So, as I suspected
would happen, following a letter I wrote to the Herald, refuting Rev
Bill Wallace's objections to Same-Sex Marriage, I have received a
letter, complete with religious tract, from a God-botherer. No
address, but does anyone know of a “R Gordon”? Glasgow postmark
on the envelope.
Okay, let the dog
see the rabbit. Somebody's about to get schooled...
“Your letter in
the Herald (2.6.2016) caused me concern that a person could be so
ignorant of the Bible and God's Word to mankind.”
It concerns me too,
pal, and I suggest you go actually study the Bible before you attempt
to educate me upon it.
“God presents His
standard in the Bible which does not and cannot change because He is
the same yesterday, today and for ever.”
WRONG. In Exodus
21:24, God's commandment is “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot”, yet in the Beatitudes, Jesus taught the
multitude, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not
evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him
the other also.” (Matthew 5:38). Therefore, if we were to accept
that Jesus were God incarnate, as the tract accompanying R Gordon's
letter firmly states, then that is but one instance where God did
indeed change his standards. I could also point out that Adam and
Eve were allegedly vegan, but after the flood mankind was allowed to
eat meat, and many other instances in the Bible where God's
“standards” changed arbitrarily, according to whatever mood he happened to be in.
“And the rib,
which the Lord God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and
brought her unto the man.”
This from people who
call same-sex marriage and polygamy “unnatural”; a woman coming
from a man's rib. The patriarchal nature of a woman springing from a
man is not lost on me either.
“You will observe
that it was one woman, God could have given Adam many women but that
was not His plan and never has been.”
Really? Then let us
consider the story of Lilith, found in the Babylonian Talmud, but
written out of the Bible, because if there's one thing the church
can't stand, it's a single-minded, independent woman. Lilith was
Adam's first wife, created at the same time as him. However, she was
wilful and 'would not lie under him'. She then fled Adam and Eden,
and slept with the fallen angel Samael, giving birth to the demons
known as the Nephilim. Of course, this is all nonsense according to
Christians; mere mythology (because the rib woman and the talking
snake are absolute proof and perfectly logical of course), and no
mention of Lilith in the Bible. Whoops! There she is, right there
in one reference the early church failed to erase; “So God created
man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and
female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27).
There is of course
no mention of any marriage of Adam and Eve (or Adam and Lilith) in
the Bible, but if we accept that they were indeed married, then that
means that Adam did indeed have two wives.
“Abraham had one
wife Sarah but hey were not prepared to wait on God's plan and
decided on a plan of their own at Sarah's instigation, Genesis 16:2.
As a consequence they sinned and the Bible informs us that everyone
of us sins.”
Amazing what you can
present by quote-mining the Bible – except when the person you are
quote-mining to happens to know the Bible very well. Genesis 16:2
states, “And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath
restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may
be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the
voice of Sarai.” And the very next verse, Genesis 16:3, clearly
states “And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian,
after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her
to her husband Abram to be his wife.” TO BE HIS WIFE. Abraham had
TWO wives (and after Sarah's death married another, while Hagar was
still alive), thereby making him a bigamist.
Oh, but according to
R Gordon, this was sinful, and made God angry. Strangely enough,
that doesn't appear to have been the view of the Big Man, when he
later addresses Hagar in the same chapter; “And the angel of the
Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the
fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid,
whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee
from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the Lord said
unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed
exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.”
(Genesis 16:7-10). If what Hagar, Abraham and Sarah were doing was
so very sinful, why should God's “will” be to “multiply” her
seed “exceedingly”?
On Solomon's seven
hundred wives and three hundred concubines, R Gordon writes, “Just
because the Bible records this doesn't mean that God approves of
Solomon's action, a few verses later And the Lord was angry with
Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel.”
True, it does not
say that God approves of Solomon's actions, and neither does it say
God disapproved of them. That's kinda strange for a God whose
disapproval of certain actions is very well stated in the Bible.
After all, this is the same petty-minded psychopath who allegedly
destroyed all life, save for a boatload of people and animals,
because of the wickedness he had created in the first place.
In fact, there were three reasons why God was angry with Solomon. The first was not over the number of wives, but in what is a downright bigoted verse, the cultural and racial background of these women; “But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites: Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.” (1 Kings, 11:1-3). Secondly, it was Solomon who angered God by turning from him, and thirdly, by worshipping other gods, in direct contravention of the First Commandment (Thou shalt have no other gods before me); “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.” (1 Kings, 11:4).
In fact, there were three reasons why God was angry with Solomon. The first was not over the number of wives, but in what is a downright bigoted verse, the cultural and racial background of these women; “But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites: Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.” (1 Kings, 11:1-3). Secondly, it was Solomon who angered God by turning from him, and thirdly, by worshipping other gods, in direct contravention of the First Commandment (Thou shalt have no other gods before me); “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.” (1 Kings, 11:4).
At no place in 1
Kings 11, nor anywhere else in the Bible, Old or New Testament, is
the number of Solomon's wives and concubines given as the reason why
God was angry with him. If polygamy were the case for God's anger,
then he had plenty others to be angry with, including his favourite,
Abraham, and Moses, who wrote down the laws.
“In relation to
Matthew 19:5, as God the Son He restated the principle of a man and
woman being united in marriage in a special relationship and they
twain shall be one flesh. Multiple wives can in no stretch of the
imagination be described as that.”
Granted – in that
context. And as I pointed out in my original letter, the context of
this verse was Jesus replying a question which was given in the
singular, and as one does, was replying in the singular. The
Pharisees were in fact trying to trip Jesus up on his scripture; “The
Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is
it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matthew
19:3). Notice that the Pharisees stated “wife”, singular, not
“wives”, plural. Therefore, whilst they were referring to just
one wife, at no time even suggests the methaphorical man in question
need have only one wife. And of course, Jesus accordingly replies in
the singular. Now, from R Gordon's letter, I realise that he, like
so many other Christians, has an extremely poor grasp of grammar, but
to me that is as plain as the nose on your face.
And at no time in
his letter does R Gordon mention the Parable of the Ten Virgins,
“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins,
which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.”
(Matthew 25:1). In the whole of that parable, Matthew 25:1-12, there
is the reference to five wise virgins readying themselves for the
bridegroom, and the five unwise virgins who were not ready. A
metaphor it may well be, but if the Bible were to be believed, then
that was Jesus referring to a polygamous marriage. And no, they were
not bridesmaids. Even today the idea of bridesmaids presenting
themselves to the bridegroom is absurd, and in Biblical Judea, where
it was the mother of the bride who chose the bridesmaids, it would
have been not only be completely unheard of, but indeed scandalous.
The Bible clearly states “ten virgins, which took their lamps, and
went forth to meet the bridegroom” - polygamous marriage, allegedly
right from the lips of “God incarnate”.
Bottom line: at no point, anywhere, Old Testament or New Testament, does the Bible ever define marriage as one man, one woman. Polygamous marriage is the norm in the Bible, with monogamous marriage being the exception, rather than the rule. But then, contrary to what the Christian churches claim, nowhere does the Bible ever claim that marriage was created by the Judeo-Christian god. Another myth the churches have tried to perpetuate for over 2000 years.
Instead R Gordon
finishes their letter with the usual platitudinous guff of offering
me a Biblical verse, which is completely off-topic, trying to get me
to become a Christian, and which bears no relevance to my original
letter, and states “So the majority is not right, humankind is
called to accept Jesus as Saviour and Lord.”
Except of course, at
no point in my letter did I ever saw the majority were right. I
seldom think the majority are right, and I tend to leave ad populum
arguments to the religious who, having so few things to fall back
upon, are much more wont to use them than I ever would be.
My letter to The Herald, 2 June 2016:
My letter to The Herald, 2 June 2016:
