No I didn't research this, I just found it. But interesting...no?

The "Presidential Prayer Team" is currently urging us lo pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage for a propoised constitutional amendment. Pray that it will be according to Bibical principles, insisting that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government.
So here it how marriage will look if the U S constitution is amended to fully embrace the original "Biblical principle"' based on readings of the Holy Bible.
I. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women (Genesis 29:17-28; II Samuel 3:2-5)
2 Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives (II Samuel 5:13: I Kings ll:3;IIChhronicles ll: 21)
3. A marriage Shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
4 Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden (Geniesis 24:3: Numbers 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12: Nehemiah 10:30)
5. Since maarriage is for life, no federal or state Constitution nor law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deuteronomy 22 :19: Mark 10:9)
6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Genesis 38:6-10: Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

Hey, I like my shoes! Anyway, that's kinda...umm...well, not even close to politcally correct.

geezz... what happened to equality?

The old and new Testaments are very different. I'm no expert, but I reckon the new testaments says different. Wherever they disagree, the new Testament is valid, not the old.

One typical example of such is:
Old Testament: "Eye for an eye...."
New Testament: "Turn the other cheek..."

These are contradictory, but the intended message which supercedes the older one is "turn the other cheek". I'm sure there are similar things for marriage.


As for what happened to equality, there are loads of other passages in later books than those quoted, that say things like "a man must respect and love his wife" etc., don't worry, those above are from the old Jewish laws which as I say, have all been superceded by things that would be considered more politically correct today.

[ 05-23-2004, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Vaskez ]

So since the bible is 'suppose' to be the word of God... Did he/she/the divine presence get more politically correct in recent years? Since politics exist in the first place did he/she/the divine presence create them, or are they the devil's work?

The presidesnt should back off of the whole 'the bible says so' track... but some people go mad with power and twist things around for their benifit.

Oooooohhhh.... borderline religious discussion. Before it gets closed, let me add a friend's saying from years ago:

The Bible is inspired by God, but written by Man. Man sometimes gets it wrong.

Leaving before the gates slam shut... [img]smile.gif[/img]

*cough* *cough* Moratorium on religious discussion ring a bell?

I could debate that issue Bungle, but due to the current policy in effect, I will not.

As to the political angle, that's more for the Current Events forum anyway.

[ 05-23-2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Firestormalpha ]

I'm not sure if this should be classified as religion or politics. And as I said I just found it and thought it curious. I ain't claiming for it or ag'in it.

Aagh! If I see anyone say a topic should be in current events forum again, I'll virtually put my foot in their ass! Do you know what "extremely annoying" means? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Arvon, admit it, you're just a stirrer [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 05-23-2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Vaskez ]

Yes it was a joke. It was a sensitive one too. As for me I saw it as a joke, looked on the bright side. BUt then the implications that this might produce... well... better closed than a debate I suppose.