YoMike

...a hollow claim?

If you separate me, for instance, from what I consider and embrace as my identity, and my behavior, and my personal convictions, and the nature of my love... then what's left to hate or not hate?

Can you hate my beliefs, my behavior, my actions, and how I self-identify, and not hate me? What, then, is "me?"

Aren't Christians, for example, defined in God's eyes, by what they believe, feel, and do, in regards to Jesus, God and mankind? It seems to me the soul, in a theological sense, is very much assessed by the such parameters.

Please explain. It's a concept I have a genuine inability to wrap my head around.

I'm not attempting to be critical or snarky, here. I'd just never given much serious thought to how Biblical literalists regard Old Testament descriptions of giants. Genesis 6 is particularly cryptic: "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

>>> Who, or what, were the "sons of God" that bore children with "daughters of men," as described in Gen 6? What sort of interactions are being described here? Because the women are described, specifically, as being the offspring of men, it stands to reason that the "sons" are not. Who *are* these creatures that visited earth girls? Are angels sleeping with earth ladies? Does God condone these unions?

>>> What is the relationship between giants "in those days," already spoken of as a relic of antiquity by the author of Genesis, and contemporary giants (ie, persons with giantism)? Same condition--different condition? If it's the same condition, are we to believe that the mothers of giants have had unions with the "sons of God," whatever those are? Or are there different forms of giantism from a Biblical perspective? Is that difference clarified?

Again, I'm not looking to argue. This is an earnest exercise in curiosity. I'm just hoping to educate myself as to what Biblical literalists believe.

Marriage, we hear again and again, is a holy and fixed establishment, rooted in God, and advocated for in the Bible. Because Christian America is so firmly committed to a traditional, rather than revisionist (gasp!) concept of love, sex, and marriage, I thought I'd be helpful and lay out a few classic parameters according to Yahweh. These are the principles you're planning on adhering to, no?

Ladies, submit to your men. (Ephesians 5:22-23)

Ladies, if you're widowed without having borne a son, you've got to leave your home, join your brother-in-law's wives, and let him dork you. (Genesis 38:6-10)

Men, dork your female slave if your old lady is infertile. (Genesis 16)

Men, enjoy as many ladies as you like, so long as you marry them all. An **incomplete** list of Biblical polygamists:

Lamech, Esau, Jacob, Ashur, Gideon, Elkanan, David, Solomon, Rehaboam, Abijah, Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin, Belshazzar (Ladies, don't even **think** about enjoying more than one husband.)

Men, strike that earlier part about only enjoying women you marry. You don't have to marry your **conucbines.** Gideon, Nahor, Jacob, Eliphaz, Caleb, Manassah, Sau, David, Rehoboam, and Solomon didn't marry theirs.

On a related note, dump your concubine if you don't like her. (Genesis 21:10)

Men, become a soldier and take enemy war widows to bed. (Numbers 31:1-18)

Ladies, marry the man that rapes you. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Are you a slave? No worries. Your master will pick your spouse for you. (Exodus 21:4).

Many contemporary Christians insist that the Bible, and God, provide them with a clear picture of what marriage is. They seem to be utilizing a definition of marriage which doesn't reflect Biblical attitudes towards the practice, however.

My suggestion is that marriage, and attitudes about marriage, are matters of cultural convention rather than spiritual law--we've evolved, without too much debate, beyond many, many, many of the principles and practices depicted or even condoned by the Bible. Unless, of course, more religious folk than I thought abide by the following Biblical notions:

Ladies, submit to your men. (Ephesians 5:22-23)

Men, dork your female slave if your old lady is infertile. (Genesis 16)

Men, enjoy as many ladies as you like, so long as you marry them all. An **incomplete** list of Biblical polygamists:

Lamech, Esau, Jacob, Ashur, Gideon, Elkanan, David, Solomon, Rehaboam, Abijah, Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin, Belshazzar (Ladies, don't even **think** about enjoying more than one husband.)

Ladies, if you're widowed without having borne a son, you've got to leave your home, join your brother-in-law's wives, and let him dork you. (Genesis 38:6-10)

Men, strike that earlier part about only enjoying women you marry. You don't have to marry your **conucbines.** Gideon, Nahor, Jacob, Eliphaz, Caleb, Manassah, Sau, David, Rehoboam, and Solomon didn't marry theirs.

On a related note, dump your concubine if you don't like her. (Genesis 21:10)

Men, become a soldier and take enemy war widows to bed. (Numbers 31:1-18)

Ladies, marry the man that rapes you. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Are you a slave? No worries. Your master will pick your spouse for you. (Exodus 21:4).

If many of these princinpals can be dismissed by modern Christians as arbitrary features of ancient Hebrew culture (the need, for instance, for a wandering tribe to condone polygamy and incest for purposes of population growth), is it possible that notions of marriage, love, and sex, are far more flexible and worthy of evolution than given credit for?

I'm fully aware that the United States is a Christian majority nation, so yes, I'm offering up a pure hypothetical for the sake of a little argument.

If a vocal and well-organized coalition of Muslim and Orthodox Jewish voters in your state lobbied hard with leaders of the chicken and beef industries to end the production and sale of pork products--(ostensibly on a platform of public health, arguing that pork products, from bacon to sausage and cracklins, disproportionately contribute to heart disease and weight gain)--and they succeeded, would you gain a higher respect for secularism in lawmaking?

The secular standpoint, of course, would be that though Muslim and Orthodox Jews have every right to abstain from pork for *whatever* reasons (spiritual or health-related), society in general seems to function fine with an active pork industry.

What about the legalization of laboring on the Sabbath?

Does secularism have a place in lawmaking? I ASK THIS because many devoutly religious people vote in contradiction of secularism--advocating relgious displays on public land, or the illegalization of gay marriage--because they seek to vote according to their standards for relgious living.

Is it the duty of Muslims or Orthodox Jews to destroy the pork industry? Should fundamentalists Christians tolerate legalized labor on the Sabbath?