@izzythepush,
Quote:The bible was never the sole, or even the first definer of marriage.
That line in the Bible is from oral and written traditions that had been handed down from God to mankind long before the Bible was compiled by the Jewish nation. It fits with the way that men and women appear to be logically designed for a specific purpose both physically and intellectually. You are providing an argument for intellectual attraction but marriage “by definition” is also a physical act of procreation. That definition is historical and logically real when one considers the design of the human body and how they are made to procreate, nurse the young, and survive in a hostile environment as a family.
Quote:If the word in question has legal status then it’s down to the courts and governments to determine terms so they match society’s.
Each branch of government has a different purpose. The court cannot change the meaning of words. Their job is to determine what writers of the constitution and the laws that must follow the constitution meant when, determining the meaning of the words when the founders wrote them. that is why precedent and original intent are so important when the Supreme Court makes a decision. If that was not so, over time any subsequent generation (or individual judge) could change the meaning and intent of the constitution or any law. That does bode well if your goal as a governed people is, “a stable and just system of laws that exists to consistently and justly promote good and punish evil”.
The branch of the government that redefinines terms to match society’s is the legislative branch. They can do it two ways. By, legislating a new definition of marriage like many states did. Or, by constitutional amendment like, when the constitution was amended to end slavery or give women the right to vote. Those changes were introduced through the legislative body as a constitutional amendments because, major changes were being made to societies definition of words like “African American man” as being a lesser man than any other man and “Women” having less legal voting rights as men.
Can you imagine a way that a judge could change the meaning of a word that might seriously infringe on your rights? I can. I have seen it happen in this country in my lifetime.
Quote:now Jesus would be called a racist for even suggesting there was something unusual about a Samaritan being good.
God had a unique purpose for the Jewish nation and so he set them apart from all other nations.
That plan was the reintroduction of his universal plan of salvation and everlasting life to the human race both, intellectually and physically through the Scripture, traditions and physical actions of Jewish prophets and ultimately, through God Himself, in the human form we know as Jesus Christ.
So, the Good Samaritan was in a nation that had separated themselves from the Jewish nation. They were not lesser people, just a people that were no longer part of the nation delivering the plan both physically and intellectually.
Human ego is a real thing. Fortunately God is big enough to make sure His plan unfolds in spite of it.
We just need to make sure we check our ego when determining the meaning of words that the Creator of the universe established.
