defense of traditional biblical marriage.

[IowaGuy]

Isn't this whole thread about governmental role in marriage, with those wanting to use the bible as an authority for governments to grab onto

That is how I interpreted the graphic. Many politicians say they believe in "traditional marriage, between one woman and one man", as written in the bible; presumably in defending against "gay marriage" which has no OT or NT scriptural support (although I can't imagine Jesus, as accepting as he was, getting too worked up about same-sex marriage).

The graphic challenges the "traditional marriage" claim based on scripture. Bananabrain lays out some good historical context, but the fact is, marriage between one man and one woman is not the only kind of marriage condoned in the bible.

I am married with kids, and one thing I have never understood is how allowing same-sex marriage would "threaten" (to use the words of several politicians) my traditional marriage?

 

[bananabrain]

I am married with kids, and one thing I have never understood is how allowing same-sex marriage would "threaten" (to use the words of several politicians) my traditional marriage?

and i am a religious jew, married with kids - and one thing *i* have never understood is how american christian nutters seem to rely on things that they say we say (when we don't) to back up activities of which jesus himself would surely have disapproved.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[wil]

and i am a religious jew, married with kids - and one thing *i* have never understood is how american christian nutters seem to rely on things that they say we say (when we don't) to back up activities of which jesus himself would surely have disapproved.

b'shalom

bananabrain

herr....herr.....

 

[wil]

good grief, it is? i think the language must have gone completely over my head in my annoyance at the misrepresentation of what is supposedly "biblical" as nothing of the sort. i suppose, yes, in a US context, that might be a big deal and, frankly, i'd be with you on that. however, i certainly support civil partnerships like we have here in the UK; for me, i don't really see the point of calling something a marriage unless it is a religious thing, but it's not that big a deal to me: atheists, elton john - no skin off my hairy backside.


ok - well, speaking as someone who *has* entered into a biblical marriage contract according to what is actually said, as opposed to some kind of redneck peckerwood idea of what is said, the rights you gain thereby are significant and i cannot see that anything is given up. i do understand your concern though and, frankly, my annoyance at the original graphic is equally aimed at those who claim that something they are trying to push is "biblical" when it is patently nothing of the sort, just as much as those who are trying to oppose it are having a go at "biblical" marriage when the "bible" doesn't even talk about it. i don't notice them trying to push "biblical" clothing or "biblical" dietary laws. feckin' feathered eejits.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Yes, that is the point of the thread...not to point fingers at Jewish laws or intention....but the hypocrisy of the folks that oppose gay marriages based on biblical references....

The poster is an indication that most today would not condone much of what is acceptable as a biblical marriage.

Most of your post I agree with, except I hope I can refrain from calling the redneck peckerwoods feckin' feathered eegits.

and then there is this gem...

one thing *i* have never understood is how american christian nutters seem to rely on things that they say we say (when we don't) to back up activities of which jesus himself would surely have disapproved.

If it only wasn't so true....

 

[seattlegal]

We poor Christians do not really have practical halakhah! That is perhaps due to the infusion of Greco-Roman beliefs and thoughts.

Yeah, the Hellenistic Greeks were notorious misogynists.

 

[Dream]

Is that also not what this thread is about? Hence, the line:

It hit my button. Imagine being taught to read God's Word, the Bible and in it you read that God, your creator and definition of good, was once in harmony with you enslaving, raping and killing. In my response I was thinking about my fellow christians, maybe my little niece or nephew coming across this thread someday when they're in their teens. What if they aren't skilled in Bible study and they see this? I've seen this same picture posted on Facebook by a new believer, and they explained it by saying God was trying to teach people not to sin by implementing those policies back then. Talk to me about any scary movie that you think is scarier than that. So this picture was supposed to, what, make people question their belief in God and contemplate politics? Reevaluate their position on traditional marriage? It doesn't work like that.

 

[IowaGuy]

Imagine being taught to read God's Word, the Bible and in it you read that God, your creator and definition of good, was once in harmony with you enslaving

Dream - you have mentioned slavery in a couple of posts on this thread, would you agree that the bible condones slavery? Why do you think Jesus didn't just speak out against slavery and try to put an end to it? Why did it have to go on for a couple millenia longer?

If the bible had been more explicitly against slavery it would have ended much sooner, IMHO. Just like if Jesus had explicitly condoned same-sex marriage it would be allowed in this country today.

So this picture was supposed to, what, make people question their belief in God and contemplate politics?

My interpretation is that the picture was supposed to make people look foolish who defend "traditional marriage", one man and one woman, as the only marriage defined and permitted in the bible.

 

[Dream]

Dream - you have mentioned slavery in a couple of posts on this thread, would you agree that the bible condones slavery?

Condone: To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.

No, I think it didn't condone slavery. Concerning the bronze age texts: The law instructs citizens to aid an escaping slave with food and shelter and to not turn them in to their former owners. In a legal sense a slave was always entitled to escape and everyone was required to help them. One of the first laws (given before the 10 commandments were) was to remember always that the Lord brought the Israelis out of Egypt, out of bondage. Its a law. None of the prophets owned slaves, as far as I know.

Why do you think Jesus didn't just speak out against slavery and try to put an end to it? Why did it have to go on for a couple millenia longer?

Its a separate issue from the bronze age, but one thing to notice is that Jesus didn't own anyone. Any of his disciples could walk away at any time. His parables had servants and paid workers. Slaves were notably absent except for one story where Jesus used a miracle to save a poor woman's children from enslavement. I do not think this is condoning.

If the bible had been more explicitly against slavery it would have ended much sooner, IMHO. Just like if Jesus had explicitly condoned same-sex marriage it would be allowed in this country today.

Slavery is still with us, actually. Nowadays we have credit card debt and other debt. How are you going to outlaw debt? You regulate it and discourage it. There are certain things that are wrong, such as being poor or in debt or retarded, that you can't outlaw outright. You can educate, and you can set up laws that help those people keep their dignity. You can occasionally allow those in debt to occasionally declare bankruptcy, but you can't sustain everyone who refuses to work.

I can't answer your second question about homosexuality fully, but Jesus country was controlled and surrounded by Hellenistic oppressors who, if I'm Historically informed, believed that gay sex was morally superior to heterosexual sex. The moral superiority of gay sex arose out of a disdain for women, and that disdain is something Jesus did address more directly. If anything, he was pro women.

My interpretation is that the picture was supposed to make people look foolish who defend "traditional marriage", one man and one woman, as the only marriage defined and permitted in the bible.

I just like posting.

 

[IowaGuy]

Condone: To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.

You don't think Jesus overlooked slavery? As an enlightened being I'm surprised he didn't say more against it.

Slavery is still with us, actually. Nowadays we have credit card debt and other debt.

Well, of course, the big difference being that one can choose whether to be in credit card debt or not, whereas historically one didn't have much of a choice regarding being a slave. I personally choose not to enslave myself to credit card debt.


The reason I brought up slavery is that the logic behind its defense has parallels to the modern-day defense of "traditional marriage". The Southern slavery defenders a couple hundred years ago had their favorite bible verses to justify their actions, just like modern-day folks against gay marriage have their favorite verses supporting "traditional" marriage.

 

[bob x]

Well, b-brain, you are certainly correct that a lot of these things are misinterpreted; but when you point to other things (like concubinage and polygyny) as having been abolished a long time ago, you are missing the point that "traditional biblical marriage" means, if it means anything, precisely the restoration of the Bronze Age norms.

 

[Dream]

you are missing the point that "traditional biblical marriage" means, if it means anything, precisely the restoration of the Bronze Age norms.

Good point that its what that the various modern attempts by governments to define marriage as 'Traditional biblical' is really pushing a new traditional system.

You don't think Jesus overlooked slavery? As an enlightened being I'm surprised he didn't say more against it.

Did he really need to say more? I limited myself to saying what he said, however in his culture with the laws as they were he would not be considered Jewish if he said "I like slavery, and I'm ok with it." It could have immediately alienated him as a non-Jew from the people, and the leadership could have called him out for saying something like that. It would have made him popular with the Romans, however.

Well, of course, the big difference being that one can choose whether to be in credit card debt or not, whereas historically one didn't have much of a choice regarding being a slave.

Keep in mind that I'm from the South. Slavery as you explain it is what we had, but it doesn't describe what it meant to an ancient Israeli. The Biblical laws are pregnant with the idea of escaping slaves and helping escaping slaves and are informed by that thought. Seriously, I don't think that Jews or Jesus were pro slavery, and I'm not sure where you got the idea except from some chart somewhere.

But I'm from the South, and who in the South has a reputation to claim any real argument on a Traditional Bible anything? It casts doubt on the argument of legal Traditional Biblical Marriage, certainly.

 

[IowaGuy]

Did he really need to say more? I limited myself to saying what he said

What he didn't say speaks louder than what he said. He should have said "God doesn't approve of slavery" and slavery as we know it would have ended centuries before the civil war.

He condoned slavery by not speaking out against it. The same way that a father condones premarital sex if his daughter is sleeping over at her boyfriend's house and the father doesn't say anything about it.

the leadership could have called him out for saying something like that

Are you arguing that Jesus didn't say certain things which he believed for fear of the "leadership"? I haven't heard that line of reasoning before. Do you have any other examples besides slavery to which this applies?

I don't think that Jews or Jesus were pro slavery, and I'm not sure where you got the idea except from some chart somewhere.

I got that idea from the Bible, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The bible that says Jews owned slaves and that they should be obedient to their owners (Ephesians 6). The bible that says captives of war can be taken as slaves (Num 31, Deut 20). The bible that says slaves can be purchased from slave-traders (Lev 25). The bible that says offspring of a male slave belongs to the master if the master provides the wife (Exodus 21). The bible that says you can beat your slave with a rod as long as he regains consciousness since he is your property (Exodus 21). That the number of beatings a slave receives should depend on whether he knowingly disobeyed his master (Luke 12).

Bananabrain or someone else more knowledgeable in Jewish customs than I may well argue that these verses are taken out of context. But it is clear that Jews treated slaves as property, owned slaves, bought slaves, and bred slaves; and it was perfectly legal to beat slaves as long as you didn't actually kill them.

The bible does make it clear that these slaves were equal to their masters in the eyes of God. But the Bible doesn't have any quotes from Jesus where he says slavery is wrong, that all slaves should be released immediately or that their masters should be punished for immoral behaviour short of actually killing a slave. This kind of statement I would expect from an enlightened being upon seeing human mistreatment and beatings.

If you think Jesus didn't condone slavery, or was against slavery, can you quote one single verse from the Bible where Jesus, in his 30+ years on this planet, speaks against slavery or says slavery should be stopped? (besides saying a fleeing slave should be assisted, which is a pretty weak stance against slavery, IMHO)

I'm not trying to bash Jesus, I admire the vast majority of his teachings. But I think by not explicitly speaking out against slavery he missed a great historical opportunity to eliminate suffering for slaves in his day and in the 1,800 years following his death. I just wish the editors of the New Testament, in the open canon era, would have slipped in a Jesus quote against slavery, along with a quote supporting same-sex marriage

 

[seattlegal]

Jesus was all about freeing slaves--those who are enslaved by sin.
John 8:30-45

In most of his parables involving slaves, the slaves would beat each other, rather than the master beating the slaves.

 

[Dream]

Jesus was all about freeing slaves--those who are enslaved by sin.
John 8:30-45

In most of his parables involving slaves, the slaves would beat each other, rather than the master beating the slaves.

Too true, SG.

What he didn't say speaks louder than what he said. He should have said "God doesn't approve of slavery" and slavery as we know it would have ended centuries before the civil war.

Blaming Jesus for our actions won't eliminate their consequences.

Are you arguing that Jesus didn't say certain things which he believed for fear of the "leadership"? I haven't heard that line of reasoning before. Do you have any other examples besides slavery to which this applies?

Not what I argued.

Bananabrain or someone else more knowledgeable in Jewish customs than I may well argue that these verses are taken out of context.

Ok

The bible that says Jews owned slaves

The word 'Slavery' is in the Bible and there were slaves, however the laws were designed to discourage slavery ( through regulation).

The bible that says captives of war can be taken as slaves (Num 31, Deut 20)

The kings used to put defeated enemies to work. Desperate times = desperate measures. Doesn't mean the Bible condones enslaving people.

Exodus 21

A list of limitations. Three If's to keep a brother Israelite from being owned permanently. "You really shouldn't but if you must then here is what hoops you must jump through." End result: Too much trouble.

The bible that says you can beat your slave with a rod as long as he regains consciousness since he is your property (Exodus 21)

V12 says "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." Ownership entailed many responsibilities on the owner, one being you can't kill. You bought'm, now you have to manage them. If it was a particularly difficult slave he had a problem. He couldn't kill them, and selling them would also be a problem. End Goal: Unhappy workers are too much trouble, so keep them happy.

slaves can be purchased from slave-traders (Lev 25)

First it implicitly forbids kidnapping people to get slaves. Second once you've bought them they're part of your family forever. Responsibility is implied. You can't kill them. Another idea that might be in here is that you can't work them to death.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: 16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

 

[IowaGuy]

there were slaves, however the laws were designed to discourage slavery ( through regulation).

Do you think that a law, which permits a master to provide a wife to a male slave and therefore the master gets to keep the offspring as slaves; you think that DISCOURAGES slavery? Seems to me like it creates more slaves by breeding them. (Exodus 21:4 - If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's)

The kings used to put defeated enemies to work. Desperate times = desperate measures. Doesn't mean the Bible condones enslaving people.

You think the bible doesn't condone enslaving people? Even though it specifically says that upon killing every opposing male in a battle: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. (Deut 20:14). The way I read that verse the slaves (spoils) are given to them by God. So yes, this God apparently condones slavery. Otherwise, why wouldn't the verse just say to let the women & children go free?

If it was a particularly difficult slave he had a problem. He couldn't kill them

He couldn't kill the slave but he could legally beat the sh#% out of him with a rod as long as he didn't actually kill the slave since the slave is considered property. (Exodus 20-21:And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.)

First it implicitly forbids kidnapping people to get slaves.

But your neighboring states could kidnap them and you can just buy your slaves from them, no?

I know these were dark times, and most cultures in those days had some sort of slavery from the Mesoamerica tribes to the Greeks to the Egyptians; and yes the bible is kind to escaping slaves. But to say the bible didn't condone slavery IMHO is sticking one's head in the sand.

To bring the topic back to marriage, this discussion on biblical support/defense of slavery highlights why, 2,000 years after the document was written, we should not be using some ancient text to justify our modern laws on civil unions and marriages.

 

[Dream]

Do you think that a law, which permits a master to provide a wife to a male slave and therefore the master gets to keep the offspring as slaves; you think that DISCOURAGES slavery? Seems to me like it creates more slaves by breeding them. (Exodus 21:4 -

Thank you for the opportunity to further address the chart. When I take into account that all Jews are escaped slaves, yes. Why do they gather on Sabbaths but to keep all of these things in remembrance, and yes they have been breeding and still are escaped slaves. Its a religion about escaping from slavery. That's reason enough to take a second look at this passage which probably is a passage about conversion of all Jews and the nature of their conversion. Its probably why if you're born a Jew, you're a Jew for life. All Jews were slaves or the children of slaves, one way or another. The passage is pageantry. I'm dead certain that its not condoning enslaving people at least not in the sense that you are thinking. If it helps this specific passage of law is referenced in a song about conversion which references the ear being pierced. I'm also referencing an extra Psalm inspired with similar thoughts.

• Psalm 40:6-8 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.
• "We have escaped as a bird from the snare of the fowlers; the snare is broken, and we have escaped!" Psalm 124

You think the bible doesn't condone enslaving people?

I think it does not condone slavery, because it condones escaping from slavery and helping slaves to escape, constantly all over the place. Ever heard of the 'Scapegoat'? Its from the law. The christian author James describes the book of the law as a mirror of a perfect law called 'The law of liberty'. Liberty is the law reflected in the law of Moses, which can be worded 'Law of Escape'.

He couldn't kill the slave but he could legally beat the sh#% out of him with a rod as long as he didn't actually kill the slave since the slave is considered property.

Imagine you are a non-cow reading something a column that a giant cow wrote to other cows about cow issues. Giant Cow asks a rhetorical question about cows voting for more McDonalds burger joints. You're not a cow, but you can ask yourself if a cow would vote for more McDonald's restaurants. The Giant Cow is the Law, and the little cows are the readers. To read Deuteronomy 20:14 the outsider's way does result in myriad incoherent statements throughout the entirety of the law, as the chart indicates. It is as if a cow were to vote for more McDonalds restaurants.

I know these were dark times, and most cultures in those days had some sort of slavery from the Mesoamerica tribes to the Greeks to the Egyptians; and yes the bible is kind to escaping slaves. But to say the bible didn't condone slavery IMHO is sticking one's head in the sand.

I remembered some more passages where Jesus is opposed to slavery. Matthew 23:10-13, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:18, John 13:13-15
The passage you mention about servants being beaten in Luke 12 is a reference to the concept of God's discipline and ultimately draws from a passage in Isaiah 53 and some others. Its fairly complicated so not going into it, but its not condoning slavery either.

To bring the topic back to marriage, this discussion on biblical support/defense of slavery highlights why, 2,000 years after the document was written, we should not be using some ancient text to justify our modern laws on civil unions and marriages.

I was just talking to my niece and nephew today on the phone. She's about 7 and he's 12. I wonder what they will think the Bible says when they grow up?

 

[IowaGuy]

Its a religion about escaping from slavery...That's reason enough to take a second look at this passage which probably is a passage about conversion of all Jews and the nature of their conversion.

I agree that the religion itself is about escaping from slavery, figuratively speaking. But that doesn't mean it didn't condone slaves in the physical sense. There are passages to support both lines of reasoning as we can see; the support of escaping from slavery, yet also specific laws regulating slavery itself, including beating of slaves and breeding of slaves. So one can read it either way.

At the beginning of Exodus 21, the bible (NIV) states: "Now these are the laws you are to set before them". Exodus 21 goes on to specify that male slaves' children are also to be slaves (verse 4), even though the male is free to leave after six years of working as a slave if he was purchased.

I know you say the bible is all about slaves escaping. But if that's the case why does verse 4 prohibit the kids and Mom from going with Dad? It actually requires the kids to stay as slaves, since they were born into slavery. And then other parts of the bible allow the owner of those kids to legally beat them.

This seems very cruel to me, and more like modern slavery as we knew it. You say it is pageantry, but that's not how I read it. Would you call all of Exodus pageantry? Most Christians I know don't consider Exodus 20 as pageantry, so I wouldn't think Exodus 21 is pageantry either?

And if the bible is all about ESCAPING from slavery, why would it say that spoils of war, women and children, are God's gifts to the victorious army and that those women and children can be enslaved. (Deut 20:14). I just don't see how that particular verse can be justified any other way.

You have a good point that we are all just historical onlookers, reading Deut and such. So we might just have to agree to disagree on some of these verses as we are both "non-cows" and have our own biases.

The point I am trying to make is that, if the bible were worded slightly differently, 1800 years of historical slave trade might have been ameliorated, as many slave owners used bible passages (the same ones I am pointing out) as justification for their actions. The same way that anti-gay marriage folks use ancient bible passages to support their hatred and discrimination towards gays. Yes, many of these verses have a different meaning when read on their own, out of context. But lots of religious folk take the bible to be the literal word of God, and when shown a verse from the bible as justification for something; well, The Bible Says...

Normally biblical morals are held as a high standard, many of my personal morals have come from my bible school days. Some Christains question how society could ever have any morals without biblical authority. But actually, slavery and same-sex marriage are good examples of secular morality that is superior to biblical morality on these particular topics. Society went above and beyond the bible in totally outlawing slavery of any kind. And society is attempting today to go above and beyond the bible by not discriminating against same-sex partners that want to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual married partners.

Hopefully the marriage debate will be able to get past the fact that the bible doesn't explicitly sanction same-sex unions. Although that currently depends in large part whether the person making the law has a D or R in front of their name on the ballot box.

The passage you mention about servants being beaten in Luke 12 is a reference to the concept of God's discipline

Thank you for pointing that out, I re-read the entire chapter and agree with you 100%.

I was just talking to my niece and nephew today on the phone. She's about 7 and he's 12. I wonder what they will think the Bible says when they grow up?

I have young nephews/nieces as well. I really hope they someday read the bible for themselves (along with other "holy books") and come to their own conclusions. As of right now they just regurgitate whatever they're told by their parents.

 

[bananabrain]

Well, b-brain, you are certainly correct that a lot of these things are misinterpreted; but when you point to other things (like concubinage and polygyny) as having been abolished a long time ago, you are missing the point that "traditional biblical marriage" means, if it means anything, precisely the restoration of the Bronze Age norms.

judaism *challenged* the bronze age norms, rather than leaving them as they were; that is the point. judaism's norms weren't even bronze age norms but established to provide a point of progress.

it is clear that Jews treated slaves as property, owned slaves, bought slaves, and bred slaves; and it was perfectly legal to beat slaves as long as you didn't actually kill them.

umph... but firstly, there are slaves and slaves; the laws are different for a jewish slave, a non-jewish slave and a canaanite slave (who, lest we forget, is actually supposed to be killed) but it's not obvious from the plain text of the Torah which is which. secondly, it is also clear from our sources that some people used to sell *themselves* into slavery to pay off their debts; hence the word is being mistranslated - these are more like "indentured servants", with far stronger rights and protections. in the context of graeco-roman or other middle eastern societies, these are not slaves like in the american south.

The point I am trying to make is that, if the bible were worded slightly differently, 1800 years of historical slave trade might have been ameliorated, as many slave owners used bible passages (the same ones I am pointing out) as justification for their actions.

well, the point i would make in return is that the bible was misused by these people; we did not consider this the correct understanding of the text in question - so if these people had had more humanity, let alone curiosity about how the words of the bible are actually supposed to be interpreted, then, yes, the historical slave trade might have been ameliorated, although i am bound to point out that slavery would still have operated on the east coast and the indian ocean, just as it was in africa itself, because the Qur'an is not exactly anti-slavery either, but i don't see anyone taking that up with the muslims. perhaps other cultures ought to take responsibility for their own actions once in a while, rather than blaming it on us; we managed to figure out that slavery was a bad thing rather earlier than most.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Ben Masada]

Question, if I were a serial rapist, then could I have more than one wife? Ranging in what age group? (inquiring minds want to know).

Not according to ancient Jewish laws. I am afraid, you would be stoned to death.
Ben

 

[bob x]

Not according to ancient Jewish laws. I am afraid, you would be stoned to death.
Ben

Not as long as you never raped a woman who was already married or betrothed to someone else. You would just have to pay heavy bride-prices, and would be unable to divorce any of them (that is, you would be responsible for all their upkeep for life).