Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Faith in Lodi and the region First marriage? Adam and Eve

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.

4 comments:

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 5:36 pm on Sun, Apr 14, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    I'm guessing that Mr. DockTER believes in the Bible verse then , the rapist shall marry his victim and pay her father a paltry sum for the privilege?

    I'm also guessing that Mr. Bird, who seems well versed in the Bible, is not necessarily an atheist, but more likely is well educated on the absurdities of said volume of myths.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 12:14 pm on Sun, Apr 14, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    L. Christopher Bird stated:


    Or you know, maybe we can accept the radical notion that a creation story written 2700 years ago does not have any authority by how people should define marriage in the 21st century.

    -Sounds a lot like our fellow Atheists who have the philosophy that to believe in nothing means to believe in anything.

     
  • L. Christopher Bird posted at 11:29 pm on Sat, Apr 13, 2013.

    ZenMondo Posts: 4

    Like Jonathan Winkelman, I have an interest in what the bible says on many topics, including marriage. But unlike Mr. Winkleman, I do not think that definitions or morality that were espoused in the bronze age are necessarily relevant to how we live our lives in the 21st Century.

    Mr Winkleman states, "I am a pastor who believes in the complete authority and reliability of God's Word, the Bible. I believe that within the pages of this ancient yet culturally and socially relevant book, we find the answers to all of life's questions." and by implication is in favor of placing the force of secular law that aligns with his biblical views. I would be very interested if he thinks that the definition of marriage given in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and should be practiced today. Perhaps you are not familiar with the passage, let me quote it for you.

    "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. "

    Since Mr. Winkleman asserts, "Marriage, then, belongs to God and is defined by Him. Since marriage is not a man-made institution, it is therefore not ours to define." It is my understanding that if he had a virgin daughter who was brutally raped, he would, since "God's word settles it" he would insist that this woman of an assault would marry her rapist, never to be divorced and profit from the encounter by the amount of anywhere between $291 to $581 depending on the value of silver. As an authority in his church, I suppose this is the biblical counseling of marriage he would have for any parishioners who were the victims of rape.

    Or you know, maybe we can accept the radical notion that a creation story written 2700 years ago does not have any authority by how people should define marriage in the 21st century.

     
  • David Diskin posted at 9:16 am on Sat, Apr 13, 2013.

    David Diskin Posts: 178

    If marriage belongs to the church, then why does the state get all mixed up in it?

    Are you suggesting that we eliminate the tax benefits that are associated with marriage?

     

Recent Comments

Posted 2 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: We need to stop meddling, spend…

Oh, Andrew, just stop it! Or, I guess I should be saying that to myself because I continue to respond. 1. I'm not going to watch a video…

More...

Posted 4 hours ago by Ed Walters.

article: Police: Lodi man attacked by bicycle-ri…

Evidently it takes 6-7 young cowards to make a point, hitting a 70 year old man, oh what courage. Perhaps the older man should have stayed…

More...

Posted 5 hours ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: Letter: Advertisement was inappropriate

A violation of Rules #4, #5 & #6 was not the reason cited.[sleeping]

More...

Posted 6 hours ago by Lisa Cross-Robinson.

article: Letter: Where are the compassionate doc…

That's a good question. My father was a doctor from the late 50's to the mid 1980's and he still made an occasional house call before his r…

More...

Posted 7 hours ago by Jerome Kinderman.

article: Letter: Lodi’s post office needs beauti…

Considering the consistent financial losses enjoyed by the USPS and their abysmal service (they actually look like they're working in slow …

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists