happy Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 When the Chick-Fil-A debacle hit the media, I noticed at one point someone challenged the "Biblical Definition of Marriage" by hitting on points like that rapists are supposed to marry their victims, or that when a man dies, his brother is supposed to take over. Many very ugly views were presented about how the Biblical definition of marriage is embarrassing.How would some of you address this claim directly? How do you feel the Bible defines marriage?
Calm Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 How is ensuring that a brother's widow is taken care of and has the chance to have children "ugly" or "embarrassing"?6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/mark/10.8?lang=eng#7 1
happy Posted July 31, 2012 Author Posted July 31, 2012 I am not taking a position. I am just wondering how some of you would respond to that accusation.
thesometimesaint Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Happy:We haven't used the Biblical definition of marriage for a long time now. We get our(US) marriage laws largely from the Romans, by way of English Common Law.
Buckeye Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I agree with calmoriah's point - the biblical system for caring for widows is something to be lauded. It was quite a progression for those times. Something to be proud of. That said, we certainly do not follow the practice today. Nor do we follow other bibilical marriage practices, as you point out. I think what you're getting at (or the poster you cite) is that modern christians can be accused of picking and choosing which biblical teachings regarding marriage that they want to enforce - hetersexual only (yes!), marry your rapist (no!). In other words, they are "cafeteria christians". I can't answer for all christians, but from an LDS perspective this is not much of a dilemma because of the principle of continued revelation. The reason LDS define marriage as excluding heterosexual unions is not so much because of biblical precedence, but becasue modern prophets continue to teach that doctrine. The prophets have not continued to teach some other biblical marriage principles (such as those you point to) and so there is no conflict. 2
ERayR Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I am not taking a position. I am just wondering how some of you would respond to that accusation.If your not taking a position then the descriptive phrase are better left out.
happy Posted July 31, 2012 Author Posted July 31, 2012 If your not taking a position then the descriptive phrase are better left out.What descriptive phrases? Sorry, I am confused.
Calm Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 The "ugly" and "embarrassing"...It comes across as you might be agreeing with those views rather than just reporting them. 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) When the Chick-Fil-A debacle hit the media, I noticed at one point someone challenged the "Biblical Definition of Marriage" by hitting on points like that rapists are supposed to marry their victims, or that when a man dies, his brother is supposed to take over. Many very ugly views were presented about how the Biblical definition of marriage is embarrassing.How would some of you address this claim directly? How do you feel the Bible defines marriage?No one believes that type of thing in our time...this is nothing more than an attack of Christian and Americian values. I believe what the NT and BoM teaches as well as my church...no apologies. Edited July 31, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee
CV75 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 How would some of you address this claim directly? How do you feel the Bible defines marriage?No matter how offensive the circumstances or misunderstanding can make it appear, marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
Ahab Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 When the Chick-Fil-A debacle hit the media, I noticed at one point someone challenged the "Biblical Definition of Marriage" by hitting on points like that rapists are supposed to marry their victims, or that when a man dies, his brother is supposed to take over. Many very ugly views were presented about how the Biblical definition of marriage is embarrassing.How would some of you address this claim directly?I would correct their understanding of how the Bible defines marriage, if I thought they were misrepresenting it.How do you feel the Bible defines marriage?The same way a plumber does... two coming together to be one.If they then asked if I had any objection to homosexuals marrying, I would say yes and show what God has had to say about that.It's not marriage that's wrong. What's wrong is the idea that God approves of homosexual marriage, or unions of that nature, whatever they're called.
KevinG Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I would correct their understanding of how the Bible defines marriage, if I thought they were misrepresenting it.The same way a plumber does... two coming together to be one. What's wrong is the idea that God approves of homosexual marriage, or unions of that nature, whatever they're called.I don't know many plumbers that would stick two pipes together without a fitting and call it a drain. 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I don't know many plumbers that would stick two pipes together without a fitting and call it a drain.
Ahab Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I don't know many plumbers that would stick two pipes together without a fitting and call it a drain.I don't either, and I think it's interesting that those parts are called both "male" and "female", too.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I don't either, and I think it's interesting that those parts are called both "male" and "female", too.The only way it works as it should.
thesometimesaint Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Correlation is not causation.The Old Testament isn't particularly kind to homosexuals, or a whole host of others for that matter. I'm just glad we don't follow its dictates.
wenglund Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I don't know many plumbers that would stick two pipes together without a fitting and call it a drain.Be careful. Some time ago I used a lock and key metaphor, and ever since then certain critics have been apoplectic and have tried to mock it down.Even still, at least it lets me know that the metaphor was effective.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Correlation is not causation.The Old Testament isn't particularly kind to homosexuals, or a whole host of others for that matter. I'm just glad we don't follow its dictates.Makes one wonder why they would go there.
Cobalt-70 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 The bible does not actually define marriage. Marriage predates the bible, and the bible merely responds to existing marital culture, the same way it responded to existing master-slave relationships or political realities in the context of the era. Moreover, it would have been impossible for the bible to have defined marriage, because marriage is an English word, and English had not yet been invented.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 The bible does not actually define marriage. Marriage predates the bible, and the bible merely responds to existing marital culture, the same way it responded to existing master-slave relationships or political realities in the context of the era. Moreover, it would have been impossible for the bible to have defined marriage, because marriage is an English word, and English had not yet been invented.The first institution God implemented was marriage...even before giving a commandment, which was to multiply...were it not for this there would be no one heretofore discuss this.
Ahab Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 The bible does not actually define marriage. Marriage predates the bible, and the bible merely responds to existing marital culture, the same way it responded to existing master-slave relationships or political realities in the context of the era. Moreover, it would have been impossible for the bible to have defined marriage, because marriage is an English word, and English had not yet been invented.The "two shall become one flesh" idea is generally understood to be a definition of marriage, and for those who know what "marriage" refers to, in English, it's usually easy to see the connection.You don't have to find the word, in English, to be able to know what it means.There now. I've now corrected you, or offered you correction, in English.
Verum Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 How is ensuring that a brother's widow is taken care of and has the chance to have children "ugly" or "embarrassing"?Really? Can't tell if you are being serious here....
Cobalt-70 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 The first institution God implemented was marriage...even before giving a commandment, which was to multiply...were it not for this there would be no one heretofore discuss this.God just married them (apparently without a ceremony--just an introduction). He didn't define the English word marriage, or any equivalent word in the mythical Adamic language. Besides, kinship relationships similar to what we now call marriage existed well before the time frame of Adam and Eve.
Cobalt-70 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) The "two shall become one flesh" idea is generally understood to be a definition of marriage, and for those who know what "marriage" refers to, in English, it's usually easy to see the connection.That can't be the definition, because it doesn't explain polygamy or sexless marriages. And besides, two men or two women can be of "one flesh" just as easily as can a man and a woman. Edited July 31, 2012 by Cobalt-70
wenglund Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) That can't be the definition, because it doesn't explain polygamy. And besides, two men can be of "one flesh," or two women, just as easily as a man and a woman.I hate to be the one to have to explain the basics of the birds and bees to you, but in addition to the metaphoric meaning of the phrase "one flesh," literally it take a man and a woman to create a child. Or said another way, they twain (the man and the woman) shall become one flesh by producing a child.If this explanation is still not clear, I can point you to some websites with graphics and all.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited August 1, 2012 by wenglund
Recommended Posts