The Bible; The Unabridged-Version

[Mr. Shaman]

Marriage in the church can be whatever the religion people involved think it is about. Marriage that is licensed by the state is done so to protect the rights of children and dependent spouses.

....Like any other business-contract.​

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You are mistaken. I happen to agree with myself.

Everyone should be allowed to exercise their civil rights even when it does not agree with Christianity. If an 80 year old woman wants to have fertility treatments she should make the decisions herself (and I know of no conflict with Christianity on this) and if two people of the same gender want to get married they should have whatever ceremony they want to. The state should not get involved to restrict their civil rights.

Marriage in the church can be whatever the religion people involved think it is about. Marriage that is licensed by the state is done so to protect the rights of children and dependent spouses.

Interestingly enough, the law governing marriage licenses does not even mention progeny. Can you give us another example of any law that was specifically designed to protect something AND THAT "SOMETHING" IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE LAW?

Once again you have lied in that gay people also have children and they are not protected by the very law that YOU say is there to protect them AND YOU SUPPORT THE DENIAL OF THEIR PROTECTION. Yes, that seems hateful if one is on the receiving end. More lies, more hypocrisy, and not one shred of Jesus' love and compassion in it. Good for you, Who.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Interestingly enough, the law governing marriage licenses does not even mention progeny.

"There you go, again.....gettin' all elitist on everyone....."​

MARRIAGE - Legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash. App. 247,522 P.2d 1187,1193.

Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, is the legal status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, or until divorced, for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent on those whose associations is founded on the distinction of sex. A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and a woman capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives (or until divorced) together in state of union which ought to exist between a husband and a wife. In old English law, marriage is used in the sense of "maritagium" (q.v.), or the feudal right enjoyed by the lord or guardian in chivalry of disposing of his ward in marriage." - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.972

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

One can go and get a marriage license, marry in a church, and live their whole lives with never a word being said about progeny in relation to their marriage. If one looks at enough laws one can find references to almost anything, but progeny are not a requirement or stipulation in getting married.

Nor have I ever heard of a marriage ceremony that requires the production of progeny as a prerequisite. Some people marry and have children, some don't, the law has no effect one way or the other.

 

[Dr.Who]

One can go and get a marriage license, marry in a church, and live their whole lives with never a word being said about progeny in relation to their marriage. If one looks at enough laws one can find references to almost anything, but progeny are not a requirement or stipulation in getting married.

Nor have I ever heard of a marriage ceremony that requires the production of progeny as a prerequisite. Some people marry and have children, some don't, the law has no effect one way or the other.

Producing children is not a requirement but the potential to produce children has been a requirement for marriage in just about all cultures for a long long time.

For example, according to Wiki the law of Hammurabi is the first known written law on marriage. And one of the laws is that if a man marries a woman but does not have sex with her then they are not married.

"One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted during the Mesopotamian world (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). The legal institution of marriage and its rules and ramifications have changed over time depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[20]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

But hammurabi is not alone among people across history who saw the intimate relation between marriage and procreation:

"According to Confucius, "Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain."[5]"

anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage.[12] Edvard Westermarck, in his book The History of Human Marriage (1921) had said "The institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit. The relations between the sexes and parental care among the Invertbrata"

"a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners"[14]

"Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum" [16]

Edmund Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.[17]

"Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[21] "

IN Greece "A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she has to divorce her husband first.[30]


"By 2009, all major English language dictionaries dropped gender specifications, or supplemented them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or same-sex unions.[9][10][11]" Which means of court that before 2009 all major dictionaries included gender as an important part of the definition.

Because children are such an important part of marriage the "Nuer of Sudan allowing same sex marriages limited only to females who lack sons"

And what does that article say is the reason for marriage laws in the US?

A marriage bestows rights and obligations on the married parties, and sometimes on relatives as well, being the sole mechanism for the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). These may include:

* Giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse’s sexual services, labor, and property.
* Giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse’s debts.
* Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
* Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
* Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.
* Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
* Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Producing children is not a requirement but the potential to produce children has been a requirement for marriage in just about all cultures for a long long time.

For example, according to Wiki the law of Hammurabi is the first known written law on marriage. And one of the laws is that if a man marries a woman but does not have sex with her then they are not married.

"One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted during the Mesopotamian world (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). The legal institution of marriage and its rules and ramifications have changed over time depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[20]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

But hammurabi is not alone among people across history who saw the intimate relation between marriage and procreation:

"According to Confucius, "Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain."[5]"

anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage.[12] Edvard Westermarck, in his book The History of Human Marriage (1921) had said "The institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit. The relations between the sexes and parental care among the Invertbrata"

"a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners"[14]

"Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum" [16]

Edmund Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.[17]

"Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[21] "

IN Greece "A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she has to divorce her husband first.[30]


"By 2009, all major English language dictionaries dropped gender specifications, or supplemented them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or same-sex unions.[9][10][11]" Which means of court that before 2009 all major dictionaries included gender as an important part of the definition.

Because children are such an important part of marriage the "Nuer of Sudan allowing same sex marriages limited only to females who lack sons"

And what does that article say is the reason for marriage laws in the US?

A marriage bestows rights and obligations on the married parties, and sometimes on relatives as well, being the sole mechanism for the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). These may include:

* Giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse’s sexual services, labor, and property.
* Giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse’s debts.
* Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
* Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
* Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.
* Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
* Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Richard Savage]

The above posts prove that Congress should do something to reform the Bible. Americans have suffered under the tyranny of the King James Version of the Bible too long; and it’s high time that we declare our independence. The Congress should rewrite the scriptures and make them politically correct. It could be called The Ronald Reagan Version of the Bible, and Gospel according to George W. Bush. (Joshua fought the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and Christ preached “Blessed are the rich, for they shall receive tax cuts.”) And there ought to be an amendment to the Constitution banning un-American bibles.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The above posts prove that Congress should do something to reform the Bible. Americans have suffered under the tyranny of the King James Version of the Bible too long; and it’s high time that we declare our independence. The Congress should rewrite the scriptures and make them politically correct. It could be called The Ronald Reagan Version of the Bible, and Gospel according to George W. Bush. (Joshua fought the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and Christ preached “Blessed are the rich, for they shall receive tax cuts.”) And there ought to be an amendment to the Constitution banning un-American bibles.

You're absolutely right, Richard, and while they're at it they should take out all that sissy, communist, liberal stuff that Jesus said about loving others, and turning the other cheek, and returning good for evil--there's no money to be made that way.

 

[Dr.Who]

The above posts prove that Congress should do something to reform the Bible. Americans have suffered under the tyranny of the King James Version of the Bible too long; and it’s high time that we declare our independence. The Congress should rewrite the scriptures and make them politically correct. It could be called The Ronald Reagan Version of the Bible, and Gospel according to George W. Bush. (Joshua fought the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and Christ preached “Blessed are the rich, for they shall receive tax cuts.”) And there ought to be an amendment to the Constitution banning un-American bibles.

Now you've done it. You have given them an idea. No doubt the will use the separation of church and state "clause of the Constitution" to justify writing laws that are about religious practice.

 

[Richard Savage]

The United States is not a theocracy (i.e., the law that governs our free society is not based on religious doctrine); the First Amendment makes this founding principle clear. Throughout history, people have been persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and put to death because of their religious beliefs. For example, William Tyndale - whose English translation of the scriptures was the basis for the King James Version of the Bible (1611) - was hunted down as a heretic, left to languish in a dungeon, and finally burned at the stake. Know this: the surest (and swiftest) way to lose our religious freedom is to make religion the basis for our law.

 

[PLC1]

The United States is not a theocracy (i.e., the law that governs our free society is not based on religious doctrine); the First Amendment makes this founding principle clear. Throughout history, people have been persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and put to death because of their religious beliefs. For example, William Tyndale - whose English translation of the scriptures was the basis for the King James Version of the Bible (1611) - was hunted down as a heretic, left to languish in a dungeon, and finally burned at the stake. Know this: the surest (and swiftest) way to lose our religious freedom is to make religion the basis for our law.

Absolutely. Separation of church and state is one of the cornerstones of our liberty, written by people who understood first hand that a combination of religion and government leads to tyranny.

 

[Dr.Who]

You're absolutely right, Richard, and while they're at it they should take out all that sissy, communist, liberal stuff that Jesus said about loving others, and turning the other cheek, and returning good for evil--there's no money to be made that way.

Myth number 23:

"The statements in the bible that promote love, turning the other cheek, and returning good for evil are examples of communism or liberalism."

The reality is that 99.9% of those types of statements are given to individuals as guidance for them to make their own choices about their lives and do not condone any particular government system or political ideology. However, communism as it has been practiced in government is completely inconsistent with Christianity.

Christianity is not very concerned about whether people are free or not (those less free in their bodies are free in their spirits and many slaves have embraced and converted to Christianity) so there is no conflict with Liberalism in that regard and Christian Liberals are free to promote the lack of freedom that liberalism brings. However, wherever Christianity has gone people have used it as a justification to treat others in love by advocating that they have more freedom. The bible does not say that loving others means wanting them to be free but that is what believers interpret love to mean for good reason. Which is why the Christian right has tended to embrace conservatism and liberal Christians have tended to undermine Christianity.


*Lest some run with that and misinterpret it let's be clear. Christianity does not condone the kind of slavery any of us are familiar with either. It recognized that slavery exists in various cultures and governments and offers a religion that can be embraced in any culture or political system regardless of whether or not slavery is there. Throughout the history of the world slavery has at times been cruel and at times a refuge for those who had no means to support themselves, though more often it merely resembled a kind of employment. Christianity is against cruelty and if slavery exist in a place those who engage in it are instructed to be kind and follow a number of regulations to ensure that they do not become cruel.


So MT, you said you would never debate with me again - several times. Can you resist that? Does it make you a liar if you do not?

 

[AtheismIsReality]

The right always hates when people point out in Acts that the followers were living as communists.

 

[Dr.Who]

The right always hates when people point out in Acts that the followers were living as communists.

I don't hate at all that a group of people volunteered to live collectively. Being pro-freedom means that people can be free to give their possessions to each other or free to keep them. That really is not at all like communism is it? Communism involves little choice to live under that government system and individual people give up property rights. In the early church that chose to live that way people retained property rights. Do not confuse a commune with communism.

All the socialist of this country can ascribe to their views as much as they want and they can all volunteer to be taxed highly for the good of others. What they should not do is expect that others will want to have their possessions taken away from them for the same goals. Do you want health insurance for those who do not have it? Then give of your possessions so that the uninsured can have insurance but do not claim to be a champion of freedom while demanding that others must give up their personal property. Personal property is still a basic civil right under our constitution.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Some people cannot recognize satire because they haven't paid any attention to the oft-stated positions of the satirist.