ec: We render to Caesar our absolute blind allegiance?
iou: No. You render to Caesar "the things that are Caesar's", and CIVIL marriage is 'Caesar's' (i.e. the State's)
No, marriage transcends Caesar. It existed long before Caesar did and was not invented by Caesar, but rather the Creator of the Universe. So if you want to have a society that will succeed and prosper, you want to conform your government practices to the Creators design and laws.
This is pious bullshit. It's bullshit because it uses the fallacy of equivocation.
Civil marriage is government marriage. It has nothing to do with holy matrimony.
Stop lying by equivocation.
Where have I equivocated and lied? Nothing I said above is ambiguous or false.
Plainly you lie to yourself first, and don't even know it.
Do_unto_others makes your fallacy plain. Pretending it isn't a fallacy doesn't make it go away.
roy: 4. Neither Genesis nor Hebrews provides any "scientific information". The Genesis creation accounts, which contradict each other on a face-value reading, are not meant to be taken literally; they're not that kind of literature -- indeed, each of the accounts is more than one type of ancient literature at the same time, which is a marvellous thing with its own lessons for us!
ec: No, the evidence points to them being historical narrative which means that they should be understood literally but not necessarily using the most obvious hebrew defintion. Such as the term day, can also mean a long indefinite but finite time. In english a better term would be Age. Genesis 2 is just a telescoping in on Day 6. There are no contradictions between Gen. 1 and 2.
roy: They're not "historical narrative". The first Creation account is actually two types of literature in one, which is a pretty impressive stunt: it's a royal chronicle, relating in memorable fashion an accomplishment of a great king, and it's a temple inauguration ceremony, relating the arrival of a deity in a temple carefully prepared for that arrival, the arrival being confirmed when the deity "rests" in the temple.
Absurd, there is no mention or even hint of a king or a temple. And the words are hebrew prose, no metaphorical language or poetic language is used.
And nothing in the words "once upon a time" says that what follows is going to be fiction.
The story itself told the original listeners that it was both a royal chronicle and a temple inauguration ceremony. Those forms were known and recognized in a world were there were standard ways of telling things. No one had to say the word "king"; the genre made that obvious, and thus made obvious the message that this God, Elohim, is king of all. And no one had tosay the word "temple"; the genre made that evident, too, though not fully until the very end, where God is depicted as resting, which would have come as an "Aha!" sort of moment where the listeners would realize that this king, Elohim, had set up all of Creation as a place where He could meet with His people.
BTW, the first Creation account has poetic structure, as many have noted. That itself is a common feature of royal chronicle.
The alternative meaning for the word day is used, meaning age.
roy: In conetext, the Hebrew word "day" is meant to be taken as a regular day -- just not a literal one; it's a literary device to hang the organization of the account on.
No, it is the hebrew literal word for Age that can also mean a 24 hour day, but we now know thru God's other book, nature, that it means Age.
ec: And yes, there are contradictions between the two accounts, if they're taken as "historical narrative".
Tying 'yom' to "evening" and "morning" strongly indicates the idea of twenty-four hours. You need some pretty strong evidence from the text to show otherwise.
BTW, right there is some metaphorical language in Genesis 1: "evening", "morning", and "day" are all metaphorical until the sun is created, so a strict reading of the account requires those at least to be metaphorical. That's typical of a royal chronicle; the temporal structure is a framework for organizing the material, so that "day", while meaning a twenty-four hour period, is one only metaphorically. So in the final analysis "age" is a totally wrong translation, since the time period isn't a literal one at all, just an organizational element to the chronicle.
Oh -- "Fraid not" isn't an argument. You can't take the accounts literally and have them match up; you have to do some serious abuse to the text, as YECers love to do, to make them fit together and both be "historical narrative". Since they aren't, though, there's no problem.
I never said that I believe the US is officiall a Christian nation. Please reread my posts. And I am not a domionionist, though I do agree with them that God's moral law still applies today. But they believe that Hebrew civil law still applies, I don't.
You want favoritism for your sect or brand of Christianity. That makes you a dominionist -- dominionist light, it may be, but still dominionist.
And the Bible makes no distinction between "moral" and "civil" law -- it's just the Law.
Stop reading Calvin and Calvinists, and find some real theology.
Fraid so, the framework of the moral law are the only laws carved in stone.
I feel like I'm arguing with a two-year-old.
There was both "ceremonial" and "moral" law "written in stone. But that's irrelevant: my statement was that the Bible makes no distinction between moral or ceremonial or civil or anything else -- and it doesn't. Retreating to what the Ten Words were first inscribed on just tells me you know I'm right -- there's no distinction between laws in the Bible. That's a lawyer's invention, the sort lawyers make in order to weasel out of something they don't like.
Paul even indicates that all Law was the same, when he notes that to have failed in one point is to have failed in all. As a Pharisee, he was perfectly aware that in Israel there was no such thing as "civil law"; all law was spiritual if it came from God. Anything in Deuteronomy that appears to be civil law is actually just detailing the way in which the Ten Words were to be dealt with, and thus is all spiritual, whether cities of refuge or assignment of the portions of sacrifices or what to eat.
No, you still have not demonstrated marriage as a right. It is neither considered as a right in the Constitution nor in God's law which are the two sources of rights acknowledged by the founders. Actually privacy has never been proven to be a right either. Sorry try again.
None of which makes any difference. Civil marriage is a matter of state jurisdiction. It is a legal contract distinct from "Holy Matrimony" and is governed by state law.
The 14th amendment guarantees equality with respect to state law. That is the "right" we are talking about. There need not be a "right to marriage" enumerated in the Constitution or implied in the Constitution in order for the 14th amendment to require equal application of state law with respect to civil marriage.
To God there is no distinction, God is Lord of both the secular and the sacred. There is only marriage and it is holy whether you are believers or not. See my earlier post where I quote Supreme Court justices demonstrating that the 14th amendment was passed for freed slaves, it had nothing to do with marriage laws. As even you admitted at that time marriage laws were only handled by the states, not the federal government.
Gee, I guess Jesus was just flapping His lips, and had to wait for Calvin to straighten Him out, when He drew a line between God and Caesar. Crap, your arguments remind me of the way various Jewish sects at the time of Christ twisted things to weasel out of plain requirements of the Law!
Your SCOTUS justives were asses, because it was recognized in the debates for ratification that the Fourteenth applied to all rights and for everyone. The immediate cause for its passage was the freed slaves, but the meaning was for all. The occasion of passage does not restrict the application.
And the federal government has authority over marriage because the Constitution requires that all states honor each others' acts. It's up to the federal government to make sure that they do -- that's one of its basic functions. It also has authority over marriage because it is the guarantor of basic rights, and no law, regardless of what it concerns, can be allowed to stand if it contravenes basic rights.