[Uucf-bible] my first posting - with lots of questions

Tue Sep 7 16:27:10 EDT 2004

Dear everyone on the uucf-bible list:

I am a UU minister in Stillwater, Oklahoma (within a short driving
distance of Ron Robinson!) who was put on this list when it began, but
I have not yet posted anything.  I have enjoyed reading what I have
had a chance to look at - and have saved the posts so that I can take
a look at what's been going on since the beginning of the summer.

Today one of my church members, "Doug", sent me a bunch of questions
related to the controversy going on about marriage rights, a hot topic
here in the Bible Belt.  Doug was in conversation with another person,
"Barbara", and below is what they have been discussing the Oklahoma
State Representative Jim McDermott's position.

Doug writes:

"Any relevant bible quotes or insights that you have would be greatly
appreciated."

...and I would be grateful too!

Felicia Urbanski

-------------------------- 
07/24/2004 03:05 PM
This is forwarded by Barbara from another list.
The person who posted it to that list wrote:

The following is from page H596 of the US Congressional Record for
February
25, 2004.  The comments were entered into the record by my
Representative,
Jim McDermott and I am very proud of him.

   CODIFYING ``BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES'' OF MARRIAGE

 (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
 Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the President's presidential prayer team
is urging us to ``pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to
legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be
according to Biblical principles.''
 With that in mind, I thought I would remind the body of the biblical
principles they are talking about.
 Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more
women. That is from Genesis 29:17-28.
 Secondly, marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines
in addition to his wife or wives. That is II Samuel 5:13 and II
Chronicles 11:21.
 A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If
the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. That is Deuteronomy
22:13.
 Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. That is
Genesis 24:3.
 Finally, it says that since there is no law that can change things,
divorce is not possible, and finally, if a married man dies, his
brother has to marry his sister-in-law.

------------------------- 

08/03/2004 10:20 AM
Barbara  -  I, too, applaud Jim McDermott for attempting to show that
the customs of Bible times are different from what the religious right
is claiming currently.  But I cannot say that I am proud of how well
he did.  Most of the verses he referred to do not fully support the
statement they are said to support.  This leaves an easy opening for
the right to dismiss what he says.

It appears to me that he found this material (on the internet
perhaps?) and accepted these statements at face value.  Surely, before
entering his remarks into the Congressional Record he should have
checked them to be sure of their accuracy or had one of his staffers
check them.  I believe there are better supporting verses for most of
these points, or at the least, God's favor and obvious approval of the
people who behaved in these ways is quite clear and could be cited.

  Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more
women. That is from Genesis 29:17-28. [These verses do not state that
it SHALL be the case. They do show that it was the custom at that
time.]
 Secondly, marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines
in addition to his wife or wives. That is II Samuel 5:13 and II
Chronicles 11:21. [These two verses demonstrate the custom of kings
taking many wives and concubines, but do not show that there was ever
a divine statement that it SHALL be so.  And David was God's favorite,
but Rehoboam was one of the kings who "did evil in the sight of the
Lord" and is therefore not the best example that could be brought
forward (even though his evil is not said to be connected with his
family values).]
 A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If
the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. That is Deuteronomy
22:13. [Finally we have a law stated as God's word, but the citation
is wrong. The 2 relevant verses are 22:20-21.]
 Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. That is
Genesis 24:3. [Neither Gen 24:3 nor 28:1 prove that such pairings were
forbidden.  Both Abraham and Isaac wanted wives for their sons from
among their own people, but Esau purposely took an extra wife from
among the Canaanites in order to get back at his parents.]

The only people who will be impressed by these "refutations" of the
claim that God's law requires pairings between one man and one woman
are those who don't know their Bibles.

Showing that God tolerated such customs and favored those who
practiced them would be better; it would be harder for the religious
right to knock down.  The right may claim that the Old Testament ways
are superseded by the New Testament, but I believe that there are no
clear commandments supporting their views in the New Testament, only
more customs and possible interpretations.  There is plenty of
ambiguous material to support years of verbal battle between the
various sides, as always seems to be the case.  -  Doug

------------------- 
After she sent out the Jim McDermott statement a second time, I
reminded her that I had written critiquing it and objecting to it as
seriously flawed.  She responded in part:

I had forgotten that I had posted this before.  I will send out your
critique as soon as I can. ...  I'll put it in the queue.
Thanks for your comments.

-------------------- 
I wrote back saying:
Barbara  -  I don't think my critique is in the proper form to be sent
out to the whole world.  It was written with only you in mind as the
audience, so it doesn't state it as I would if it were going to be
cast broadly.  If you want to send a correction-message to your whole
list eventually, I can try to work up a version of Jim McDermott's
statement that says what needs to be said without the shortcomings of
his statement.  I'll find different bible quotes and make sure the
verse citations are all correct.  Shall I do that?  I understand that
it may be a while before you send such a message out.  -  Doug

--------------------- 
and she has answered:
Okay.  Just send me your version when it's finished.
Barbara

--------------------------- 
--------------------------- 
So, I will be doing some bible study to determine what the best quotes
are that can support a more liberal interpretation of the bible's
stand on proper family type than the view that God doesn't sanction
any form of family other than One Man/One Woman.  I hope you can give
me some help and advice.

Thanks.  -  Doug

*****
...and thanks again, to you good folks on this uucf list, from
Felicia!