, then it is unbiblical.  In terms of a secular society that doesn't follow the Christian Bible, I'm happy to let them do whatever they want.  But society doesn't determine biblical morals.  The fact is that it is not a command to marry a slave (for example), it's descriptive of what happened.  Something else like sex before marriage, that's a biblical law and is prescriptive - don't have sex before marriage.  The fact that secular society thinks it is ok to have sex before marriage bears no relevance to that law.  

shadowhive, on 06 April 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

To be perectly frank we'd likely have advanced more towards a utopia if it wasn't for religion denouncing and imprisoning scientists in the early days. We'd be a century more advanced now if that hadn't happened, maybe more.

That's questionable.  If it weren't for the "scientists" of the early days, people like Galileo would have never been persecuted to begin with - Galileo suggested a heliocentric universe and the Church didn't even blink.  It wasn't until he became a threat to other scientists and they could no longer refute him, so they tried to silence him another way in order to protect their own precious status.

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 07 April 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

If something is unbiblical, then it is unbiblical.  In terms of a secular society that doesn't follow the Christian Bible, I'm happy to let them do whatever they want.  But society doesn't determine biblical morals.  The fact is that it is not a command to marry a slave (for example), it's descriptive of what happened.  Something else like sex before marriage, that's a biblical law and is prescriptive - don't have sex before marriage.  The fact that secular society thinks it is ok to have sex before marriage bears no relevance to that law.

It may not have 'commanded' people to marry slves etc, but it didn't condemn them either. But it sure did condemn a lot of other things much more trivial in nature.

Personally I think 'biblical morals' need a serious update. It is 2012, not the dark ages. Some 'biblical morals' are highly questionable morals to hold, especially in a secular society. Just because it's 'biblical law' does not make it moral or right. Remember our conversation before related to sex before marriage? It led to people being treated in a certain, negative way. But it's ok to do so because it's 'biblical' therefore it's acceptable to shun people because the bible permits doing so.

'Biblical law' and 'biblical morality' is often used as a neat excuse to treat other human beings shamefully and get away with it guilt free. Or as an excuse to impose a certain set of morals on a person or group, instead of letting them have their freedom. Freedom is important and valuble but 'biblical law' is far too often used to violate people's freedoms.

It doesn't hurt to adapt with the times, but religion is always so rigid to change that changes take forever. Change is both important and necessary or human society to survive. The act that religion is so resistant to change doesn't do it any favors.

There is of course another issue and that's just that biblical law isn't really that clear cut. It's left open to interpretation. That's most obvious in the basic fact that Christianity has many different groups (catholics, mormons etc) all of which, although they have the same bible to work from, they all operate under slightly different morals.

Quote

That's questionable.  If it weren't for the "scientists" of the early days, people like Galileo would have never been persecuted to begin with - Galileo suggested a heliocentric universe and the Church didn't even blink.  It wasn't until he became a threat to other scientists and they could no longer refute him, so they tried to silence him another way in order to protect their own precious status.

Perhaps. They most likely did play a part, but the church wasn't completely blameless (largely for the same reasons).

Edited by shadowhive, 08 April 2012 - 12:34 AM.