Posts
'via Blog this'
- CJ
- Maryland
"Bravo on highlighting the contradictions within christianity that almost all christians are unaware exist. While I love pointing out christian hypocrisy in the hopes that they'll realize how misguided they are (never happens), I contend that religion of any kind should be removed from the equation. In human history, families/tribes/whatever existed just fine without religion, so that should be the baseline. As someone born without religion, being minimally exposed to it while growing up (healthy doses), and avoiding it as an adult (still educated on it that most people of faith), I can't help but feel my rights as an American citizen being infringed upon or taken away when someone of faith attempts to force their "values" on me. As a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and an outside observer of religious people, born again any faith, and recovering people of faith, I have yet to witness a true positive aspect of being a believer, which calls into question these values families are supposed to possess. In war, the faithful were so sure that they were answering god's calling to kill islamic extremists (no, their country called them). On the flip side, I dealt with many faithful using times of worship to get out of doing their job (unbelievable and dangerous). The hatred exhibited was obscene, which caused me to counsel many of my subordinates because they lost sight of the mission and that we were not there to simply kill people...tough sell to those of faith."
‘Christian’ Ideals That Christ Wouldn’t Recognize
Stephanie Coontz teaches history and family studies at The Evergreen State College and is the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage." She is the director of research at the Council on Contemporary Families.
APRIL 24, 2012
It is ironic that so many politicians claim to defend traditional Christian values of “faith and family.” In fact, a radical antifamily ideology permeates Christ’s teaching, and the early Christian tradition often set faith and family against each other.
In the gospels, Jesus repeatedly insists that his followers forsake their worldly ties to build a more inclusive brotherhood (and sisterhood) of true believers. Christ and the early church viewed the kinship solidarities, marital alliances and inheritance practices of families as competitors for converts’ allegiances.
The Christian message of celibacy might be a tough sell on the campaign trail, but Jesus warned his followers that they would face derision.
“Honor your father and mother,” Christ commands, and “love” your neighbor. But leave your parents, siblings and spouse to follow me – even if you must “hate” them in order to leave. Do not even stop, Jesus tells one follower, to bury your own father. In one scene recounted in the gospels of Matthew, Mark andLuke, Jesus denies that members of his own nuclear family deserve a special audience with him, declaring that his real family is the community of believers.
Early Christians worried that marriage diverted emotional and material resources from Godly service, undermining the special imperative of preaching the gospel to the poor and ministering to their needs. “It is better,” Paul conceded, for those who cannot exercise self-control … “to marry than to burn" with passion. But it is better still, he argued, not to marry at all.
Several passages in the gospels, and a few early Christian writers, suggested that the married state was no worse than celibacy. But this was explicitly ruled a heresy by the Church at the end of the fourth century. Even St. Augustine, whose defense of the “goods” of marriage is much quoted by contemporary marriage promoters, declared that, “it is better for human society itself not to have need of marriage.” Not until 1215 was marriage even made one of the Christian sacraments.
Certainly, the Christian suspicion of marriage had nothing to do with endorsing nonmarital sex or cohabitation, despite the radical (dare we say socialistic?)practice of the apostles, who held “all things in common … and divided them among all, as anyone had need.” Still, it strikes me as a failure of nerve when politicians tell gays and lesbians to give up their dream of marriage and remain celibate without mentioning that this was also the traditional advice to heterosexuals seeking to live a moral life.
Granted, this would be a tough sell on the campaign trail, even with the concession that weak-willed heterosexuals should be allowed to cool their passions within marriage. But didn’t Jesus repeatedly warn his followers that they must be prepared to accept hatred and derision? And when he told his followers to turn the other cheek, surely he didn’t mean bend to the prevailing wind.
Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates ontwitter.com/roomfordebate.
Stronger Families, Stronger Societies
The Definition of Marriage Bends Toward Justice
30 Comments
Sounds a lot like what a cult leader might require of his/her followers to me.
But I bet the "family values" people would uniformly dislike me. I (and my wife and children) am an atheist. Not particularly agressive about it, I don't care what other people think as long as it doesn't get in my way; I just don't like religion and find all aspects of all religions kind of creepy.
I am in favor of legal abortion; I am in favor of gay rights. I am in favor of much more progressive tax rates. I am in favor of a really solid social safety net. I am in favor of single payer health care. None of this interferes in any way with my (very happy) family life.
In that sense, I am similar to Obama: a highly successful marriage, with wonderful children. Why are the "family values people" always supporting people like Sarah Palin, or Gingrich, or Reagan.
I think they are all hypocrites; they want something altogether unrelated to successful families, and I just don't know what it is.
Gay marriage however, whether you are for or against it, is a radical innovation with no roots in human history. If you think that's OK then fine -- you're as much entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. But it has nothing to do with any sort of traditional family values, which have always and everywhere been fundamentally about the production and rearing of children.
In Ancient Greece, women were believed incapable of more than a facsimile of love; while necessary for child-bearing, and as objects of lust, real love and valuable relationships were between men. Often, older men mentored young men in exchange for sex.
Marriage is about a lot more than children. It's about alliances between families, the sharing of finances, the male control over women, religious values, the next best thing to celibacy, and yes, love and friendship.
Should elderly or impotent people not marry? Should we not consider the overpopulation of our planet when legislating marriage based in child birth?
The opening statement is "radical antifamily ideology permeates Christ’s teaching". Are you listening to yourself? You can not state opposite ideas of and be accurate.
"But leave your parents, siblings and spouse to follow me..." Jesus did not say that, this was an action his disciples took and he told them they would be rewarded.
The sentence before your quoted scripture: "Peter said, “We’ve left our homes to follow you."" The 12 disciples did sacrifice their lives to follow Jesus, his statement to them was they would be richly rewarded for it.
Jesus did not have a twitter account, literally, if you followed him you simply had to leave your job family, and life as you know it. Jesus told a rich snot who had everything to sell it all, does that mean Jesus requires all Christians to sell all their possessions? No, you are being obtuse and you are making word play jumbling scriptures around.
If the US recruits a man into the military doesn't he sacrifice his life to become a soldier? Does this mean that the government is anti-family because he must leave his family to serve? No.
"...even if you must “hate” them in order to leave", not scriptural. You stripped out that they needed to hate themselves too, and that this is required to be a disciple. I have a feeling that you will not understand James 4:4, "Friendship with the world is enmity to God." Anyone know what that means?
materialistism and a more selfish version of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I don't care for Ms. Rand's 'virtue of selfishness' -- but at least she never claimed to be a Christian. She proudly told all who would hear that she was an athiest.
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
4 And He(Jesus) answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Romans 1:26-27)
The mere fact that the traditional nuclear family has changed over time is not proof of obedience to God and His word, but rather proof of rejection of His word and His will for us.
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html
Low or no minimum wage rates and two or three jobs per mother or father result in limited parenting and almost no time with children. Fighting public health options and health reform which families and children desparately need leaves them without effective care. Preferring private schools over public schools leaves many children with less than effective or equal educations. Focusing on unborn fetuses with no suport for born children leaves every child unsupported. These conflicts and anti-family positions runs rampant among Republicans and too many Christians. Even the Catholic Church came out against American nuns criticising them for spending too much time on the poor and social justice, and not enough time defending the Church's anti-gay, anti-birth control and abortion positions. How anti family can Christian leaders get?
That is why Jesus said they must make a decision to be his apostle now, not at some point in the future.
So what are the real Family Values the Republicans speak so much about, but never seem to actually define? Is it possible to have a large nuclear family living under one roof without actually causing concern in the community? Is large nuclear family a positive for the community or are the people's misunderstanding of that family culture a stepping stone to shunning by the community?
In fact, most communities actually have laws against large nuclear families by establishing regulations on how many people may live in one house, even if they are direct family members.
And under these hard economic times, these regulations become a thorn in the sides of people trying to exercise their own set of family values by having their family coming together for the financial good of the whole. The same regulations even stopped many from exercising their own family values when wishing to help with the displaced of New Orleans after Katrina.
No, I don't believe the Republicans who taut family values as one of their strengths because none of their policies seem to support the idea.
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://rwnorman.typepad.com/rwnormans_beer_food_and_p/
Liz Smith
March 15, 2004
... an online Presidential Prayer Team
urging us to pray for George W. Bush ... as he seeks,
among other things, the wisdom to legally codify the definition of
marriage.
This is a sincere group. But another Web site, which surely means to
be sarcastic, offers the following:
They say if the president has his way - to wit, that marriage in the
United States shall consist of a union between one man and one woman -
he will have to consider that biblically, it shall also consist of a
union between one man and one or more women. (Genesis 29:17-28; II
Samuel 3:2-5.)
Also, marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Samuel 5:13; II Chronicles 11:21.)
Marriage shall be valid only if the wife is a virgin. If she is not,
she shall be executed by stoning. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21.)
Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. (Genesis
24:3, Numbers 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 10:30.)
Marriage is for life, no state or federal law shall permit divorce.
(Deuteronomy 22:19; Mark 10:9.)
If a married man dies childless, his brother shall marry the widow. If
he refuses to marry his brother's wife or deliberately does not give
her children, he may pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished
in a manner determined by law. (Genesis 38: 6-10; Deuteronomy
25:5-10.)
There you have it. It's right there in the Bible, as Mel Gibson says.
Copyright (c) 2004, Newsday, Inc
The nature of families has changed so much with divorces and economic situations that it is not always possible for traditional family members to be the ones to offer the most support in the growing lives of children. It could be a grandparent or stepparent as well. Can we call this wrong? Actually in our modern world it is most important not who supplies support to children, but rather that someone supplies consistant, loving belief in the child's possibilities and that perhaps is the best we can ever do.