Advertisement

Archive for Friday, May 25, 2012

God, marriage

May 25, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

This is in response to Dennis Dailey’s letter of May 18. Those who oppose homosexual marriages in 31 states do so because they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. It’s not because they hate gays.

Dailey is right about the 50 percent divorce rate, even among Christians and despite the fact that God hates divorce. Godly counseling can help, but the real problem is that Christian couples don’t recognize that their real enemy is not their mate but the devil.  Many people do not believe in a literal devil, or Satan. That is exactly what he wants people to believe. However, Jesus knows that the devil is real, and he knew that we would have to deal with his attempts to destroy marriage. We are given the means to be victorious in life despite Satan’s temptations, but either we are ignorant of his ways and/or the means God has provided to defeat him through spiritual warfare with the “full armor of God.”

If any of us are ignorant about God’s ways, then we can choose to accept His truth and can begin living an abundant life by faith in Jesus Christ.

My wife and I will be married 55 years in June and we tell people, “Jesus is our Superglue.” If it wasn’t for Him and God’s truth found in the Bible, we would probably be a part of that 50 percent of marriages that end in divorce. Greater is He (God) who is in us than he (Satan) that is in the world.

Comments

Patricia Davis 1 year, 10 months ago

Marriage is a civil act, licensed by the state. If you get a divorce, you go to court not to church. If people who believe in god want to be married in church, so be it. They are no more married than a couple married by a justice of the peace. Some people need superglue to stay married. Others don't.

1

witchfindergeneral 1 year, 10 months ago

Annnd apparently my comment correctly deriding the LJWorld for publishing this foolish Letter to the Editor has already been deleted. With any luck, this additional comment pointing out the ridiculousness behind the publication of Mr. Birkhead's views will get me banned.

0

biggunz 1 year, 10 months ago

Serious question....why do some gay men talk and otherwise act feminine, and some gay women basicly try to look like a man? Why does one woman in a lezbian relationship try to take on more of a "manly" role while the other is clearly the woman? I mean, if a guy likes other guys, why must he talk and act like a woman? If a woman likes other women, why must some of them cut their hair super short, wear means jean, button up shirt....look just like a man? I know most Lawrence folk will call me a bigot and it's cool. But please explain this because you have all seen it.

0

toe 1 year, 10 months ago

Convert or die has been a long tradition of the Catholic faith. It was not as effective until Kings discovered they had more power doing the bidding of the church on paper. Kill a few here, enslave a few there, and the treasury would grow. No, give me freedom from religion enforced by government. The truths of God are eternal but unprovable. The enslavement of people by government, however, is a certainty.

0

Chris Golledge 1 year, 10 months ago

Apparently Carl is comfortable with using the government to impose his religious beliefs on others.

0

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 10 months ago

The mystics that Joe learned from lived in remote areas with few distractions. They spent their entire lives learning and then refining how to get in touch with that which is beyond our physical reality. When you look into the abyss the abyss looks back at you. (N.) That is not meant to be a scary thought but one that impels you to keep looking until you find and contact that which is. Jesus said that he was the door and that if you knocked it would be opened. I take that to mean he was trying to teach the same things that Joe's mystics were, he wanted his followers to go though the door and beyond, in other words, he was the beginning and not the destination.

0

Lartist5 1 year, 10 months ago

Claiming gods thoughts in a issue of marriage is a dumb as saying "my socks told me that marriage was to only be between beetles and salt." Both rediculous and unprovable

0

tange 1 year, 10 months ago

Ok, I finally read the original article (at the top of this page), and, in light of a casual reference to The Gospel of Thomas, I have questions.

If there's anything I've learned about modern "Christianity," it's that S/Paul trumps Jesus every time. That said...

1 Corinthians 7 (KJV) 1 ... It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband... 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

And, just as I was trying to get my head around this marriage-unfriendliness...

The Gospel According to Thomas (114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

So, I guess my questions, acronymically, are... WTF?!

0

Jayhawk1958 1 year, 10 months ago

My God loves unconditionally, from birth on. If God loves us, then why would he put us through so-called "original sin" and devils and demons?

0

woodscolt 1 year, 10 months ago

karl burkhead. Only two words you need to read on this diatribe. The only two more menacing words (barely) are fred phelps.

0

verity 1 year, 10 months ago

Did a "new" poster with Cool in her/his name who posted in a similar manner as somebody else who recently ceased to be heard from already get disappearededed?

I (stupidly) responded to her/him and now, even though my posts appear on my comment page, when I click on them they don't show up on the thread. It's a mystery.

0

rubberband 1 year, 10 months ago

I try to read these LTEs, but all I can hear are the words of Charlie Brown's teacher: "Wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah..."

0

SnakeFist 1 year, 10 months ago

"...faith should inform every act but refused to define what that would mean for the individual."

Sounds great. If Christians would mind their own business in that way, no one would have a problem with them. Unfortunately, they want to impose their faith on others, which is the opposite of your ideal.

0

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 10 months ago

Why is it that people who post on here refuse to take religion seriously and have such a deep seated need to make fun of it. To me the wisest man I ever heard or read on this subject was Joseph Campbell, he taught at Sarah Lawrence, wrote a number of fine books and had two shows on PBS. He was a Catholic who considered Chartes to be his home church. He had a great respect for every faith and every culture and traveled around the world talking to people and learning about them. To me that is the ideal. He firmly believed that faith should inform every act but refused to define what that would mean for the individual.

0

tange 1 year, 10 months ago

Ok, here's the thing. Self-styled atheists reject God based on definitions by which God simply cannot exist. Sky-something or spaghetti-something. (They are oh-so clever and quite easily self-entertained.) At the other end of the spectrum, one can define God in such a way that God cannot help but exist. The problem lies in defining God, all the more troublesome within historical and evolving contexts.

Consider the atom. We all get our first glimpse in the form of a solar-system metaphor, a nuclear center surrounded by orbiting particles. A leap from this model to quantum mechanics—between which there is no intermediate state, BTW—quickly reveals the planetary model to be wrong. The 'reality' is some constrained chaos, vibrating complete. Yet no one is prepared to say that atoms don't exist simply because of the failing of the former.

So, what's going on? Human evolution inherently is accompanied by recognition of something beyond the mundane. There's more here than meets the eye, more than properly can be appreciated by the grey. It is of the 'something more' or which God is born in the minds of men—of which God can be said to be the genesis.

Life. It doesn't exist in the cold, dark recesses of the universe. Somehow, it finds expression in the propagation of starlight through stardust, rising as if from within itself. A pot of water sits on my stovetop, heavily salted, boiling away, and I can pump energy into it, ad infinitum, and never create the spark. But there's something about the rippling of starlight through stardust which gives rise to... well... this conversation. Reflective thought... the universe, having become aware, now pondering itself... the blueprint for this advent, within.

Why haven't metaphors (definitions ) for God kept abreast of our ballooning awareness of the cosmi, within and without? Religion is tied to values, and there is a recognition of the value of transmitting values—this something more than meets the mundane—at a very early age. Adults understand the cosmos through any of a variety of metaphors or varying complexity. Children understand their world through their immediate relationships, father, mother, sister, brother. And even as one's own atomistic appreciation of the divine unfolds, there ever is the need to repropagate.

In sharp contrast to indoctrination of the ignorant, religion can serve as the springboard beyond the plane, perhaps uniquely so.

So, now, that atheist verity is going to happen by and tell me I'm wrong, at which point I'll be compelled to grab her by the hair to remind her of the degree to which every fiber of her being is rooted in a divine, generative blueprint as valid as that captured of a baby's footprint at birth.

0

grammaddy 1 year, 10 months ago

Whatever happened to "all men are created equal"??Not Christian men or Jewish men or Muslim, Buddhist,etc. All men.

0

pizzapete 1 year, 10 months ago

I'm really enjoying how Republicans when asked about gay marriage will answer that they believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Is there a movement for marriage between three guys and one girl or one guy and five girls they are trying to oppose, too? It's particularly funny to me comming from Romney considering his Mormon faith. The Old Testament seems to clearly allow a man to have as many wives as he can afford. I think that's the kind of traditional marriage we should be promoting here.

0

weiser 1 year, 10 months ago

The last laugh will be on you!

0

Armored_One 1 year, 10 months ago

Religion has nothing to do with this.

I am still waiting for a legal reason to deny an American citizen the ability to enter into a legal contract with another American citizen? Other than the legal age requirement, I cannot think of a legal reason to oppose this issue. .

0

FalseHopeNoChange 1 year, 10 months ago

Need a lift, feeling down, huh, why am I here again?

http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=Xv1tMioGgXI

(sourced)

0

thuja 1 year, 10 months ago

"God hates divorce"

Careful, you're sounding like Fred Phelps.

Just think of how happy your lives would be if you found someone you didn't need a hateful God to help you stay with your whole life.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 10 months ago

Christian Supremacists have no notion of an American melting pot... in their mind all good citizens should assimilate to their faith. And when they when they think that many of their fellow Republicans share their agenda of domination (let alone many outside the party), they are frankly deluded and only serve to marginalize themselves.

0

voevoda 1 year, 10 months ago

If Mr. Burkhead is right, and God promotes marriage and the Devil is trying to destroy it, logically that would mean that it's the Devil who is trying to prevent gay marriage, and those who advocate for it are aligning themselves with God.

0

Fred Whitehead Jr. 1 year, 10 months ago

Wow, I was going to make some great comments on this curious letter to the ed, but most of you have done a great job for me.

As most persons who bother to educate themselves to the facts would know, the "Holy Bible" was a creation of King James I of England by direction to the Council of Hampton Court in 1611, The king wanted a bible translation that matched his view of an imaginary divine power that would be in line with the tenants of theChurch of England. Failure to act acccording to the king's command would result with the ever loving king having your heads cut off.

The "Holy Bible" then is the religious notion of the King of England in 1611. That is not to indicate that the content is invalid, there are good and useful truths in the "holy" sctriptures as long as you recognize that most all of them were created by men under the sword of the king and should be regarded with sitable concern as to their source. "God" and the "devil" are curious notions of seventeenth century man and his attempts to explain things that he had no idea of the source of.

In closing (thank you!) the notions that so many people have about using the "Holy Bible" as a stick to whack the non-belivers is parallel to the muslim notions of "infidels".

0

meggers 1 year, 10 months ago

Congratulations on your long marriage, Carl.

If you consider Jesus your 'Superglue', that's certainly your prerogative. That prerogative ends where another person's rights begin. You don't get to choose what marriage means for other people. Bigotry cloaked in religion is still bigotry.

0

deathpenaltyliberal 1 year, 10 months ago

Marriage is just a civil contract to manage property rights. That's why they have civil ceremonies.

If you want to be married in your church in your tradition, that's great. So why is two gay folks doing the same thing wrong?

WWJD? Probably attend their wedding.

0

akuna 1 year, 10 months ago

I want (and our founding fathers wanted) Christian Laws to be enforced by our government about as much as I want Sharia Laws to be enforced by our government, which is to say not at all.

The government should provide the bare minimum laws for our citizens to peacefully coexist. Beyond that, if your religion wants to impose greater control over you, that is your choice. Just don't inflict your religion on the rest of society. I know I won't.

Our founding fathers were brave enough to want to create an equal society. They fell short of living up to the standards they set, but they had faith that future generations would fair better at treating all citizens of this great country equal. Let's live up to the standards set by our founders. Let's do them proud. Equality for all... including gay people that want to get married.

0

none2 1 year, 10 months ago

Carl, it is commendable that you have been married so long. If you don't believe in gay marriage, that is definitely your right. However, realize that most people "accept" the fact that fundamentalists condemn gay marriage, but fewer and fewer people "respect" that opinion. Why? because fundamentalists have lost their way and their moral authority.

How can you condemn gay marriage, and yet not condemn re-marriage after divorce? If you truly believed that marriage was sacred, then not only would you say that God hated divorce, but you would condemn re-marriage. (The Catholic church used to have the high ground on this topic as very few people could get a marriage annulled. Unfortunately, the chuch has given in to popular culture, and now more and more couples can get annulments.) It isn't the devil who is blessing second, third, etc marriages, but the very same fundamentalists who want to condemn gay marriage. So the message that comes across is that your kind bends what you claim to be God's laws when it suits your whims and lusts, but doesn't bend when it is something that you personally (not God) don't like. Thus, your morality preaching falls on deaf ears for many of us. When you are willing to have a constitutional ban against re-marriage, then your views might be very unpopular in the secular world, but at least they would seem more morally consistent.

0

Greg Cooper 1 year, 10 months ago

Carl, I take deep umbrage at your premise. Religion has nothing to do with the legal concept of marriage, nor does one's eligion or lack thereof make a damned bit of difference in what marriage is.

Marriage, the legal contract, is an agreement between humans and human legal institutions. It has nothing to do with religion. What you are confusing, and trying to foist off on everyone, is the sanctity with which religious institutions endow the legal contract. Those religions may or may not recognize the legal contract between two humans not of the same sex, but that has no relationship to the legal contract.

Now, the real argument should be that the legal entities who enact laws, not the religiious institutions which espouse moral rules, are responsible for the legal contract and who is eligible to be bound by them. If you want, you can rail endlessly about your beliefs as to what God thinks about the legal contract, but your argument stops at the door of the legal definition of marriage as defined by the state.

I a ma practicing Christian and have views diamet rically opposed to yours. Am I wrong? Are you wrong? Neither of us knows, nor will until the day of judgement. What I do know is that it is not a Christian value to devalue the llives of those whose beliefs, whose affections and love, lies in a direction not of your liking. I do know that you believe strongly in your stand, but so do I and many of the non-traditional couples you rail against. Right and wrong are relative terms not to be decided by us. But I do know that wrong equates making the lives of others better. That you do not do by attempting to make them less than they are, by trying to make them less than you simply because you don't like their sexual orientation.

Get off the bandwagon, Carl. You are not God, and I'm not at all sure you represent him very well when you try to convince homosexuals that they deserve less than the blessings bestowed on you by your version of God. Hearty congratulations on your upcoming anniversary (and many more, I hope), but let everyone have the same choice and rights you have enjoyed in your married years. But why, in God's name, do you wish them to have any less than you in the company of another human? That can not be right, and I will always believe that Christian values do not preclude homosexual marriage, nor should you.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 10 months ago

"the left fears that Christians will prevent advancement of their agenda." So do many of us from geographic Center of the Republican party. Nobody wants to take Carl's right to worship away; you can be as crazy as you want to be in your beliefs and still be a good American if you keep your priorities straight. When he extrapolates his faith upon others and places his status as a "Christian" higher than his citizenshihp, then certainly he will offend and be deserving of criticism. By the way, tell us more of your "Christian agenda" so the rest of the nation can duly protect themselves from y'all.

0

BornAgainAmerican 1 year, 10 months ago

The Party of Atheists will all check in on this LTE. They would take away Mr. Burkhead's constitutional right to worhip God if they could. The secular left will attack Chritians and Christianity each and every time they encounter a believer. Religion has been a strong force in traditional America and the left fears that Christians will prevent advancement of their agenda.

0

somedude20 1 year, 10 months ago

The devil is busy playing Diablo 3, get back to him in 3 weeks

1

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 10 months ago

Seeing the devil and Jesus behind every bush. Amazing to think they let this guy teach. Sure would hate to be a non-christian in his class.

0

verity 1 year, 10 months ago

This is certainly a lot of incoherence for so early on a Friday morning and me not having had my coffee yet.

Well, I have to go now and take my secular butt to my volunteer job "helping others."

0

SnakeFist 1 year, 10 months ago

I got Jesus Glue on my hand and my fingers were stuck together for a week.

Seriously, make a rational argument against homosexual marriage (hint: there isn't one) or allow it. But please stop pushing your belief in fairy tales on everyone else.

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 10 months ago

Satan might well be represented by Sam Brownback. We know this because he lies a lot. If Satan is no Saint then Sam Brownback certainly owns that feature as well.

Anyone who believes their definition of a Christian does not allow one to stand up fro their rights at an OWS protest might not know God or the son of God so well.

Then again if no one is a Saint what do we have?

0

rtwngr 1 year, 10 months ago

Congratulations on a milestone of marriage that few ever attain, Mr. Burkhead. My wife and I will celebrate number 36 this year. I hope one day that we reach 55 as well. I also agree that without God as the center of our relationship, we never would have endured the storms of life that are typically encountered. It is too bad that so many do not recognize the spiritual side of Christian marriage that places God at the center. Families that do recognize this relationship are cohesive and normally do not fracture.

As far as those who reply with sarcasm and derision, I repeat, once again, that only one of us can be right. If you're right then we wind up worm food. If Mr. Burkhead and I are right, well, eternity is a long time. Anyway, Carl, nice letter but remember about casting your pearls before swine.

0

jaywalker 1 year, 10 months ago

"Those who oppose homosexual marriages in 31 states do so because they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. It’s not because they hate gays."

Re-he-he-he-eally? And you can speak authoritatively on this because.........?

0

Armstrong 1 year, 10 months ago

Mr B I agree with your statements. The liberal mindset will oppose your view simply because you disagree with them. A recent post I saw this made a great deal of sense in understanding the liberal way of thinking. When you substitute Govt for God you are always threatened and defensive when an opinion different from yours is proposed. 1) Because it is a threat to change their self created god. 2) You are challenging what they " created "

Sit back and enjoy the following loons as they will try and support why they are right or you are wrong while attempting to prop up their bogus way of thinking

0

beerbaron03 1 year, 10 months ago

" Many people do not believe in a literal devil, or Satan. That is exactly what he wants people to believe."

So the fact that I don't believe in the devil proves his existence? That's some airtight logic there.

1

MAX_COOL 1 year, 10 months ago

I wish I had Mr. Burkheads level of devotion to and understanding of Christ and our lord god. Very uncommon these days.

0

FalseHopeNoChange 1 year, 10 months ago

Marriage=man + woman

Lezrriage=woman + woman

Gayrriage=man + man

There.

Cleared that up for 'doubting' complex intellectual Liberals 'into' nuances.

I suspect 'emotional frenzies' are congruent with daily 'sustainable existence' void definitions describing matrimony among various bipeds not 'suited' for hitherto.

Therefore 'clarification' of pairings seems 'reasonable'

0

Ron Holzwarth 1 year, 10 months ago

What Jesus knows or what the devil tries to do are not a matter for ridicule. These are unknowable things that have to be accepted on faith, since they cannot be empirically proven. A careful reading of the New Testament will make it clear that Christianity is a religion that is based upon faith in unseen things. And, if you have ever attended a Russian Orthodox service, it will be made very clear to you that the very center of the worship is an invisible part of the celebration of Mass.

John Chapter 1, verse 18: "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."

John Chapter 20, verse 29: Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

2 Corinthians Chapter 4, verse 18: "because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal."

My belief, as I stated on May 13, 2012 on this forum is that "Religions are not really truths, instead they are methods to achieve goals that we cannot understand."

Different peoples and different cultures use different methods to increase their spirituality in this vale of tears that we have found ourselves struggling within.

We should be accepting of the beliefs and spiritual practices of others, although they differ greatly from our own. I simply cannot believe that the Creator cannot be reached in many different ways.

"There are many paths up the mountain, but the view is always the same." - ancient Chinese proverb

0

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 10 months ago

When you could no longer sell your daughter for three goats and a cow, marriage was already redefined. I think it was also redefined when women were no longer forced to marry their rapists. Truth is, what you think marriage is and what I think marriage is are two different things. (Just ask Mitt Romney's grandpa.) Therefore, government should only define "marriage" as a legal, contractual commitment between consenting adults. Then Britney Spears can have all of the 24 hour, Las Vegas marriages she wants and everyone goes home happy.

0

deec 1 year, 10 months ago

I thought god was already married to all those nuns.

1

pace 1 year, 10 months ago

I was so relieved, I was worried that God wanted to marry someone local.

1

Roland Gunslinger 1 year, 10 months ago

Of course Satan exists. He has a weekly poker game with the Easter bunny, Superman, Frankenstein's monster, bigfoot, and Rudolph the red nosed reindeer.

Why they still allow him to play is beyond me, he's always cheating.

1

Commenting has been disabled for this item.