Christian Marriage is a lifelong 1m1w covenant

Post Reply New Topic

I think the first thing society NEEDS, as obviously American society is most definitely still based on basic Christian rules of life through pre-conceived notions of lawmakers through-out American history; ranging from blacks and women voting to abortion to homosexual marriage, IS AN ADEQUATE PICTURE OR PORTRAIT OF WHAT JESUS IS TODAY.

START at the feet and the bottom of the legs and one has what scholars suggest is the 18 percent or so of what remains of the flesh and blood man's original ideas, then most of the rest of the body can be painted with faces of Catholic and Protestant revisionists to whatever the hell they decide is the flavor of Jesus of the moment to suit their desires to control the congregation and or society through carrots and sticks of subjugation through the creation of punishments and reinforcements ranging from hell to heaven and purgatory, in between.

BUT ANYWAY, the most popular real portrait of current cultural Jesus is a female with a beard; no doubt representative of the diversity of Gender ID and Sexual Orientation of the priestly folks who approve these portraits of androgynous pretty boy effete Jesus; no table turner.

Restricting human marriage to one man and one woman is only different in measure of female genital mutilation and removing around twenty-percent of human flesh of the foreskin of a male baby's 'member' discount in life TO SUIT
ILLUSIONAL RELIGION.

Human being's closest cousin, with 98.7% identical DNA, the Bonobo,
regularly engages in homosexual behavior to reduce
Bonobo aggression and violence; including death.

There are no reported Bonobo killings of each other as
long as they are freely allowed to do the
'Wild Stuff' with whomever they so desire.

Chimpanzees, on the other hand,
a more distant cousin of human being,
regularly engage in violence, rape, torturing,
and even killing the same members of their species
in ways of domination, instead of social cooperation; AKA LOVE.

SO, there are human Chimpanzees and human Bonobos.

Considering that the REAL JESUS HANGS OUT WITH PROSTITUTES, AND OTHER OUTCASTS;
no doubt Jesus is a Bonobo human being and not a frigging
Chimpanzee human being
who blows up
other human beings;
just to reconstruct buildings
to make more money for cold hard
non-altruistic power grabbing materialistic
alternatives to the real power of BONOBO ALTRUISTIC
LOVING WAYS of really connecting for social cooperation,
per real tough love of getting the job of survival WELL done...

And on top of that Jesus does not believe that humans will
even be married in the Kingdom of Heaven; and on top
of that Jesus believes the Kingdom of GOD is all
around us now; as still remaining in the
New Testament lore THAT IS;
as psychopathic leaning folks
rarely understand
emotional
metaphors
well, or
use them
at all, in content
of dead sounding
language with little
to no emotional metaphors.
And yes, the Latin mass is a most
frigging dead way that can put any child
into a lullaby sleep; of mumbling words to death.

And the cold eyes of Popes are still pictured in Anti-Christ
photos of power grabbing eyes that are same as corpses of Zombie Souls.

But there are exceptions like Pope Francis, better reflecting St. Francis of Assisi,
who understands that even animals are equal with humans in the eyes of the God of Nature;

The question now for the official Catholic Church, STILL IS, do homosexual human beings rise to even the level of
other animals in human freedoms; women do not have to cover their heads anymore; so yes, change is possible;
and likely to follow with the secular world as it always has in the Catholic Church; slowly but surely
humans become what they are still evolved to be; and that includes a full light spectrum
of both gender
and SEXUAL
ORIENTATION.

IT'S JUST A MATTER
OF LIGHT AND TRUTH
WITH EYES OF NATURE;
INSTEAD
OF
LIES;
AKA Illuminati, as
Madonna nicely
illustrates here
in music
and video
ART; Yes,
Prophetess
Madonna, if
one wills.



The hypocrisy sings
a song of discord
in Pulpits of homilies
in Catholic churches;
meanwhile, the words of
unification are accepting
all humans without separation;
are mumbled along with Anti-Christ
words of human separation; if it is not NOW;
so sad STILL; it will be hilariously incongruent
as
IGNORANT
HUMOR.
Face-palms are all over the
place in eyes of
righteous
indignation.

Truly, still,
a psalm of
IGNORANCE;
PLAYS IN THE
PULPITS OF A SO-
CALLED UNIVERSAL
CHURCH; still outcasting
the different among US;
no different then
the days
in lies
of
OLD.
DAYS OF GOLD
ARE UNIFICATION;
YET TO HEAR LIGHT
IN Catholic
Church in
FULLEST TRUTH
OF HUMAN BEING.

THERE IS NO real Catholic
church, where I attend Catholic
Church, as long as these lies
are propagated as Truth
and Light.

Unification is TRUTH
AND LIGHT;
SEPARATION
IS ANTI-CHRIST
EYES OF POPES
and so many
others.

In that case I appreciate your thoughts.



Here is the famous speech itself: http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/seward.htm

It is true, indeed, that the national domain is ours. It is true it was acquired by the valor and with the wealth of the whole nation. But we hold, nevertheless, no arbitrary power over it. We hold no arbitrary authority over anything, whether acquired lawfully or seized by usurpation. The Congress regulates our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty.

But there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator if the universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable degree their happiness. How momentous that trust is, we may learn from the instructions of the founder of modern philosophy:

"No man," says Bacon, "can by care-taking, as the Scripture saith, add a cubit to his stature in this little model of a man's body; but, in the great frame of kingdoms and commonwealths, it is in the power of princes or estates to add amplitude and greatness to their kingdoms. For, by introducing such ordinances, constitutions, and customs, as are wise, they may sow greatness to their posterity and successors. But these things are commonly not observed, but left to take their chance."

And there have been numerous more discussions of this nature, by individuals who were making momentous political decisions. In the US, Seward's Higher Law Speech is considered one of the most important addresses to the Senate in our history.



The civil rights and abolition movements, just to name two, were primarily motivated by and carried out by religious groups. There are laws that are religious in origin and one would have to be blind not to see it. What it appears you are doing is conflating my claim with the claim that such laws were exclusively religious in origin.



In appealing to language you are merely falling back on a platitude. Language about what? What did people talk about? During quite a bit of Church history the Roman Catholic Church had enormous political influence, compelling kingdoms all over the known world to war and peace, giving us the scholastic method through philosophers such as Aquinas, etc.

The contention that religion and philosophy (religion being merely a specific kind of philosophy) are constructs of society does nothing to lessen the import of my arguments. It still remains hypocritical to call others primitive for holding onto older ideas, when basically everyone agrees to some ancient ideas. There is a haughtiness in such language, that the religious are "primitive" and basically irrational, which is little more than a clumsy dismissal by way of genetic fallacy.



You criticized Plato's logic as if it somehow reflected my own, and were confused that somehow my arguments that you first responded to were specifically trying to validate Christian ethics. What I was arguing against was the unreasonable condescension of my previous interlocutor, and I did so by pointing out his hypocrisy. You yourself have already admitted to premises damaging enough to demonstrate his hypocrisy in slinging the genetic fallacies and argumentum ad ridiculum he had.



1. It isn't even remotely fact based, given what Orthodox Christians actually believe, to lay the claim that they are in favor of such laws as stoning adulterers.
2. It isn't the aversion that is fascist. It is the suggestion that it has no place and shouldn't be involved. And it is fascist by definition because it implies force being exerted on public opinion. As such it was not an argument from ridicule; clearly I wouldn't try to use a fallacy that I myself am in the process of pointing out. What's more, I meant the comparison to express the implicated appearance, not the explicit substance of fascism.



Read the whole book of Deuteronomy, and then Leviticus. Examine the fact that there is Sharia law in the world. Examine the final paragraph of the Constitution, and the statements in the Declaration of Independence on which it is based. "All men are created equal"

https://books.google.com/books?id=7vSnb ... an&f=false

The truth is that many humanistic ideals have their religious origins, whatever paradigm you would like to fit that fact into. For quite some time, however flawed they were, theocratic nations were ruled with such ideas in mind. I should hardly have to prove an idea that you've already basically assented to, which is exceedingly obvious.



I had never labelled secularists in general as fascist, or pretended that religious people are paragons of virtue. What I had actually suggested was that the sentiment itself, that religious ideas shouldn't be allowed into government, is a fascist sentiment because the logical consequence of that sentiment is that religious people shouldn't have democratic representation of their ideas, or maybe shouldn't even be allowed to have them. All of which doesn't make you fascist or suggest that you yourself must hold such ideas. Rather it demonstrates what such a line of thought amounts to.



Why thank you, monsieur.



I was appealing for nothing. Rather, I was giving my frank opinions as to how many people who I've come into contact with, such as pcuser, have resorted to fallacious methods of reasoning in order to vainly glut their confirmation bias. Notice how he descends even further to claiming that I merely use "flowery verbiage" and write out responses that would "require a book to answer", all the while never directly addressing any of my claims? I don't mean to call him out, rather I mean to point out a general trend I've found.

As for the two statements, I consider both to be true. Society is made out of people. People are generally social in nature. They are also generally cerebral and can be very contemplative. General worldviews naturally arise out of such conditions. So given a proper understanding of what exactly religion is, I don't see how either could exist without the other. How would you define religion, my friend? I don't mean to condescend when I say this, but more often than not I find terribly inadequate definitions of "religion" that arbitrarily box out other adherents of general worldviews as if they are not thinking and behaving in a "religious" manner.

Surely you know that theism, deism, pantheism, fideism, or animism are actually necessary for there to be a religion? And surely you also know that there are a variety of atheist religions? Secularism itself is arguably a religion, which may seem like an inane claim but I would very much like to elaborate on that with you, if you are interested.

As an atheist, I might counter that you would just be fulfilling your innate need to describe my reality in the terms of your own.

Regardless, I merely believe in 1 fewer gods than the mono-theists do, and because of that, have no core belief against which concepts of the supernatural can be propped up.

A modest proposal: If one believes based on any purported belief in a purported supernatural being that their marriage should be a life long commitment between 1 man and 1 woman, they are welcome to pursue and maintain that marriage.

Unless and until their partner disagrees.

If you see the way I actually define religion, you might see that I don't define it on either of our terms. It is a philosophical construct without theological barriers. This is evident enough when you see all of the atheist religions out there. So you see, I don't conflate your modes with thought with mine, rather I have a more expansive definition of religion that demonstrates how many more people share modes and attitudes, or propensities towards dogmatic thinking, than we might at first think.

You're right though, your core beliefs have an entirely different basis. However, that is no definitive reason to say that you aren't religious.

wrt "atheist religions", I often find myself pointing out that i didn't stop going to meetings because i wanted to talk about beliefs with a different group of like-minded people.

Categorically speaking, I'm not a secular humanist - those guys go to meetings, have a logo, etc. Not a joiner. I find it ponderous when people form atheist associations.

I actually don't think i ever had a conversion experience. I think i engaged in a lot of magical thinking, and ultimately gave up on the magical thinking.

And I'm pretty sure that i don't share that experience with most avowed atheists.

I've encountered so many who feel as though they have been deeply wronged by their former faith. That they were lied to, cheated, made a fool, etc. Some were actually abused by clergy. Some were abused by others, and then their clergy made them to feel as though it was their own fault. They're angry, upset, and have an axe to grind. I don't begrudge them their feelings, but I doubt the sincerity of their disbelief, if that phrase even makes sense.

For example, I know a woman who describes herself as formerly mormon. Claims atheism. When the "Ordain Women" movement got going, she strongly supported it. She was furious when some of the leaders of that movement were excommunicated from the mormon church, not that she knows any of them personally. A logical analysis of the reasons given for their excommunication leads me to believe that they broke the rules, were repeatedly warned, and ultimately, for lack of a better term, kicked out.

The mormon faith is authoritarian in nature, and if you don't like it you are welcome to lump it or leave it. This has always been the case. Branches are not allowed to have their own interpretations - the word comes down from salt lake city and you can agree or keep your mouth shut.

So, yeah, it might not be fair, but they never proposed that it might be fair.

Anyway, she explained that as a divorced mother of two, there is no one in her house with the authority to bless her children, and this is unjust.

And i just had to ponder, how can a priesthood blessing be both complete bullsh*t and something you justly have a right to perform?

I don't have the authority to participate in many Navajo rituals, but i am pretty sure that their rituals don't actually change anything outside of their own minds. So why should i care?

Now it is several months later, and an old mormon leader who many criticize for having essentially given his stamp of approval for gay bashing -- for admonishing young men to "resist homosexual advances - with violence if necessary" -- has died.

A divisive figure for many, but in general, I am pretty sure, a well-meaning person, in some ways misled by his upbringing, and basically no more flawed than anyone else.

And she makes jokes like he was Darth Sidius. I don't get it.

perhaps that's outside of how you define religion.

If it's so 'Christian' and 'Sacred' and 'not to be treated like a piece of legal toilet paper' then how come the church granted divorces since before the Renaissance (for a lot of money of course... toilet paper was expensive back then) for reasons that were quite emotional in nature ('she's not giving me male heirs')?

Marriage is a formal union between people that love each other (two or more). Personally I think nobody, not church or individual or state has the right to say who should and should not be allowed to be together out of love.

Now, I understand why a STATE might have problems with it due to tax stuff... since it's not really been handled before. But I don't understand why a church or the individuals that follow it want to oppress others and deny them the most basic and vital of human experiences just because it does not conform to the rules their own little exclusive club made up.

Here's food for thought: If you define 1m1w as 'Christian marriage' then those tho marry otherwise are therefore, automatically, not Christian by that definition.

You see, the dumbest thing an organization of any sort can do is force or deny members something that common sense says its ok. When that happens the organization schisms and splits.

Protestants. Cathars, Orthodox, Mormon.. the list goes on and on. All 'Christian' but none under the authority of Rome. All split for the same reasons.

Keep at it and soon you'll have Rainbow-ism as the new Christian spin-off. It's long overdue anyway.

That's a political reason.

what do y'all christians got to say about intersexual people?? hmm?? oh yeah, they're a rare minority. just have to show our love and support!! "what if they want to marry?" shhshhshsh we don't speak of that, because it would ruin our perfect concept of pure, biblical, godly marriage!!
sorry but this marriage thing only being effective or recognized by god/christians if there are solely two people of opposite sexes is pretty messed up.

Likewise. If your posts weren't of interest I wouldn't respond, even if it's just to seek clarification of intent.



So by claiming religion is "in the conversation" you simply mean to say that "god was mentioned"? I don't see any religion here, just a lawyer turned politician making an philosophical assertion in the name of an undefined "Divine Law".



That isn't actually what you said. What you said was pcuser is "probably in favour of a whole host of laws that are religious in origin". You most certainly id not say that he was probably in favour of laws which were created by people who were religious, or which were partially influenced by some people who were believers.



A platitude? Communication forms the foundation of human cooperation and without language we would not have survived to thrive and proliferate as we have done. Communication through spoken language and gestures is the single most important distinction between humans and other animals. I'm astounded that you place a higher value on religion than on the means of communicating the ideas of religion.



And I still fail to see why this complaint is being directed towards me, or as part of your response to myself. Currently our discourse feels somewhat akin to a play in which one of the characters occasionally turns to the audience to deliver a scathing soliloquy before rejoining the dialogue. If you're insistent on having a discussion about the relative regressiveness of religious ideas and beliefs, perhaps another thread would be suitable?



Actually, I was criticising you for introducing Plato in support of your argument, because it demonstrates the inherent flaw within it. Plato's society did not follow the Abrahamic gods, nor was their religion analogous to the Abrahamic religions. The origins of many of our modern laws and philosophies (including Democracy) can be traced directly back to a civilisation that was not remotely influenced by the god of Abraham.

To me, this rather strongly suggests that the gods are avatars of human values, that men created them as allegories to explain and later justify the principles which were fundamentally necessary for thriving societies to flourish.



When was this claimed?



It implies no such thing. By your definition of "fascism" (which I do not recognise in the slightest), the opposite opinion would also be fascist. Religion is not a person. Removing religion from law-making would not be remotely analogous to removing religious believers from law-making. You are repeatedly conflating religion with the practitioners of religion.

One of the defining characteristics of a fascist regime is that Government and Religion are inseparably intertwined. The same rhetoric you hold in such high esteem from Seward is present to much greater extent in the rhetoric of fascist politics.



However you justify it, you attempted to shut down an opposing opinion by labelling it fascism. You were guilty of ad hominem, at the very least.



I'm quite familiar with scripture, thanks. You seem to have an ingrained propensity for recommending books rather than stating your case.

By mentioning Sharia Law, are you then suggesting that pcuser would be "in favour" of it? The existence of Sharia Law seems a good example of why religion should definitely play no part in societal law.

One need only point to the recent ruling on same sex marriages to demonstrate the absurdity of the claim that "All men are equal" is in line with religion. Religious stratification is both historically and currently intertwined with social stratification.



I have assented to no such thing. My position remains that religion is a construct of man, and that it is incidental to the ethical values which have and do apply when making laws.



Again you're conflating religion with religious people. We've already covered your misuse of the term "fascist".



The same trend is found in the majority of human beings no matter their affiliations. Dismissing pcuser as a "militant secularist" and then attacking such using broad strokes is verging on bigotry, though I accept your explanation that this particular hyperbolic tirade has its roots in frustration rather than intolerance.



Despite my introduction of the Pirahã people to the conversation? I contend that they are they are the very definition of a society which functions without religion.



As I'm sure you know, religion has several definitions. However, universal to them is faith in, obedience and devotion to a higher power or authority than man.



I'd certainly agree that it's possible to follow the principles of a religion without believing in a deity, but I cannot think of an example of a religion that does not feature, at the very least, some form of transcendent personal deity. Buddhism is commonly cited as an "atheistic religion", but Buddhist scriptures include the existence of supernatural beings.



I suspect you're going to argue that (e.g.) Communism is a 'secularist religion', but by all means elaborate away.

Forgive me, but what is intersexual?
Incidentally, while I fancy myself a Christian, I recognize that we are a nation of secular law, not a theocracy, and one in which liberty is for all people, gay, straight, asexual, or otherwise. And thank God for that.

Of course no response, I guess the non Christians who aren't atheists just don't exist or are null and void in the mind of these fundies....well on that note. Hail Satan!

^^^

Can't remember to get around to all of the replies, mademoiselle. As for assuming "anyone who doesn't follow your beliefs is an atheist", I don't see where I've explicitly done such anywhere. As for "send people to hell for such things as..." I don't believe that either of those examples would send someone to hell. In fact I don't even subscribe to the traditional concept of hell, because it isn't even linguistically tenable when you look at the original texts.

Neither do I believe that my beliefs should dictate law; instead I believe they have a place in a democratic country. However I define "Christian marriage" has nothing to do with whether or not others should be able to engage in the relationships they want, and at the same time be extended the same legal rights. Actually, it seems to me that we are a long ways from the other kinds of relationships being recognized, and if the State were to just give up on the word "marriage" (which for the most part is defined in theological terms), then they could just call it all civil unions and dispense legal rights like tax filing status, etc. considering only living situations.

After all, with how long it took same sex marriage to get recognition, and the damage it has done to our constitution by forcing a "constitutional" ruling on something that the constitution doesn't even talk about, not only is it harming our nation and exerting a patently undemocratic force on the conservative folks who have consistently voted against it, but on top of that we are still far from recognizing polygamy or polyamory. So no one is really happy and it pits Americans against each other. This is why I don't have any problem not recognizing any relationship that is not a Christian marriage as another type of relationship, and at the same time holding it unreasonable to say that believing such is draconian or bigoted.

A Hindu marriage, for example, is a lot of things that a Christian marriage simply is not. They wouldn't recognize my marriage as the same thing, and that doesn't offend me one bit. Their instructions for behavior towards one another is different, as are their beliefs as to how marriage models society. On the other hand, when they get married, they aren't promising to commit to a relationship where Christ is the third person. This is no more offensive than differentiating between a family get together where people eat bread and wine, having a wine party in honor of Bacchus, or partaking of the Eucharist/Communion. Why should I be required to recognize as the same something that is qualitatively different?

Only just took notice of this.

As a human being, my language is dependent on those who spoke before me. I have little choice but to describe what i perceive using the language available for the task of communicating what i understand.

If i were to say that the geworfenheit of my experience leads me inexorably to the position i have taken on the existence of the supernatural, I suspect that Luke would know exactly what i mean, but most of you don't speak german and haven't read Heidegger and would have to google it.

If i were to start making up my own words without explaining them at length, even Google couldn't help you.



Is it because of the most ancient philosophers that we have a deep revulsion towards murder?

All primates and much of the animal kingdom have a revulsion toward severed body parts of their own species.

It is popularly believed that bonobos are nonviolent but while the strict dogma is that nobody has witnessed a bonobo in an act of violence against another bonobo, they are actually quite vicious toward other primates. They will kill and eat other primates, in fact.

Who was the messiah of the bonobo who so successfully taught them to live in horny peace with their own kind?

Elephants appear to mourn their dead and this has had a disastrous effect on their populations, as nomadic social groups of elephants will linger after one of their group has been killed, allowing ivory poachers to easily kill the rest of the group.

Even more strangely, elephants recognize elephant bones (sans tusks, of course) in the wild and appear to be particularly drawn to the bones of elephants they have spent time with. I'm not talking about fleshy remains but the picked-clean, sun-bleached bones of a long dead elephant. Elephants have been frequently recorded on video appearing to caress the bones of other elephants with their trunks.

Who is the philosopher of the pachyderms? What are his writings?



Morality and ethics have been intertwined with religion for as long as there has been religion so it is impossible to make law without consideration for religion.

But we live in a secular republic, where each is allowed to live according to the dictates of their own conscience. This means that we must find a balance between one man's right to live according to his beliefs and another man's right to live according to a completely different set of beliefs.

It is very easy to determine when one man's beliefs may contradict another man's beliefs. If i were to take an avowed belief that my neighbor has practiced witchcraft and that i must then strike them down, it is incumbent on my government to make it clear that my belief that someone else should die does not give me the right, under man's law, to end their life. And that if i took matters into my own hands, they would gladly allow my god to work it out with me on the other side, after I've had a nice long sit in an uncomfortable room.

The "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" doctrine isn't a hard one.



"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The word "respecting" here is key - from the latin respicere, to look back at - to regard.

"Establishment" is important also. Many take this to refer to organized religions or officially recognized faiths, but in the late 15th century this meant "settled arrangement" or "income property". The phrase "established church" first appears around 1731, and the concept of an establishment being a place of business only appears in 1732.

So i think it is not unreasonable to think that this clause refers to more than just making a law about a specific church and possibly is closer to a prohibition on laws in regard to belief or systems of belief.

I further think it is not unreasonable to extrapolate that this would not allow congress to make a law which codifies a religious tenet as law, particularly if it could be shown to be a burden for people who do not have the same beliefs.

Moreover, as a religious person, you and your descendants would do well to espouse a strong separation between law and religious belief, because even if you are on top now, the worm does turn, and someone else may be on top tomorrow.

You would do well to have legislation only that you may practice as you please and leave government out of it, lest some other church come along and twist that legislation against you, using your laws as precedent.

From my own experience, it's not so much that i am baffled that mormons want congress to pass laws with a basis in religious belief - what baffles me is that they want laws passed that are based on the beliefs of southern baptists.

But because the government is involved with marriage it is only fair to also give same sex couples the same rights a heterosexual couple can get with marrige legally speaking. I could care less if certain denominations of Christianity don't want to see it as a true marriage or acknowledge it as such but that should have no bearing on legal policy. I personally don't really see the issue with polygamy either if all parties involved are willing. And what of Pagan marriges?...not all marriages have to do with any binding contract with Christ or God. If I ever got married I'd have quite the un-christian ceremony try and find some sort of old pagan rite of going about it. Of course I do not think the government should force anyone to change their beliefs and agree with same sex marriage if they don't...but because some people don't agree is not a reason to deny them that right as far as I am concerned. Otherwise you'd have to deny all non-christian marriages...

Intersex people are biologically neither entirely male nor entirely female, or else their biological sex is ambiguous. One of the more well-known examples is what people used to call 'hermaphrodites' – individuals with both male and female sex organs/tissue.

I've always wondered how intersex people are treated when it comes to marriage laws. There are certainly married intersex people, so my guess would be that it would come down to gender identity – e.g., an intersex person choosing to identify as male or female. Jurisdictions that recognise same-sex marriage and/or third legal genders probably wouldn't have this issue. I'm not sure if there are any religious objections to these kinds of marriages, but personally I can't imagine there would be.