Quantcast

«

»

Mar 29 2013

Let Gay People Marry and God Will Beat Us Up

That’s the message from Richard Land and Barrett Duke of the Southern Baptist Convention. If the Supreme Court rules the wrong way, their imaginary friend is going to come right down here and kick the living shit out of us for it. You know, like he has — oh wait, he hasn’t — to every other country that already did so years ago.

We also take very seriously the significance of this issue in the eyes of God. God created marriage. At humanity’s beginnings, God created and designed marriage to be only the union of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:18-24). Jesus affirmed this divine intention for marriage (Matthew 19:4-5). No other relationship is marriage.

The rearing of children is one of God’s obvious intentions for marriage. God affirms and understands the need for children to have both a mother and father in their homes. Same-sex marriage will drive a wedge between marriage and God’s intention for the rearing of children (Ephesians 6:1-4).

We should not think that our nation will escape God’s judgment if we redefine what God has already defined. We are certain that the omniscient and omnipotent God is aware of our nation’s debate about marriage and that He is watching what we do.

But I heard that Thor is totally in favor of same-sex marriage and he’s going to beat us up if we don’t let them get married. Such difficult choices…

25 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    oranje

    And Baldur’s totally into group marriages. I smell a rumble coming on…

  2. 2
    reasonbe

    Beware (s)he who gets in 9 god references in 3 short paragraphs.

  3. 3
    davidct

    ” We are certain that the omniscient and omnipotent God is aware of our nation’s debate about marriage and that He is watching what we do.”

    If IT is so omniscient IT already knows how this will play out. Since IT is omniscient IT already knows what IT will do about our actions. As a result IT is powerless to change things were already decided at the beginning of time. It must be hard to be “God” and omniscient. Existence must be like watching endless I Love Lucy reruns. As for omnipotence that only happened at the beginning of time. Since then everything has been about following a script.

    Do these people ever actually think about the implications of their platitudes? Probably not.

  4. 4
    noastronomer

    @reasonbe #2

    10 references. Jesus = God.

  5. 5
    hexidecima

    heh, Thor is all about cross dressing too,

    “As a result, the gods and goddesses meet and hold a thing to discuss and debate the matter. At the thing, the god Heimdallr puts forth the suggestion that, in place of Freyja, Thor should be dressed as the bride, complete with jewels, women’s clothing down to his knees, a bridal head-dress, and the necklace Brísingamen. Thor rejects the idea, yet Loki interjects that this will be the only way to get back Mjöllnir. Loki points out that, without Mjöllnir, the jötnar will be able to invade and settle in Asgard. The gods dress Thor as a bride, and Loki states that he will go with Thor as his maid, and that the two shall drive to Jötunheimr together.” from the wiki article.

    so how are we to know what the gods want us to “really” do? Poor Christian liars, they make prophecies and fail and fail and fail. Now, who is going to stone them like the bible says to? (Deut 20)

  6. 6
    fifthdentist

    Between Genesis and Jaysus he sure seemed to give a lot of wiggle room for men having as many wives as they wanted, and in addition allowed for men boning as many of the “foreign” women as they could carry away from the destroyed city they had just genocided in god’s mercy. But it wasn’t just some freaky deaky free-for-all; the stolen women had to be virgins, the sluts were killed along with the men and donkeys.

  7. 7
    shouldbeworking

    Given that the American god has the worst aim of any supernatural (non)entity, Canadians and Mexicans will now be evacuated to their bomb shelters.

  8. 8
    Phillip IV

    But I heard that Thor is totally in favor of same-sex marriage and he’s going to beat us up if we don’t let them get married.

    And let’s not forget the Greek Pantheon! I think there’s a high risk of incurring their wrath if we don’t go by their definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman…

    …several female slaves, the man’s best friend and the teenage son of some business acquaintance…

  9. 9
    Christoph Burschka

    But I heard that Thor is totally in favor of same-sex marriage and he’s going to beat us up if we don’t let them get married.

    Yeah, sorry Christians, but if two fictional beings disagree on something, I’m going to have to side with the one who’s got a bloody big hammer. (And being a carpenter’s stepson doesn’t count, no.)

  10. 10
    raven

    At humanity’s beginnings, God created and designed marriage to be only the union of one man and one woman

    Oh Wow!!

    What a blatant lie.

    Biblical marriage is between one man and as many wives as he can round up and as many sex slaves as he can afford. Solomon, the hero of the OT, had 700 wives and 300 sex slaves.

    This is one reason why fundie xians have no crediblity.

    They have a magic book they never read and frequently claim it says things it doesn’t. Their god is a sockpuppet they made up. Their bible is a sockpuppet and a Rorschach Inkblot that says whatever they want it to say.

  11. 11
    Modusoperandi

    YOU CANT CHANGE THE DEFINITON OF MARRIAGE AND NOT EXPECT CONSEQUENSES! SACRED AND HOLY MARRIAGE IS THE ONLY TRUE MARRIAGE.
     
    ONE MAN, ONE RIB!

  12. 12
    steve oberski

    @Christoph Burschka

    I’m going to have to side with the one who’s got a bloody big hammer.

    My god carries a hammer, your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions ?

  13. 13
    kantalope

    Modus beat me to it! grrrr

    The first reference, Genesis 2:18-24, is Adam cleaving with his own rib. I like ribs as much as the next guy, but ewwww.

    The Mathew reference is out of context: Jesus says Genesis says blah blah blah but the question wasn’t can we have gay marriage the question was: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” And I don’t know what it means, ‘to put away’ but I’m pretty concerned in a domestic violence kind of way.

    And (surprise) Ephesians 6:1-4 isn’t about how children need their parents, oh no, it is about how children need to be obedient. The last part is pretty explicit in that only the father needs to keep the children all godly – mom, totally and misogynistically left out. And why you are asking only verse 1-4? Well because in verse 5 in the guide to all morality is advocating slavery:

    5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

    yay?

  14. 14
    heddle

    kantalope,

    And I don’t know what it means, ‘to put away’ but I’m pretty concerned in a domestic violence kind of way.

    Yeah, right. It is not talking about domestic violence (nice try), but about easy divorce. Jesus is making it more difficult for a man to divorce his wife. In the culture of that time this was a radical advancement of women’s rights, since he was teaching that the prevailing practice of easy divorce (only when initiated by the man, of course)–which left a woman destitute and with no means of support– was wrong.

    The last part is pretty explicit in that only the father needs to keep the children all godly – mom, totally and misogynistically left out.

    Again, yeah right. It says no such thing. It merely warns fathers not to exasperate your children. It says nothing remotely along the lines that the mother is left out of child rearing. It is a special warning to fathers who were more likely to be brutal in their child-rearing.

    Well because in verse 5 in the guide to all morality is advocating slavery:

    No it is not. (Gee, that’s 0 for 3.) It is not advocating that slaves rebel, which is a different matter altogether. The NT also depicts Paul being a model prisoner, even when he was unjustly and illegally arrested. Similarly, it does not advocate a revolt against the jailers of of the unlawfully imprisoned. That is, it should be obvious, not the same as advocating or condoning false imprisonment.

    You can ask why the NT does not argue explicitly against slavery (I can offer a theory), but that is a much weaker statement than arguing that it condoned slavery.

    But parroting what every other unthinking atheist says is much more fun than actually thinking about what the text says, in context, and in-situ. Sorry for the interruption.

  15. 15
    fifthdentist

    kantalope,
    I think I’m going to start putting random Bible verses after everything I write (Exodus 13:7).
    That way fundies will think I have a scriptural basis for everything (Dirigibles 17:27).
    With that strategy I should be able to convince them of anything (Insane Clown Posse 2:15).

  16. 16
    raven

    The Mathew reference is out of context:

    Xians do that a lot.

    Just cite random bible verses.

    Secure in the knowledge that no one is going to bother looking them up. Or care.

    For all they claim their magic book is the word of god, they spend virtually no time actually reading it and have no idea what it really says. Henry Morris, the creationist founder of ICR did that a lot.

  17. 17
    Modusoperandi

    fifthdentist, everybody knows that you’re misinterpreting the Bible (Reservations 8:15).

  18. 18
    raven

    And oh yeah, they frequently flat out lie about what the bible really says.

    There is an example today on this very blog.

    God created and designed marriage to be only the union of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:18-24)

    Polygamy and sex slaves are found all through the bible, usually among the leaders and heores of ancient Jews.

  19. 19
    kantalope

    I’m going to need a reference for “to put away” on the wife/divorce reform part. I know Heddle sounds all reasonable but to put away just doesn’t mean anything at this point. (Second Skepsis 1:1).

    And even if it means ‘to give a nice bagel with lox’ it does not deny the fact that jesus was answering a different question.

    I’m using the King James version (because I was told that was THE inspired version – Moroni ch. all) these are the sections in question:

    6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
    2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;
    3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
    4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
    5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

    Honor mom…and then no mention of her role. Sure, I’ll buy your interpretation that biblical fathers were likely to be brutal jerks to their children, but my point was that women get no instruction. Why? Because the bible is not all that flattering to the ‘purpose’ of women “9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. (Corninians 11). The role of women in the raising of children in the bible? I’m not recalling anything. Why? I’m gonna stand by the Misogynistically left out because women didn’t rate more mention. And does it mean that if mom died in childbirth (something that happened – Marcus Welby season 2: 5) and the child was raised by his aunt (his mom’s sister who his father also married – Creeepy Marriages for $200) should the child not obey? I think I get my point back.

    I’m the first to admit that I’m not a bible scholar but I am pretty certain that if you are reading it and finding that women are getting some good press you are not reading it very well. (Realitarians 2: 1-5)

    And as for slavery – that verse 5 looks pretty clear: Slaves obey your masters – the fear and trembly part kind of gives it away. Period. I’m sure that you have some theory that shows that bible slavery was ‘good’ slavery for whatever reason — it is as convincing as your scorecard.

    If children obey your mother and father is supposed to convince me that this is the reason we need to enshrine motherandfather above all other relationships – why am I not to take ‘slaves obey your masters’ as the reason that masterandslave relationships ought to be enshrined above all others. (Cherry Pickers 1:1)

  20. 20
    iangould

    You’d think idolatrous pagan nations like,say, Japan and India would be higher on his list.

  21. 21
    heddle

    kantalope,

    I’m going to need a reference for “to put away” on the wife/divorce reform part. I know Heddle sounds all reasonable but to put away just doesn’t mean anything at this point.

    You could try reading the passage in context, and in a couple of translations. You could try learning a little history. First century Jewish men “enjoyed” divorce and rationalized it by saying that Moses gave permission. Jesus overturned the Mosaic law on divorce, making it effectively impossible.

    I’m sure that you have some theory that shows that bible slavery was ‘good’ slavery for whatever reason — it is as convincing as your scorecard.

    Then you are surely wrong (0 for 4). I have never made that argument, ever, in all the (many) times I have discusses slavery and the bible here or elsewhere. Try to have an original thought rather than putting words in my mouth.

  22. 22
    Michael Heath

    kantalope @ 13:

    in verse 5 in the guide to all morality is advocating slavery:

    5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

    yay?

    heddle @ 14:

    No it is not. [Passage advocating slavery] (Gee, that’s 0 for 3.) It is not advocating that slaves rebel, which is a different matter altogether. The NT also depicts Paul being a model prisoner, even when he was unjustly and illegally arrested. Similarly, it does not advocate a revolt against the jailers of of the unlawfully imprisoned. That is, it should be obvious, not the same as advocating or condoning false imprisonment.

    You can ask why the NT does not argue explicitly against slavery (I can offer a theory), but that is a much weaker statement than arguing that it condoned slavery.

    But parroting what every other unthinking atheist says is much more fun than actually thinking about what the text says, in context, and in-situ. Sorry for the interruption.

    False on heddle’s part. Ephesians 6 certainly is advocating slavery (I’m moving the goal posts a bit by adding more context by extending the text from kantalope’s verse 5 out to verse 9, where heddle misrepresents the text within its bigger context).

    If we’re to assume this is the inerrant word of God, who has powers greater than any human and therefore the ability to communicate, God had every opportunity to come out against slavery. But he didn’t, not once. Every time slavery is mentioned in the Bible, OT or NT, it either advocates for slavery, enables the continuation of slavery, or in this case – claims it’s God’s will there are slaves. There are no verses that reference slavery and clearly condemns the practice. So God’s either for slavery, or he’s against it but too weak and poor of a communicator to get his point articulated and published in his own book.

    In this chapter of the NT, God not only doesn’t come out against slavery, he asserts that those who are slaves are slaves because of his will. Here’s the relevant text; Ephesians 6 [RSV]:

    5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ; 6 not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. 9 Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

    Now I can perceive how some could argue that a slave doing God’s will doesn’t mean it’s God’s will there are slaves. I don’t buy that argument for a second, but it has a tiny leg to stand upon. But you can’t argue God condemns slavery when he doesn’t take the opportunity to condemn slavery when the topic is raised, but instead and again, endorses it, enables it, or claims we’re doing his will when we’re slaves and commands us to remain submissive to our masters. I say fuck that, I’d prefer going Django on anyone’s ass that enslaved me. Including the god who put me there; though I’d solicit Thor’s help and a perhaps few other gods help.

  23. 23
    heddle

    Ephesians 6 certainly is advocating slavery

    No it doesn’t, even though you are attempting a proof by using the word “certainly”. You could not take that passage and prove anything other that it is Paul teaching how Christians who are slaves should behave, and as warning to masters, Christians or otherwise. Any language in regard to the morality of the institution itself is absent. There is no possible parsing of this sentence that demonstrably advocates slavery. None. Zero. It is plausibly explained by Paul matter-of-factly recognizing that there were slaves and slave masters, but he is not all that concerned about it because the gospel trumps all, and it is a redemptive gospel not a social gospel. He is giving advice to the Christian in light of the reality of the day. That is not advocating slavery. It is, at most and probably accurately, tolerating it because from his perspective it was unimportant compared to living the gospel. (On the other hand in Philemon when Paul sends the runaway slave back he makes it perfectly clear that his desire is that Onesimus is freed, even offering to pay his debt.) You can only infer, and you always do and always will make the most disadvantageous inference inference possible, that the lack of an explicit condemnation is advocating slavery–but that’s the best you can do. An inference biased toward the conclusion you seek.

    So God’s either for slavery, or he’s against it but too weak and poor of a communicator to get his point articulated and published in his own book.

    Well that certainly is a convincing proof. No false dilemma there! Your rhetorical skills speak for themselves. And again with your nonsense about inerrancy, by which you always seem to mean: “since I, Michael Heath would have written things, O so much more clearly, and would have included all these things that are important to me, ergo we can conclude: (fill in the blank.)

    I didn’t say God condemned slavery. Try to read before you respond. I even wrote that it was a fair question to ask why isn’t slavery explicitly condemned. What I said, in effect, is that in the NT the whole topic is treated as nothing more than a backdrop. He also tells us to obey our leaders and gives no “out” if they are tyrants. The Christians were called to obey the Roman authorities–but that doesn’t mean God gave his stamp of approval to Nero or Domitian. Is this concept really that hard?

    I say fuck that, I’d prefer going Django on anyone’s ass that enslaved me. Including the god who put me there; though I’d solicit Thor’s help and a perhaps few other gods help.

    lol.

  24. 24
    Michael Heath

    Me earlier:

    Ephesians 6 certainly is advocating slavery

    heddle responds:

    No it doesn’t, even though you are attempting a proof by using the word “certainly”. You could not take that passage and prove anything other that it is Paul teaching how Christians who are slaves should behave, and as warning to masters, Christians or otherwise. Any language in regard to the morality of the institution itself is absent. There is no possible parsing of this sentence that demonstrably advocates slavery. None. Zero.

    Of course you’re right if Ephesians 6 is the writing of mere humans; with no power to change that society’s acceptance of slavery. But then the issue isn’t at worth raising since we already know past humans were so keen, supportive, or even empathetic about others’ rights. But according to your beliefs and the framing I explicitly used, the Bible is the inerrant word of God. And it’s this framing which you continually avoid; so I’ll repeat myself:

    If we’re to assume this is the inerrant word of God, who has powers greater than any human and therefore the ability to communicate, God had every opportunity to come out against slavery. But he didn’t, not once. Every time slavery is mentioned in the Bible, OT or NT, it either advocates for slavery, enables the continuation of slavery, or in this case – claims it’s God’s will there are slaves. There are no verses that reference slavery and clearly condemns the practice. So God’s either for slavery, or he’s against it but too weak and poor of a communicator to get his point articulated and published in his own book.

    heddle does respond to my quoting myself immediately above:

    Well that certainly is a convincing proof. No false dilemma there! Your rhetorical skills speak for themselves. And again with your nonsense about inerrancy, by which you always seem to mean: “since I, Michael Heath would have written things, O so much more clearly, and would have included all these things that are important to me, ergo we can conclude: (fill in the blank.)

    It is convincing using your beliefs. And it has nothing to do with me or what I argue, it is instead what you claim regarding your concept of God and what is actually in the Bible. That again is that the supposed word of God has him only promoting slavery, enabling it, ordering slaves to remain submissive, or providing instructions on how to administer slavery. But never actually condemning the practice.

    I’m supposedly nothing compared to your god, yet I can do what the biblical god always failed to do as I demonstrate here:

    Slavery is evil because it causes human suffering far greater than the benefit that came from slavery. Even if there was some short-term observed net marginal benefit to a population greater than the calculated suffering of those enslaved, for which there is no evidence of that ever happening, it would be still be evil. Slavery would still be evil because it purposefully infringes upon the inalienable rights of another human in a way that causes them to suffer. If we cause others to suffer, we lose the moral authority to seek help to defend our own rights when others seek to harm us. We instead promote wellbeing and human flourishing by acting in an altruistic manner mindful of our responsibility to each other and future generations.

    It ain’t high art or necessarily a bullet-proof argument; but it’s far better than what we get from your god where this was off the top of my head in about two minutes. Your god’s had about 14 billion years to come out against slavery with a decent argument and what’s that I hear? Nothing.

    So yea, I guess you are right, I’m way more powerful than your god because I can make an unequivocal moral assertion which clearly puts me on the side of the good guys. That rather than being a god whose impotently leveraged by humans as a primary justification by the bad guys that promoted and practiced slavery. Your god either can’t do what I just did here, or actually wants us to enslave others. I’m voting for the former, because he simply doesn’t exist and this text is written by ignorant humans inspired by nothing than their own primitive thoughts. And I’d argue their primitivism is relative, that my own thoughts will be considered primitive two thousand years from now; at least I hope so. E.g., I’m aware my anti-slavery edict isn’t sufficiently animal-friendly.

    heddle writes:

    I didn’t say God condemned slavery. Try to read before you respond. I even wrote that it was a fair question to ask why isn’t slavery explicitly condemned. What I said, in effect, is that in the NT the whole topic is treated as nothing more than a backdrop. He also tells us to obey our leaders and gives no “out” if they are tyrants. The Christians were called to obey the Roman authorities–but that doesn’t mean God gave his stamp of approval to Nero or Domitian. Is this concept really that hard?

    I’ve always gotten this from you. I’d argue you’re not fully considering what I’m writing. My answer here would be redundant; so I ask that you re-read what I already wrote more carefully and address it. Specifically your beliefs about the Bible and God which I use to point out how evil your god is regarding humanity. Or else that we have no evidence such a god exists with a nature that would dwell on human slavery and influence the course of human events. Again, I pick the latter; with major problems with those who conclude the former and then celebrate the nature of such a god.

  25. 25
    democommie

    “Let Gay People Marry and God Will Beat Us Up”

    Wait, what? I always thought that being beat upon (as in “smote”*) by GOD was a necessary component of KKKristian LOVE. Why do Land and Duke hate GOD? BTW, is that Duke feller oneathem Hazzard Dukes?

    * I don’t know what the past pluperfect of “smitten” is.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site