More Complete Consitutional Amendment

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 8, 2004, 12:06 pm

Saw this while perusing the news this morning. Found it amussing and topical, so I decided to repost it here. I have not yet looked up the biblical references.
______________

Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage

As certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on Biblical principles. After all, God wouldn't want us to "pick and choose" which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore:

Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage:
* Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

* Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30, 2Cor 6:14)

* Marriage is for life, no law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)

* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen.
38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)

I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government's righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 8, 2004, 12:23 pm

Christianity is full of hypocrisy. Tryng to point that out to a Christian is a waste of time, however. Fun, but a waste of time.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 8, 2004, 12:48 pm

when presented in this fashion, i totally understand the reasonable position that Biblical Literalists adopt.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » March 8, 2004, 1:22 pm

God help us all...err no wait

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 8, 2004, 3:05 pm

Correct me if I am wrong, but those are all from the old testament aside from Mark, correct? Unsure on Deut, but the others deffinately are. (Forgive me, I am not the most steadfast of followers, and it has been a while since I could recite all of the books in order).

Pretty much as such, they do not apply in modern christian times; the instructions we take now are from the New, not the Old. In the old you will also find instructions to sacrifice your son to please God and that you cannot be forgiven of your sins unless you do xxx, yyy, and z.

We are told straightfoward in the New that marriage is 1 man, 1 woman, and that no toher women are needed. We're told in Mathew that the only time that divorce is allowed is due to cases of sexual infidelity.

But, I suppose it's all a matter of interpertation.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » March 8, 2004, 3:43 pm

god just spoke to me .. he said gays can marry ! I SAW GOD! he spoke to me ! im supposed to rewrite the entire bible with all the info he told me!

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » March 8, 2004, 3:55 pm

The Metatron acts as the voice of God. Any documented

occasion when some yahoo claims to have spoken

with God, they're speaking to me. Or they're

speaking to themselves.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 8, 2004, 3:57 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but those are all from the old testament aside from Mark, correct? Unsure on Deut, but the others deffinately are. (Forgive me, I am not the most steadfast of followers, and it has been a while since I could recite all of the books in order).

Pretty much as such, they do not apply in modern christian times; the instructions we take now are from the New, not the Old. In the old you will also find instructions to sacrifice your son to please God and that you cannot be forgiven of your sins unless you do xxx, yyy, and z.

We are told straightfoward in the New that marriage is 1 man, 1 woman, and that no toher women are needed. We're told in Mathew that the only time that divorce is allowed is due to cases of sexual infidelity.

But, I suppose it's all a matter of interpertation.

sorry, sounds like cherry-picking to me.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 8, 2004, 4:00 pm

Not much I can say to that other than "sorry". I'm not going to say you're right or wrong, because like I said, it's all a matter of interpetation.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 8, 2004, 4:20 pm

Which scripture of the New Testement are told "straightforward" about marriage being between 1 man and 1 women? Are you refering to Corinthians? I hope so.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 8, 2004, 4:27 pm

Apparently the popularity of the "Choose Your Own Adventure"(tm) has spread it's influence to christianity...we now have "Choose Your Own Word of God"(tm)...

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 8, 2004, 4:32 pm

It's the same word, but different rules. Jesus instructed us that we were not to follow the old ways, ie: the sacrifices for forgiveness and that asking God for forgivness in His name would be enough.

Aaea: Was thinking of a reference in the Book of Mathew that I read a couple nights ago.

edit: Forgive me for being stupid, mistakenly refered to Corinthians as old test; most of my studies were in Revelations.

As for the reference in Matthew, Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, comits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

I'll look later tonight for the reference from Jesus about the 1 man 1 woman issue, but I vaguely remember it being in there somewhere where a guy had asked if he could marry more than one woman.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 8, 2004, 4:47 pm

The discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees abut the old laws? If so, I can recall no such prescriptions on marriage. I recall discussions of divorce (its a marriage under god, no man should break it?) and if I am not mistaken, that once in heaven (and on Earth after the "second comming") none are married but rather all are like the angles. I don't think there is anything in there that "straightforward" defines marriage as one man and only one women. But happy to read your reference.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 8, 2004, 4:49 pm

Ahh, we cross posted. Yup, that passage in Mathew comes from his dicussion of the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees. I'll be suprised if you find a reference there to 1 man and 1 woman.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 8, 2004, 4:49 pm

I may be mistaken, but if it's there, I will try and locate it tonight or tommorow.

Fair enough?

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 8, 2004, 4:59 pm

Sure thing.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 8, 2004, 6:25 pm

Aaeamdar, while I'm pretty sure as well that there are no verses in the NT stating that marriage is only between a man and a women, I think it can be inferred as most of the verses dealing with marraige in the NT (15 according to the NIV I have here at work) discuss it in a hetrosexual sense.

It is very nice, IMHO, to see people reading the Bible and looking for answers though. Not just saying, oh yea it says "this or that." I also find it refreshing to see others with the same view I have about the OT... If I'm reading what both you and Akaran are saying correctly that is... that the NT truly is a New Covenant, the OT is a good Historical read but everything we really need to know should come from the NT... I find a lot of joy in that because much of the religious bigotary comes from the OT IMHO.

Cheers!
Marb

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 8, 2004, 6:30 pm

Bingo Marb

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 8, 2004, 6:53 pm

Heterosexuality and Monogamy are two very different things. I think it is fair to infer from the NT (or at least if you assume the english translation is good - I personally have no way of knowing one way or the other, apart from noting that several english translations exists and in many respects they differ significantly - they can't all be right), that homosexual marriages are not referenced. I don't think you can infer fairly that monogamy is the only, or even prefered, form of marriage.

As to OT = bigotry, NT = love. Jews are OT. Christains are NT. It's an easy call for me which is the more bigotted lot. I don't disagree with you on what SHOULD be. Clearly the NT preaches forgiveness, acceptence and love, and the OT preaches rules. I am just saying it is Christains more than any other religious group that latches on to the hatred and bigotry evidenced (or arguably evidenced) in the OT.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 8, 2004, 6:54 pm

obviously mainstream Christians understand the historical context that the Old Testament should be viewed in , and interpret it accordingly.

However, there are very powerful groups of "Bible Believing" people in this country who literally interpret the bible, Old Testament and all. They are the ones trying to legislate the teaching of Creationism. They are also the ones trying to legislate the anti-gay marriage amendment.

so i think it is appropriate to point out other ludicrous examples from the Pentateuch and elsewhere regarding marriage.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 8, 2004, 6:56 pm

Just a question, please don't attribute this to a flame, but *if* the Jewish society was more vocal and had as much coverage as the Christian society, would you consider the latter more bigoted than the former?

Don't think that came out right.

Dalmoth · Post by **Dalmoth** » March 8, 2004, 7:28 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:(or at least if you assume the english translation is good - I personally have no way of knowing one way or the other, apart from noting that several english translations exists and in many respects they differ significantly - they can't all be right.

You assert a claim here while saying that you have no idea about the validity of the statement. Your position is a weak if this is your basis for refuting christianity.

This is something I've had to struggle with myself, I ended up answering the question for myself once I did some research into how the translations varied over time as well as WHY they varied over time. Recent translataions are also conisderbly more accuate than older translations.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 8, 2004, 7:32 pm

You got me, Dalmoth. I was definitely basing all of my arguments here on a parenthetical comment inmade for the first time in this most recent post. Thanks for clearing that up. I now realize the weakness of my arguments. I look forward to your additional contributions.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 8, 2004, 7:33 pm

Assuming Jesus was real, he's upstairs crying at all of christianity today, for how much they've managed to fuck it up.

Dalmoth · Post by **Dalmoth** » March 8, 2004, 7:38 pm

Voronwë wrote:obviously mainstream Christians understand the historical context that the Old Testament should be viewed in , and interpret it accordingly.

However, there are very powerful groups of "Bible Believing" people in this country who literally interpret the bible, Old Testament and all. They are the ones trying to legislate the teaching of Creationism. They are also the ones trying to legislate the anti-gay marriage amendment.

so i think it is appropriate to point out other ludicrous examples from the Pentateuch and elsewhere regarding marriage.

Can you name these "Bible Believing" powerful groups that are pressing for this legislation?

My opionion is that far to many things have been allowed to slide and have become accepted in this country. The fact that I'm a christian has some relavalence in this debate, but ultimately it comes do to simple morals. One can have morals without being a christian and the reverse is true as well. I do believe however that you can not legislate your way to a moral society. Attempts at this throughout history have failed to bring about the desired results. Prohibition was a prime example of it in this country.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » March 9, 2004, 2:12 am

Akaran_D wrote:Just a question, please don't attribute this to a flame, but *if* the Jewish society was more vocal and had as much coverage as the Christian society, would you consider the latter more bigoted than the former?

Don't think that came out right.

jews don't have to worry about going to hell and "jesus" hasn't come yet =-P

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 9, 2004, 12:34 pm

Dalmoth wrote:
Can you name these "Bible Believing" powerful groups that are pressing for this legislation?

.

The Christian Coalition is of course the obvious one. They obviously have had and continue to have essentially veto power over presidential nominees within the GOP. I like the bible quote on their banner: "I will restore your judges as in days of old" Isiaih 1:26

Family Research Council.

i'm not suggesting that these groups arent within their rights to try to effect legislation. But to deny that they are major political players seems like a hard position to support.

Dalmoth · Post by **Dalmoth** » March 9, 2004, 6:38 pm

Voronwe

Actually I don't deny they are a valid political entity. I was however trying to educate myself in what they belief and whether or not it is in line with my beliefs as well. Thanks for the link.

Aedamar

Translations of the bible have contained errors, yes. The pessimist view of the King James version contains something like 60,000 errors if you count every letter that is incorrect.

The reasons for these errors is largely two fold. Errors in manuscripts copies that got introduced by accident and then repeated in all the generations after that manuscript. Errors in the orginal manuscripts that the modern copies of the bible were taken from.

If you liken these manuscripts to a family you can can see that the children of a given manuscript often vary from the the orginal texts in exactly the same manner. If you go back up the family tree far enough you eventually find the manuscript where the error was introduced.

The manuscripts used to translate the bible today, are centuries olderthan older than the manuscripts used in the middle ages so there is a higher degree of accuracy to those manuscripts and they indeed highlighted errors that were unknown prior to uncovering these manuscripts.

Given these manuscripts and computer technology the accuracy of recent translations of the bible I believe is on the order of 99% of the actual texts written in the first century A.D. Whether you believe this to be the word of God however is up for you to decide. I am merely trying to indicate how the accuracy of the words has actually improved in the 20th century.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » March 9, 2004, 7:17 pm

i bet those monks that were translating the bible paraphrased !

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » March 9, 2004, 8:05 pm

Only heterosexual, white christians should be able to marry. Gays and inferior races/religions should not be granted this important ceremony. Such an important religious event should only be attainable by the superior race of the world, the purest of arian people.

Also, upon marriage, white couples should be granted infedel slaves of other religions or ethnicities. These inferior people need to learn their place in this world. They live only to serve the white man.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 9, 2004, 8:21 pm

Akaran_D wrote:It's the same word, but different rules. Jesus instructed us that we were not to follow the old ways, ie: the sacrifices for forgiveness and that asking God for forgivness in His name would be enough.

Aaea: Was thinking of a reference in the Book of Mathew that I read a couple nights ago.

edit: Forgive me for being stupid, mistakenly refered to Corinthians as old test; most of my studies were in Revelations.

As for the reference in Matthew, Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, comits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

I'll look later tonight for the reference from Jesus about the 1 man 1 woman issue, but I vaguely remember it being in there somewhere where a guy had asked if he could marry more than one woman.

Sorry, but this all reminds me of the Chris Rock skit about why there will never be a black vice president in the US.. you shot the president? Well, here's a pardon from the new black president!

Given that you've decided to throw out the old testament en mass (not such a bad idea imho..) can I just ask you this? What are the point of ANY of Jesus's "laws" (though much more rational than the old testament stuff) when he's also the ultimate get out of jail free card?

ie, and correct me if I'm wrong here.., but Jesus said all you had to do to go to heaven was believe in him, because he had taken away the sin of the world. The implication was past, present and future. I think God was getting lonely. The entire "logic" the christian faith is flawed really, which explains why there are just so many hypocrites attending churches that nod to each other at "do unto others" then go back into the community to rape, pillage and plunder (metaphorically)

Oh yeah, so, does it really matter if I commit adultery, engage in sexual congress with a man, blow a goat, or shoot your wife? If not, what's stopping me?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 9, 2004, 9:20 pm

Honestly, I don't know bro, and it's one of the things that give sme pause when I think about it. About the only answer for that i can give you is it depends on what you feel in your heart.. if you do all those things, don't truly repent them, and do them with the master plan that you'll apologize and get the get out of jail free card, as you said, does it count? I don't know, but to me that would be very hyporcitical.. It is *my* belief, I don't know if it's accurate or not, that it has to come from the heart.. not just somthing you do to get away with whatever it is you did.

That's what I beleive, at least, your milage may vary. =\

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 9, 2004, 9:31 pm

The "get out of jail free" solution is not really supported by the bible, teh NT or Jesus. It is from a line in Mark (I think its Mark) that is taken out of context. Jesus makes it clear that the way to heaven is difficult. The sins for which he is dying on behalf of man are claerly not all sins, but rather he is providing you with a model life in place of the old laws.

The view you are refering to, Z, is not an uncommon belief, but it is one generally held by (and in fact defines) Pentacostal christianity. I would suggest that most Christain demominations do not hold that belief.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 10, 2004, 12:30 am

I think Aaeamdar is on the right track here...

IMO when someone is truly "saved" there is a life changing experience. A religion professor called it a "metaneua" experience... a complete paradigm shift. Now as we are only human, even someone who totally changes their belifs and attitudes will make mistakes from time to time. The old saying, not perfect but forgiven. However IMHO someone who is truly saved won't desire cetain things in their heart and will have a different attitude towards people and life in general. Again, that's not saying thay aren't human etc... it's just their goals are different.

"Many are called but few are chosen" Just as Socrates said "The unexamined life isn't worth living." The unexamined Christian life isn't worth living either... IMHO. If you don't feel changed or don't desire to do what is right or just then maybe that change didn't really ever happen...

Lets face it guys, as George Carlin once said "think of how stupid the average person is, then REALIZE that half the people are stupider than that!"

Many people, from EVERY walk of life don't want to examine their life, their religion, the countries political system etc... They want to be lead by someone who tells them what to do so that they can feel confident in what they are doing the right thing without having to think about it OR have take responsibility for it when it fails... (which is one of the major problems in the country)

Aaeamdar and I have been discussing this on another thread... Aae, the extreme type of people from the previous paragraph are the people I have been referring too in that other thread, just spelled it out a little more here...

Marb

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » March 10, 2004, 2:25 pm

Keverian FireCry wrote:Only heterosexual, white christians should be able to marry. Gays and inferior races/religions should not be granted this important ceremony. Such an important religious event should only be attainable by the superior race of the world, the purest of arian people.

Also, upon marriage, white couples should be granted infedel slaves of other religions or ethnicities. These inferior people need to learn their place in this world. They live only to serve the white man.

that sounds sorta like something bush would want wrote into the constitution go USA !

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 10, 2004, 3:19 pm

Past attempts have shown that when you really dig into the bible, what originally appears as contradictive, ends up complementing.

I want to show you this but I sadly lack the time right now.

There IS a reasonable explanation to the polygamy question.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 10, 2004, 3:37 pm

yes the reasonable explanation is that it is a set of laws for a society 3000 years ago, and are of course primitive by today's standards.

like laws prohibiting the eating of pork and shellfish, because they did not have technology like refrigerators.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 10, 2004, 7:41 pm

Adex,
Hope you won't take offense at this, but you are a big tease. This is the forth thread on religious issues over the past year where you chimed with the identical reply - "There really is a great explanation for all this, and I know what that explanation is, but golly I am just out of time."

Hopefully someday soon you'll find the time to do your Christain duty and enlighten us. In the mean time, I hope you won't be offended if we don't find your "trust me" arguements all that persuasive.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 10, 2004, 8:47 pm

well, yes. I tend to agree that the get out of jail free card is BS.

If I think about it honestly, the basic Christian morals that I was taught in Sunday School have shaped my Christian thoughts more than anything else.. once I grew up and attended "real" church with more understanding of what was preached, and then saw the way the regulars acted "on the street" I became very disheartened by the whole organised religion movement.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 13, 2004, 12:14 am

I don't take offence at your words Aaeamdar. It's just that right now work+school is killing me timewise.

A good question requires solidly researched answers. Half assed answers are a dime a dozen.

Grant me a year to quiet my current situation and I'll be a much better position to dig into biblical questions.