God and the Art of Toy and Diecast Marketing
Marriage in the 21st Century (Conclusion)
By L. S. Su
I have found this subject a difficult one to write about; hence I have not been making time to write. So it appears that either coincidentally or through some special arrangement, I was provided opportunity. What should have been a 1 hour layover in Akron, OH turned into a 9.5 hour delay. The incoming airplane was delayed in FL so they could repair something inside the airplane. Then by the time the plane was gassed up and ready, the flight crew was "no longer legal" (a new term that started in the 21st century). We then had to wait for another flight to arrive, so we could use a portion of their crew.
The airport in Akron is small and lovely. In he center there is this glass atrium with comfortable seats and plentiful power outlets. A few hundred years ago, my ancestors were probably on the constant prowl looking for an animal to hunt down. Now in the 21st century, most of us men no longer hunt creatures for food and warmth. Don't get me wrong, we still hunt, but now we hunt for electrical outlets. Though they don't move around, they are still very illusive and often difficult to even spot.
The sun streamed through the atrium and warmed my face. The sun also warmed my soul. Some of you who live in the North part of the US, probably can relate to this. It's just been such a cold and long Winter. We've gone days without even seeing the sun. And this Winter it's been way colder than normal. To simply sit, bask and enjoy the Sun was a rare treat for me.
In the Akron airport, for dinner you have a choice of Arby's or Cinnabon. Of course I chose the healthier of the two and asked the teenager working behind the counter,
"Which of the three Cinnabon products will make me the most fat?"
"Most people get the one pounder," replied the attendant with a smirk. "but if you are concerned about calories, you can order these quarter pound Cinnabons."
"I want the full experience," I replied. "Give me one pounder."
Because I found this to be a very difficult topic to write about, I think it's led to much procrastination. I see I've stretched this single topic of Marriage in the 21st Century into six segments with this article as the the final installment.
Marriage in the 21st Century:
Introduction
Holy Moly Guacamole
Kicking God Out
The Trouble with Groupings
Tying it Together
Whether you are for or against same sex marriage, passage into law for the right for same sex couples to marry is gaining momentum throughout the world. However it's not without controversy. All topics that related to human rights directly relate to morals. It's important that you understand this, so I'll say it again. All human rights directly relate to morals.
To my knowledge, nobody has successfully dissected a human right. Rights are neither grown in a laboratories or mass produced in China. The last time I checked, rights are something endowed to us by our Creator.
One thing I would like to point out is that both opposing parties have something in common here; Neither party is advocating for a society devoid of morals. That would be total anarchy when people in a society had no morals. Those types of societies have surfaced before and it always results in mayhem, loss of people's life, liberty and property.
So it's safe to say that neither party is advocating a society devoid of morals. The debate with defining marriage has thrown fuel of the fire by trying to:
1) Get the other party to adopt their morals.
2) Get the other party to privatize their morals (i.e. keep your morals to yourself) or
3) Get the other party to adopt the idea that one's morals are relative (i.e right for you but wrong for me)
At this point, I believe most people in America will tend to fall into one of two camps (or somewhere in between). One camp believes that God (an unchanging absolute) has given human beings rights and a code/law to live by; thereby the greatest shaper our morals. The other camp believes that human rights are a human invention; Thus, rights are something people in their own society decide on for themselves and is usually established through tradition, one's cultural and societal norms.
The problem with the later view is that right and wrong become relative (e.g. what is right for you may be wrong for me). Right and wrong is relative? Yes, I agree; right and wrong is relative............, BUT only when measured up against some absolute. Let me give you an example. In the first century when Christianity was just getting off the ground, an issue about consuming meat that had slaughtered in front of false idols came about.
Some Christians believed it was evil to eat say a gyro with this type of meat. Other Christians, who presumably could purchase the meat sacrificed in front of idols at Walmart prices, thought there was nothing immoral in doing so. This issue evidently became a very big issue that the Apostle Paul (we'll get to who Paul was soon) had to step in.
His ruling was that for weak Christians who believe eating meat sacrificed to idols, doing so IS wrong (evil). The second part of Paul's ruling was that for strong Christians who know that meat sacrificed to idols is just as good as meat that wasn't sacrificed to idols, then there is nothing wrong (evil) in consuming that meat; but with one big caveat. Don't let freedom serve to harm your weaker brother or sister, because if does, you are engaging in evil (immoral).
At this point, person from the second camp might argue, "You see, right and wrong is relative. What was right (moral) for one Christian was wrong (immoral) for another Christian.
This is true, but only in reference to an absolute (and not in reference to each other). Right and Wrong doesn't work like most opposites (e.g. even vs odd, hot vs cold). Right and wrong needs an absolute working in the background so that you can differentiate good from evil. In the case for consuming meat that was in front of idols, Jews and Christians are given this law to live by:
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them;"
The above is the know as the second commandment. It's 1 of 10 commandments, written by God himself on stone and given to Moses. Now for some Christians in the 1st century, buying and eating meat sacrificed to idols was way too close in violating this code. Now here is the thing when it comes to law. You are allowed to make and follow a more restrictive law, as long as it doesn't violate the original law (in this case God's law). So for example, another code of law God gave his people was "Thou shall not murder."
So people following God's code of law would be free to pass a more restrictive law like, "You are not allowed to murder Eagles, Buffalo and one eyed cats." Throughout history, men have erred in passing laws that nullify God's law. Even in the 1st century, the religious leaders of Jesus' time created a type of loop hole that allowed a person's time and wealth to get diverted to the religious authorities, instead of to that person's parents. That's a problem, especially when the social security system depended on your children. Jesus called them on this practice.
But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. -Matthew 15: 5,6
So right and wrong is relative? Yes, but again only in respect to an absolute. In our society many people neither want to believe in absolutes nor seek one (i.e. God), so they conclude that all right and wrong is relative to each other and there are no absolutes. To the later camp, I just have two questions. Are you sure? Are you absolutely sure?
If you do not believe in a Creator, then what is your rationale for believing that you have been endowed with unalienable (that which cannot be taken away from you) the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Evolution, natural selection, and concepts like survival of the fittest has give all people equal and unalienable rights?
Without an absolute to fasten your morals onto, then right and wrong is subject to your feelings. And everyone has feelings. And feelings can change right? Without an absolute to establish where you are, it's a kin on sailing in the middle of the ocean with no GPS or North star. Without an absolute, how do you know what straight is?
In one of the previous articles, I found a web site that was devoted to this subject and presented both sides' arguments for/against same sex marriage. In my opinion, the strongest argument advocating same sex marriage is this, "Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination." I feel it's the strongest argument, because it's absolutely true. But the trouble with this argument is two fold.
1) Not all discrimination is wrong (evil). In fact I would even argue that most of the discriminating decisions we make each day is right than wrong. Realize for us to exist, we need to make hundreds of discriminating decisions every day. Today you probably shoveled a bunch of food in your mouth. You discriminated against all the other orifices found on your body and engaged in minority discrimination by allocating all the food to a single orifice. Maybe one or two of your other orifices would have also enjoyed what your mouth got to experience?
2) Without an absolute in place, you will be unable to distinguish between what is normal and what is abnormal (Abby Norma for those Young Frankenstein fans).
Borrowing a thought from C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity, "but you must first have the idea of a normal sexuality before you can talk of its being perverted; and you can see which is the perversion, because you can explain the perverted from the normal, and cannot explain the normal from the perverted…"
In other words, you need to understand what is normal before you can understand perversion. And people who are perverted will have great difficulty in explaining what is normal. Though C.S. Lewis was definitely talking about sexual perversion (i.e. sadists who derive pleasure from giving others pain), I want to avoid using the word "perverted" because most people in the 21st century instantly associate the word in a sexually deviant way (e.g. that pervert) and almost exclusively with the male species.
When a person perverts justice or perverts truth, there isn't any sexual connotation here. So a broader and more simplified thought that expounds on C.S. Lewis' statement would be, "You need to have an understanding of what is normal in order to understand what is abnormal." People with a abnormal understanding of something will have great difficulty in describing what is normal.
So how do you go about defining what is normal? The answer is it's easy, but only after absolutes are in place and after understand purpose. Doesn't it make sense that purpose has something to do establishing what is normal? If the main purpose of food is to help repair and fuel the body, then it becomes obvious on what orifice is normal and what other orifices are abnormal to scoop oatmeal into.
Well, what if I derive pleasure and enjoyment in scooping oatmeal into another orifice? Regardless of how many people think that it's okay for me to put oatmeal in my ears, the establishment of absolutes and purpose becomes the moral guide. I believe the reason why we have so much controversy is defining marriage stems from the fact that mankind has divorced himself from God and no longer understands his purpose.
Suppose a 21st century pistol was transported back to the 1st century. Let's say a pistol without bullets so nobody accidentally gets hurt. People in the 1st century would not know what the purpose of the object was. But because of it's shape and design, they probably would conclude it was some type of tool made for the hand. One of them might conclude that a pistol is a hammer like tool designed to drive nails into things. But the more they studied the pistol, the more they would realized that using it to drive nails into things couldn't be this objects main purpose.
The complexity of its design would make you conclude it was designed for sometime far greater. Now isn't the human body a tad bit more complex than a pistol? Wouldn't two human beings entering into an institution called be marriage increase the complexity level by at least a factor of two -or in some cases a factor of 10? A pistol was designed and created for a purpose, but we humans are not? Okay, back to the question on who or what gets to define what is normal.
One of the key writers of the Bible, wrote a series of letters to the Christians living in Rome in the first century (roughly 56AD), when Christianity was just taking off. Today we call this a book Romans. Without a doubt in my mind, this is the most theological dense essay ever written on Christianity. It was written by the Apostle Paul, who was a Jew and a Roman citizen. Apostles is the name given to the earliest founders of the Church who actually physically encountered Jesus Christ.
Paul was very well studied in the Scriptures and was a pupil under Gamaliel (one of the greatest teachers of Judaism). Paul was a teacher, a religious lawyer, and a writer. Interesting enough, approximately 1/3 of the New Testament (2nd half of the Bible) was written by Paul. Though it doesn't quite read like a John Grisham novel, Paul's writings and letters to churches often read like how a lawyer would argue a legal case.
Very early in the book of Romans and in the first chapter, Paul writes:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done." -Romans 1: 26 - 28
Some pretty heavy stuff. But for Paul to say "they exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones", he obviously is claiming that he knows what is natural (normal). How? It's all based on his feelings on the matter? No, absolutely not! Paul, like Jesus, frequently quotes Old Testament Scripture.
Judaism and Christianity are based on Scripture (God's word); thereby establishing an absolute that morals can anchor into. Though I realize most people do not agree, the Bible is a owners manual written for the most complex creatures ever made and for the most complex institution that two humans can enter into. Furthermore this operations guide reveals mankind's purpose, which I have already elaborated on in a past essay.
So on the subject of defining marriage, given both a lack of absolutes and a lack of understanding of purpose, humans would be free to define marriage anyway they desired. If marriage is a good thing, then OF COURSE you would make the institution more open to include more people.
Just a few months ago, despite Gov. Chris Christy's opposition, the New Jersey Supreme Court judges voted unanimously that state must permit same-sex marriages. The chief justice of the NJ highest court wrote that "same-sex couples in New Jersey are now being deprived of the full rights and benefits the state constitution guarantees." So starting on October 21, 2013 same-sex marriages became legal in the state I reside in.
Agreed that banning same-sex marriage is a form of minority discrimination. But couldn't you use the same exact arguments for a man that wants to marry his mother or multiple wives? And who says that marriage has to be between human beings? In the late 20th and early 21st century the the controversial topic is same-sex marriage, but I think it is only a matter of time before we take up the later. Without an absolute in place, you will have difficulties in arguing why I can't marry my dog (he's loyal) or Siri (she's never argues with me).
This isn't the case for those who follow the Judeo-Christian faith and accept God word as truth (absolute); We are simply not free to define marriage anyway we want. Why not? It stems from two sentences found very early in the Book of Moses (Old Testament)
The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. -Genesis 2 :23 -24
Adam didn't exactly have a large selection pool to become one flesh with someone. Given the opportunity would Adam preferred tobecome one flesh with another man? Maybe, but it would be a departure from God's design as stated in the the second sentence above. Furthermore, religious authorities questioned Jesus (whom Christians believe to be God) on the lawfulness of divorce. Read for yourself what God told the religious leaders.
Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
-Mark 10: 6 - 9
"...bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh," rules out marrying a software program or one of your pets.
"... and they become one flesh," is the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage.
"...what God has joined together, let no one separate," implies that when God is involved in the marriage, it becomes a holy institution.
"...united to his wife," The word "wife" throughout the Bible and even in the 21st century is consistently used to refer to a female human being. Jesus further sinks this in by quoting an additional verse of scripture "...made them male and female."
"...united to his wife," also rules out polygamy. Note that "wife" is singular. It's a big stretch to believe that God design marriage to be between one man and multiple scantily clad women. Furthermore it says "two will become one". The text doesn't read "Five will become one or many will be one". From my studies of Scripture, I've concluded that it is NOT God's design for marriage that we enter into polygamous relationships.
Now I know some at this point will argue that didn't many of the forefathers of Judeo-Christian faith have multiple wives? The answer is yes. For example Jacob (grandson to Abraham), King David, and King Solomon engaged in polygamy. But my answer to that is that polygamy is contrary to God's original design for marriage. And just because a forefather engaged in it, doesn't make it morally right. I also don't see anywhere in Scripture even one example where polygamy went well for the man and his families. This is on par with divorce. Divorce isn't part of God's original design for marriage either. Hence Jesus' reply when he was questioned by the religious leaders on the subject of divorce:
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. -Matthew 19: 8
On the subject of polygamy and divorce we see a demonstration of God's permissive will. God knows what marriage should be like. He created the institution of marriage in "the beginning"; which means long before people walked the Earth. Permissive will is a deep topic in itself, but I know every parent understands permissive will. For example this Winter, there have been many weekends where it's just too cold to play outside; so allowing my son to play 6+ straight hours of X-box, definitely falls outside of my desired will and into permissive will.
So when you study the Scriptures you will see that there are things inside God's will (e.g. honor your parents), things outside God's will (e.g. thou shalt not murder), and things in God permissive will -even though it was not part of his original design (like divorce).
Well besides the verse in Genesis 2 verse puts same-sex marriage outside God's will, could a case be made for same-sex marriage could fall into the area of God's permissive will?
I think before answering this question, you need to understand who God's children are. This might be a shocker and offensive to many, but the Scriptures does NOT support that all human beings are God's children. Yes, we were all made in God's image; but not all of us belong to Him. So who are children of God?
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— -John 1:12
"him" above is in reference to Jesus. God desires to come into your life. But because of his nature, He is unwilling to do so by force. Though God offers us a free gift, most people that I am acquainted with are unwilling to receive this free gift. A gift, even though it is freely given, isn't yours until you receive it. What is nice is that anyone regardless or race, color, sex, age, family lineage, social class, education level, can become God's child simply by receiving Jesus Christ.
So when God's children were in the desert (and not everyone in the desert was God's child), God gave them ten commandments to live by with respect to God and to other human beings. The first four commands pertain to God. The later six pertain to people. But also in the desert, God also gave His children 20 ways on how NOT to practice their sexuality.
The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.
“‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
“‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
“‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
“‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
“‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
“‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
“‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
“‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”
-Leviticus 18
One thing I find interesting is that the above doesn't state that you are not allowed to have sexual relations with your cousin. But as mentioned before, it's certainly not wrong if you want to adopt a more restrictive rule preventing you from say marrying your cousin, which most States have done so.
What I also find interesting is that when God's people were living in Egypt, the Egyptian culture was one of the most civilized and highly developed cultures in terms of art, science, literature, and military strength. I would say it was akin to America today (i.e. a 1st world country). However the people of that culture and at that time practiced their sexuality contrary to God's desire.
For those who consider themselves children of God, when you break God's law that is called sin. Sin is lawlessness. Laws are not suggestions. Though I think many people today would prefer to rename the ten commandments to the ten suggestions, but God's laws and decrees are simply something that is not optional for God's citizens. They have been put in place to govern God's people.
If a citizen violates God's laws and decrees, that person is engaging in lawlessness (sin). Now the way laws work, when you violate them there is a penalty. The twenty commands on how not to practice your sexuality was no exception. There was two different types of punishments. One was banishment and the other was death. I'll let the inquisitive reader on their own figure out which of the twenty decrees warranted banishment and which warranted death. It's found two chapters later in Leviticus 20.
Now here is the thing. And I think it's very important that I mention this. From my study of the Scriptures, God's decrees and laws apply to His children. I do NOT see that His commands were given to people that are NOT his children. I think parents understand this concept pretty well. You desire for your own children to follow your ways, so you make rules (laws and decrees) that they need to adhere to and follow; but your rules laws and decrees don't apply to other children that are not your own.
You have desire your children to live and behave a certain way; but for other children that are not your own, it's NOT a requirement for them to follow your ways. So if you are not a child of God, you are off the hook and I personally don't see that you are obligated to follow a code that wasn't written for you. The only exception is that if God's law has been adopted into the legal code for the citizens of a particular nation.
When I examine the Scriptures, God didn't tell Moses that when you enter the new land, go stop and convert people in the way they practice their sexuality. I also noticed that God also didn't instruct Moses to send a group of people back to Egypt and attempt to get them to follow my ten commands (on how to treat God and man) and twenty commands on how not to practice your sexuality.
I know if you are a child of God and if you desire not to follow one of the ten commandments on treating God and man or twenty commandments on how not to practice your sexuality, you're going to want to apply a line item veto on the one's you don't like. Unfortunately, God's citizens are not allowed such a privilege. Even the President of the United States isn't granted that privilege for the legal code that govern its citizens.
In regards to marriage in the 21st century, I definitely see the tension going on between the two camps. Remember, the laws we pass as a society reflect our morals. So if the majority of us believe murder is wrong or marrying your cousin is wrong, that society will pass laws that reflect those moral convictions.
What I find interesting is that since our country was originally founded on Biblical principles, most of the God's 30 commandments got adopted in some form in our written laws (either Federal or State). But that is definitely changing as our society becomes more secular, loses contact with God, and loses understanding of purpose (i.e. purpose of life and marriage).
Given these conditions, I expect in the centuries to come that the way people practice their sexuality will revert back to the same ways people practiced their sexuality several thousand years ago.
For those of you who are not God's children, you are more free to practice you sexuality and thus define marriage in ways that is more free and more inclusive of more people. This is simply because without God or absolute to live by, you then become the judge on moral issues that involve right and wrong.
But for the children of God, we already have a loving creator and judge that has already spoken on this matter.
