Skip to main content

View Diary: Should Liberals Dis the Bible? (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  Completely Agree (9+ / 0-)

      And that's a perfectly good way to answer people who claim it does.

    •  Also Nothing to Do With Marriage Period (10+ / 0-)

      which is a government institution. It's why Jesus never married anybody --all he ever did was party tricks at a reception. It's why no preacher can pronounce you married except "by the authority vested in me by the state" and why no preacher can divorce you.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:59:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Technically speaking, (9+ / 0-)

        the two parties marry each other. Which is why you're "pronounced". Even in a religious context, the officiant at a wedding is only a witness, albeit one who has the authority to enter the evidence of your vows into an ecclesiastical and in some jurisdictions, civil register.

        What is truth? -- Pontius Pilate

        by commonmass on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:21:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Marriage in the Talmud did not involve the state (0+ / 0-)

        Rome was the enemy and the rabbis had no interest in getting involved with the Romans any more than what the Romans made necessary.  There are three methods of marriage:

        1.  By money.  The man gives money to the lady as consideration for becoming his wife.  So there would be no questionable marriages, Rabbi Hillel decreed the amount could be as low as a perutah, translated today as a penny.  Today, this money is a ring.

        2.  By contract.  Both parties sign a contract and they are married.  This is still done at Jewish weddings today.

        3.  By sex.  At traditional Jewish weddings, the couple is left alone for the first part of the reception-dinner and they are expected to consumate the marriage.  I couldn't imagine doing this with all those guests on the other side of the door.

        A traditional Jewish marriage encompasses all three, but any one will suffice.  Before Jews were emancipated as citizens between the 17th and 19th centuries, there was no involvement by the state.

        "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

        by Navy Vet Terp on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:52:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  On point (3): Not just "left alone" ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... but escorted to a private room with only one entrance, with two witnesses by the door to see that they both go in, and that neither of them leaves and no one else enters for a specified period of time.

          Practically speaking, since it is traditional for the bride and groom to fast on the day of the wedding until after the ceremony, what goes on in that room is often little more than finally having something to eat and drink.  (Possibly accompanied by intermittent smooches.)

    •  Afraid I need to disagree with you. Many of those (4+ / 0-)

      in the Episcopal Church who strongly support marriage equality do so with arguments drawn from the bible - exactly as many abolitionists drew arguments from the bible. It is a question of different levels of meaning and which aspects are relevant to which settings.

      One of the most radical acts of the early church was to include the book of Acts in the canon. A key episode there was changing tradition. The question arose, did gentiles need circumcission and keeping kosher to become Christian? By giving an account of how the church reflected on this question and deciding to change tradition, the canon itself contains provision for changing tradition and re-reading scripture.

      If you want the citations often used in support of marriage equality I would be happy to provide them.



      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:13:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's a link to the one I did (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

        by Navy Vet Terp on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:56:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Very interesting - thank you. Those are two of the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Navy Vet Terp

          passages I've discussed in a course on changing tradition.

          Someone else said (I'm forgetting now who) that the passage refers to men having sexual relations on a woman's bed - were they mistaken about that?



          Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

          by Wee Mama on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:24:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Never heard that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wee Mama

            And I am sure if that was there, the rabbis who wrote the responsum in 2006 recognizing marriage equality would have seized on it to justify their new position.  Rereading Sanhedrin 54 (you can google it if you wish), it's got a lot of x rated stuff, more focused on incest, bestiality and child rape for some reason than consensal gay relationships.  

            "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

            by Navy Vet Terp on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:36:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I've never heard that interpretation either (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wee Mama

            although looking at the Hebrew, that is possibly what it could mean ...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site