tinpra

If you haven’t seen my previous postings, I’m writing a series of essays in response to a YouTube video that supposedly tells the dirty, hitherto unknown, truth about Biblical marriages—a truth that even Christians don’t know. About fifteen examples of “Biblical” marriages are given during the four minute vid, each more outrageously unbelievable than the last.

The thing is, though, that very few of the examples given are actual Biblical marriages. So with that in mind, I’m examining the examples of so-called “biblical” marriages (or “godly” marriages since that’s what we all mean when we use the word biblical) given in the YouTube video to show how they are, in fact, rarely biblical in nature. Unfortunately, of the examples given, the marriages that are biblical are also kinda messed up. It’s not the institution of marriage that’s at fault in these relationships, but the way the marriages are lived.

To date I’ve written about “one man, one woman, and the son she seduces after he’s killed his only brother” (Adam, Eve and Cain), “one man and his sister” (Abraham and Sarah), “one man, his sister and the help” (Abraham, Sarah and Hagar)1, “one man and the table salt” (Lot and his wife), and “one man, [and] a gal who’s kidnapped and raped right after her brother, father, mother and slutty sister have been slaughtered” (the tribe of Benjamin and 400+ virgins).

It’s been a wild and crazy ride.

This essay will look at three related “biblical marriages” all from men in the same family, with nearly similar issues: they loooooved the ladies. Or as the YouTube video puts it, marriage is between “one man, one woman, another woman, yet another woman, a few more woman, an adulterer and a pack of raped whores!”, and also between “one man, and frankly enough women to make a Mormon compound seem quaintly understaffed.” ( Read more... )

1 - "Abraham and Sarah" and "Abraham, Sarah and Hagar" are covered in the same essay, hence the same link.

If you missed my previous posting, I am writing a (hopefully) brief series of essays in response to a YouTube video that supposedly lays out the dirty truth behind what a Biblical marriage really is. In the course of the video approximately fifteen examples of marriages are brought up, each one completely outrageous and jaw-dropping if you’ve never heard of them. Each one is also actually in the Bible. However most of them are not examples of a Biblical marriage. If you’ve read this already, skip ahead to the essay.

What does “biblical” mean? Well it can mean “Of, relating to, or contained in the Bible” as defined in TheFreeDictionary.com. Basically anything that’s in the book regardless of its nature.

Biblical also means “Pious; reverencing God, and his character and laws; obedient to the commands of God from love for, and reverence of, his character; conformed to God's law; devout; righteous; as, a godly life.” from BrainyQuote.com. This, I think, is the meaning that most of us have in mind when we talk about something being biblical: that it reflects the character and precepts of God as set forth in the Bible. Godly.

Just because something is in the Bible (the first definition) doesn’t mean that it is in fact biblical (the second definition). The Bible doesn’t just show you what you’re supposed to do and then give examples of people who did them, the Bible shows us people in their real lives doing real things. Often real crazy, downright outrageous things. Because that’s what real people do. Just because someone lives their life in the heart of Crazy Town, however, doesn’t mean we make them the new standard for living. Usually we use it as an object lesson of what not to do. Why? Because it’s an indication of a wild deviation from the standard, whatever that standard is. And we know they’re deviating from a standard because when there is no standard, there can be no deviation, and where there’s no possibility for deviation you can never have shocking, outrageous behavior.

And so I am compelled to make the distinction between the marriages in the Bible, as mentioned in the YouTube vid, versus what a biblical marriage actually is.

In my previous essays I tackled the statements made in the video that a biblical marriage is one man, his wife, and their murderous son (Adam, Eve and Cain); one man and his sister (Abraham and Sarah,) and and the help (Abraham, Sarah, and Haggai); and one man and his table salt-wife (Lot and Mrs. Lot).

For this essay I’ll be looking at the statement made in the Betty Bowers video that a biblical marriage is between “one man, [and] a gal who’s kidnapped and raped right after her brother, father, mother and slutty sister have been slaughtered.” This is also known as the story of how wives were provided for the tribe of Benjamin after they had been nearly wiped out in a civil war.

But we can’t start there. That story all by its lonesome is bad enough, trust me, but starting there would be like coming in for the last half hour of a 2-hour movie. Sure you get the big bang and enough storyline to make what you’re seeing interesting, but you don’t know what’s actually going. ( Read more... )

This is soooooo late! And with that in mind, I'm dashing off this post with one editorial read-through, but there are links that need to be added, etc., that I will get to later. I cannot let this languish any longer! Enjoy ;)

EDIT 9/19/11 - So I've no idea what I was thinking when I first wrote this. The truth is I'm overly wordy almost all the time, and really, really need to edit when I write. With that in mind, I've rewritten this so that it's more accessible and uses less tinpra-jargon.

Biblical Marriage vs. Marriages in the Bible: Lot and Mrs. Lot

If you missed my previous posting, I am writing a (hopefully) brief series of essays in response to a YouTube video that supposedly lays out the dirty truth behind what a Biblical marriage really is. In the course of the video approximately fifteen examples of “marriages” are brought up, each one completely outrageous and jaw-dropping if you’ve never heard of them. Each one is also actually in the Bible. However, most of them are not examples of a Biblical marriage.

What does “biblical” mean? Well it can mean “Of, relating to, or contained in the Bible” as defined in TheFreeDictionary.com. Basically anything that’s in the book regardless of its nature.

Biblical is also synonomous with being godly, or “Pious; reverencing God, and his character and laws; obedient to the commands of God from love for, and reverence of, his character; conformed to God's law; devout; righteous; as, a godly life.” (BrainyQuote.com) This, I think, is the meaning that most of us have in mind when we talk about something being “biblical”: that it reflects the character and precepts of God as set forth in the Bible.

Just because something is in the Bible (the first definition) doesn’t mean that it is in fact biblical (the second definition). The Bible doesn’t just show you what you’re supposed to do and then give examples of people who did them, the Bible shows us people in their real lives doing real things. These are often real crazy, downright outrageous things. Because real people do real outrageous, crazy things. Just because someone lives their life in the heart of Crazy Town, however, doesn’t mean we make them an example of the new standard for living. Usually we use it as an object lesson of what not to do. Why? Because it’s an indication of a wild deviation from the standard, whatever that standard is. And we know they’re deviating from a standard because when there is no standard, there can be no deviation, and where there’s no possibility for deviation you can never have shocking, outrageous behavior.

And so I am compelled to make the distinction between the marriages in the Bible, as mentioned in the YouTube vid, versus what a biblical marriage actually is.

In my previous two essays I tackled the statements that a biblical marriage is one man, his wife, and their murderous son, or the story of Adam, Eve and their son Cain. The video implies that, after killing his younger brother Abel, Cain then had sex with his mother, Eve. While it is true that Cain must have married some female relation by virtue of population size at the time, it was likely a sister, niece or great-niece and not his mom. While God is very much against the murder, Cain isn't faulted for his choice of wives. While it was incest, it wasn't something condemned by God--not then at least.

The next example was one man and his sister (Abraham and Sarah), and that biblical marriage is one man, his sister, and her servant (Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar). In the first instance, it’s okay that Abraham and Sarah are married half-brother and half-sister (but pretty gross to me) because there are no laws prohibiting that level of incestuous relationship yet. It was, in fact, a fairly common practice. There would be laws regarding incest, and they would cover just about everything you could think of and then some, but they don’t exist yet. In that regard, blaming Abraham and Sarah for being married half-sibs would be like a cop giving you a ticket for parking in a spot where a hydrant will eventually go.

In the second instance, Sarah convinces Abraham to sleep with her servant Hagar so Hagar can get pregnant and “fulfill” the prophecy God had given to Abraham that he would have a son--even though the child was supposed to be born to his wife. The whole thing turns into a hot, baked-in-the-desert-sun, ghetto mess that God eventually fixes. It would continue to cause problems down the line, and still does to this day. But that’s what happens when you try do “help” God. Usually you end up needing him a whole lot more than you did when you started. The lesson here? Don’t help God, listen to him.

In this essay, I’m going to be covering the issue of Lot, his wife and daughters, and the “good” citizens of the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. ( Read more... )

FYI: I'll probably be coming back to this one with links to the various parts of the Bible referenced here. It's always good to read the words for yourself.

If you missed my previous posting, I am writing a (hopefully) brief series of essays in response to a YouTube video that supposedly lays out the dirty truth behind what a Biblical marriage really is. In the course of the video approximately fifteen examples of “marriages” are brought up, each one completely outrageous and jaw-dropping if you’ve never heard of them. Each one is also actually in the Bible. However most of them are not examples of a Biblical marriage.

What does “biblical mean?” Well it can mean “Of, relating to, or contained in the Bible” as defined in BrainyQuote.com. This, I think, is the meaning that most of us have in mind when we talk about something being “biblical”: that it reflects the character and precepts of God as set forth in the Bible.

Just because something is in the Bible (the first definition) doesn’t mean that it is in fact biblical (the second definition). The Bible doesn’t just show you what you’re supposed to do and then give examples of people who did wonderful things, the Bible shows us people in their real lives doing real things. Often real crazy, downright outrageous things. Because real people do real outrageous, crazy things. Just because someone lives their life in the heart of Crazy Town, however, doesn’t mean we make them an example of the new standard for living. Usually we use it as an object lesson of what not to do. Why? Because it’s an indication of a wild deviation from the standard, whatever that standard is. And we know they’re deviating from a standard because when there is no standard, there can be no deviation, and where there’s no possibility for deviation you can never have shocking, outrageous behavior.

And so I am compelled to make the distinction between the marriages in the Bible, as mentioned in the YouTube vid, versus what a biblical marriage actually is.

In my last essay I tackled the statement made in the video that a biblical marriage is one man, one woman, and incest with your murderous son. The reference is to Adam, Eve and Cain (and Abel, his murdered brother). The statement is incorrect in saying, or insinuating, that Eve and Cain were ever sexually involved. He actually gets kicked out of the area pretty quickly after killing Abel. There is, however, incest. At some point Cain marries a woman who must have been his sister or niece or great-niece. This isn’t a sin though. Gross? Yes. Sin? No.

Why? Because at that point there was no law against incestuous relationships, much to my own chagrin, but whatever. There would be a law, a very detailed, covers-all-the-points-including-things-you-didn’t-think-of law, but at the time when Cain marries his female relation, it doesn’t exist. As such he’s never condemned for it.

Which brings me to the next example in the video: Abraham and Sarah. In the video it claims that Abraham and Sarah are brother and sister. And they’re half right. They are half-siblings. Apparently Abraham and Sarah have the same father, but not the same mother (see Genesis 20:12 as Abraham tries to explain why his lie about not being married to Sarah isn’t bad as it seems). ( Read more... )

A while ago now, I came across a YouTube video, “Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else". It was put out there as being really, really funny by a non-Christian friend of mine.

Naturally, I wanted to avoid it like the plague. Why? Because I could only imagine it was a vid of some uber-right wing-y, ultra-conservative Southern Baptist Christian Fundamentalist behaving badly—or perhaps not badly, but oddly.

Admit it, there are some of things about your group—whether it’s religious, ethnic, cultural, fannish, etc.—that just doesn’t make sense to outsiders, and/or confuses the newbies. Worse, once exposed to the harsh light of viral videos, it makes you look silly in the eyes of the ever-judging world.

I thought the Betty Bowers vid was one of these. Either she was a genuine Christian doing things that non-Christians don’t understand (and that even we realize look strange to non-Christians) or she was cultural-Christian making genuine Christians look bad with her poor theology.

That’s what I thought. I was wrong.

My curiosity is never-failing, and I often click on things that I, at first, tell myself I won’t or shouldn’t. You guessed it. I clicked on the Betty Bowers link, even though I didn’t want to. I steeled myself to be embarrassed. I steeled myself to laugh in spite of myself, and frown immediately thereafter. I had steeled myself for the wrong things.

If you haven’t already watched the video, it’s a satire that's basically poking fun (and that’s stretching the idea of what “poking fun” is) at Christians and the idea of Christian marriage. The actress, since I’m presuming her real name isn’t “Betty Bowers,” starts the video by telling us that not only do the “heathens” not know what a Biblical marriage is, but clearly the Christians don’t either. Then she proceeds to give examples of what a “Biblical” marriage is.

Except, for the most part, they aren’t Biblical marriage.( Read more... )

What do I get for slacking off and not doing my work? My internet dies without actually dying (I had a strong connection, but not one of my 3 browsers could get in touch w/anyone or anything). So what do I do? Haul tail and start working, that's what I do! And so where am I at? Either on point 13 out of 15, sub-points not included) or editing in some stuff I wasn't sure about using for point 11.

Yes, He does move in mysterious ways ;)

I started to write this ridiculously long comment to my del.icio.us tag for this article when I realized I might as well just put it all in a posting, b/c that's exactly where I was headed, I was just too tired to realize it.

Assuming you have not read the article it is, in short, about two male saints (in the Catholic sense) who are thought to have been an openly gay couple in the early church. (It can't be too early, however, b/c there is a picture of them which also contains a miniature of Christ but Christ was not portrayed in the earliest Christian art.) Not only were they openly gay, but their marriage, and others, were accepted and normal for that early church.

Let's say all of this is true and historians haven't misread or misunderstood either the text about these two fellows (and it looks like the haven't) or misinterpreted the iconography of the art representing them. The point of the article is that the early church was tolerant and that today's church should do likewise, that sexuality and marriage were fluid in early Christendom and it is only in these modern times that we have become so rigid. Personally I think a review of the last 50 years would prove that last statement untrue, but to deal with the issue at hand...

( Read more... )

So I started and wrote most of this at lunch, which is always dangerous what with my blood sugar being in flux. This was supposed to be more of a quick thought than a whole mini-rant or -thesis (I still have to get back to you, Katya. Argh-at-self!) but turned into something longer and I had to email it to myself so I could finish. So here it be.

Anywho, while perusing Amazon.com for a song I heard on Cross Rhythms ("Spirit I Am" by Erik Bibb if you're curious), I started surfing through their links and ended up at the page for unChristian by David Kinnamen. The title itself was too interesting to pass up, so I read the description to see if it's something I wanted to put on order with my library. While reading it, though, I started to wonder whether it was really the book for conservative/fundamental (since I can't seem to decide which word best fits) me. It seemed that so many of the "negatives" connotations being associated with Christians are the very things I've been arguing in my lay Apologetic ventures. So, like any good reader who wants a sense of whether she's going to like the book, I read the comments. They weren't proving very helpful either. Their comments just weren't giving me whatever keyword or phrases I was looking for that would tell me "This is a book with a Liberal Christian standpoint, be prepared to take it that way and see what the thought process is there" or "This is a Con/Fundamental Christian book, see what you can glean from this for your own use/knowledge." I was, and am, still going to borrow it but I wanted to not be surprised. *shrugs*


And then I found this comment. What I thought was of particular interest was: "These people are perverting the teachings of the Bible to fit their own bigotry. They are no different from folks who waived the Bible in the air to defend slavery or to reject women's suffrage." Ironically enough, I'd say the same thing about him. Yes it's true that the Bible and Christianity have often been used to push people's personal agendas and not God's (Katya and I argued slavery, dietary restrictions and women's rights(?) in our "landmark" discussion, which I can't link b/c it's on a members-only site), but just because you personally don't like it doesn't mean something isn't Biblically true. To determine what is or isn't you have to go to the Book itself. And the whole book, not just passages, not just the New Testament and not just the Old Testament, but a survey of the Book that focuses on the topic in question.

That said...homosexuality is one of those topics that is carried over from the Old Testament to the New Testament, and in which there is no new commentary by Jesus or the Apostles. The Old Testament calls it a sin and abomination, and the New Testament agrees. The NT doesn't tell you to stone anyone caught in homosexuality, or whatever the punishment might have been, but it doesn't change the tone of how it is viewed by God. It's one of those things that's clearly stated and definitely reinforced. So where's the room for "twisting" the text to say it is a sin when that is what it's clearly called? Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not negate it. If His coming didn't make theft, murder, lying, adultary, etc., okay to do then why did it make homosexuality okay or of no consequence?

And I'm gonna end here, but only because I feel a full thesis coming on.

So I picked up and finished Patricia Brigg's Blood Bound from her new Mercedes Thompson series. Vampires, werewolves, shapeshifters, oh my.

Am now reading Kim Harrison's For a Few Demon's More. More vampires, more werewolves, plus witches, demons and pixies (and fairies and elves and every other thing that's not supposed to exist). From her Hollows, or maybe Rachel Morgan, series.

Am also reading Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias. No vamps, no wolves, no witches or pixies or fairies or elves, but there may or may not be demons. I haven't gotten that far yet ;)

I'm done.