One of the scientists on the team, University of Regina physicist Mauricio Barbi, was thrilled about the discovery, commenting that the specimen could be a key to learning more about what dinosaurs looked like.

Meanwhile, reports CNN, while some scientists are elated by this discovery’s implications, others are asking a very basic question:

How could this dinosaur skin – which, according to evolutionary models, is at least 60 million years old – have possibly remained intact without decaying away?

Many biblical creationists say the answer is simple:

It couldn’t have.

Brian Thomas, head “science” writer for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), recently published an article for ICR, in which he details why it is absurd to believe that dinosaur skin like this could have possibly survived for tens of millions of years. Incidentally, he is the author of Dinosaurs and the Bible and has stated:

My vision is to equip believers to be confident in Christ and in the veracity of His entire Word by showing how strongly science and history support Him.

Brian Thomas

In his dinosaur article, the crackpot asks:

Who, upon entering a room and encountering a burning candle would immediately begin to wonder what special something about that candle enabled it to continually burn for a million years? Would it not make more sense to first question how long such a candle could potentially burn before going out?

Eh?

In an interview with CNN, Thomas explained that skin is primarily comprised of collagen, which is a tough, insoluble protein. Despite its resilience, rigorous tests have shown that collagen (like other proteins) decays steadily over time, and– even in ideal, “best case” scenarios – could never last more than one million years. In fact, under realistic conditions, collagen’s maximum “shelf life” is probably closer to 300,000 years.

Given the constant decay rate of proteins, Thomas compared the collagen in dinosaur skin to an egg timer.

When the timer ‘dings,’ there should be no skin left. Even if it’s encased in rock, it turns into dust right in the middle of the rock, because of the nature of the chemistry. So … the timer should have ‘dinged’ long before the millions of years that evolutionists have provided for these kinds of fossils.

A much better explanation for the existence of these animal remains, Thomas asseted, would be the young-earth Creation model. According to this belief, based upon the Scriptures, most dinosaur fossils were buried during the Great Flood around 4,400 years ago.

Nevertheless, despite what he sees as mounting evidence, Thomas pointed out that evolutionists still dogmatically claim that these animal remains are millions of years old.

Thomas is also the author of an article entitled “Genetics Analysis of Jews Confirms Genesis”, which neatly bring us round to the fact that Orthodox Jews are finding the teaching of evolutionary science in British schools “problematic”.

According to this report, Government plans to place greater emphasis on evolution in biology classes as part of its proposals to reform GCSE content have been criticised for “causing problems” for strictly Orthodox Jewish faith schools.

Under the new proposals students would be required to describe how evolution occurs; evaluate the evidence for evolution to include fossils; describe the work of Darwin and Wallace in the development of evolution theory; and explain the impact of evolution on modern biology.

Speaking to the Jewish Chronicle, Michael Cohen, an adviser to Orthodox schools, said:

I don’t see Charedi [ultra-Orthodox] schools going along with it. It is something that flies in face of their ethos and culture. It is clear this kind of proposal is definitely going to create difficulties for Charedi schools.

According to the Jewish Chronicle, modern Orthodox schools feel able to reconcile evolution with Jewish teachings on creation but Charedi schools regard it as opposed to traditional doctrine. There is currently just one Charedi Jewish school in the state sector.

Rabbi Avraham Pinter, principal of the state funded Chasidic girls’ secondary school, Yesodey Hatorah, told the Jewish Chronicle that he expected Charedi concerns to be raised in consultations about the reforms.

We are confident that the government will take into consideration the educational priorities of parents and children of all faiths, and ensure that this topic is covered in a balanced and sensitive manner.

The National Secular Society believes the proposals could be problematic for other “faith schools” within the state system. Stephen Evans, campaigns manager of the National Secular Society, said:

The danger with faith schools is that religion can so often become a big part of the educational provision. Many faith schools make a point of ensuring that the ‘religious ethos’ permeates through all lessons – including science.

When scientific facts are incompatible with the faith of the school, too often it will be the children’s education that is compromised, rather than the faith of the school.

Parents do have a right to educate their children in accordance with their religious convictions, but the inclusion of faith schools in our state education system results in the state becoming complicit in the inculcation of children with religious beliefs – something the state should play no part in.

Last year the Department for Education announced plans to make evolution a compulsory part of the primary school curriculum. The National Association of Jewish Orthodox Schools has since lobbied the department for a rethink.

Hat tip: BarrieJohn (Jewish schools report)

Now one of the biggest players in the US burrito market is a Mexican chain called Chipotle which came to the Christian News Network’s attention because:

Chipotle Mexican Grill participated in both the Capital Pride parade in Washington, DC and the Philly Pride parade in Philadelphia this past weekend.

During both events, the chain utilized a float upon which sat a man riding a giant burrito wrapped in tin foil. On the side of the float was a sign that read ‘So big you can ride it’, with an image of a rainbow-wrapped burrito in the center.

And here’s the picture – those of a sensitive disposition look away now:

Oh my ears and whiskers – how very dare they!

The chain’s participation in the gay events prompted CNN to headline it’s “exposure” of the company – which has 1,400 restaurants in 43 states, as well as in Canada, the UK and France –  with the words:

Chipotle Tex-Mex Chain, Founded by Open Homosexual, Promoting Sodomy in Pride Parades Nationwide

It further huffed that, earlier this year, the company decided to pull its support from a chapter of the Boy Scouts of America over the organisation’s ban on openly homosexual members [since lifted].

Chipotle spokesperson Chris Arnold told reporters that it decided to no longer sponsor the Salt Lake “Scout-O-Rama” as the Scout policy conflicted with company policy. The Scout policy was reportedly brought to the company’s attention by “homosexual advocates”.

Said Arnold:

While the Boy Scouts of America is absolutely entitled to whatever policies it wants for the governance of its organization, our policies don’t allow us to support them.

CNN also pointed out that, in a Time Magazine article written by Joel Stein last July, it was reported that founder Steve Ells is – gasp – a homosexual, “which is likely a factor in the company’s activism”.

No shit, Sherlock!

CNN concluded:

While a number of companies across America have policies that prohibit discrimination again homosexuals, and donate funds to homosexual causes and events, Chipotle’s visibility is greater than most.

Today saw the launch of Gay Marriage No Thanks – seriously!

This is  group led by Christian loony Alan Craig, who today placed an ad in The Times aimed at peers who are debating the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in the House of Lords today. Craig was the leader of the dotty Christian Peoples Alliance from 2004 to 2013,

In it, the group presents “Ten good reasons why the House of Lords should say no to the same-sex marriage bill.” These include:

• Popular support for the bill is based on the unfounded theory that people are ‘born gay’.
• All school children will be taught that as adults they can have marriage relationships with either men or women.
• Adolescents commonly experience temporary same-sex attraction: this does not mean they are gay.

The imbecile once asserted that gays are “the New Nazis”.

After staring deeply into Alan Craig’s eyes, this young man sinks into a deep trance

Simon Hill, writing for Queers for Jesus says that the focus of this newest group is the championing of children’s rights.

They say they want to ‘take some of the emotion out of the debate and help people engage with the actual evidence that shows how disruptive and damaging these changes will be for children and young people.

Hill added:

To argue that same-sex couples should never adopt children is to argue that it is better for a child to grow up in an institution, or to be passed around foster carers, than to grow up in a loving, caring, healthy family home – because you think the people in that home are the wrong gender.

And no-one who advocates such a view is in any position to claim that they are championing the needs of children.

Meanwhile, we learn that after the Israeli Justice Minister announced on Sunday that she would present a bill to allow same-sex civil partnerships, the country’s Prime Minister delayed a debate on the issue.

Benjamin Netanyahu said the decision to delay the debate was based on the fact that there was no consensus among the coalition government regarding the potential advancement of the bill, and that a discussion would only occur if a consensus had been reached.

Uzi Even, left, and Amit Kama.

While legally-sanctioned gay marriage looks a far-off prospect in Israel, bizarrely the country’s first gay divorce has been granted by an Israeli family court in Tel Aviv to former Israeli lawmaker Uzi Even, 72, and his partner of 23 years, Amit Kama.

Legal experts see the ruling as a precedent in the realm of gay rights in a country where conservative family traditions are strong and religious courts oversee ceremonies like marriages, divorces and burials.

But in 2006 a High Court decision forced the Interior Ministry, headed by an ultra-Orthodox cabinet member, to recognise same-sex marriages performed abroad, and ordered the Government to list a gay couple wed in Canada as married.

Even and Kama, both Israelis, married in Toronto in 2004, not long after Canada legalisd same-sex marriage.

They separated last year, Kama said.?? It took months to finalise a divorce as they could not meet Canada’s residency requirements to have their marriage dissolved there. At the same time in Israel, rabbinical courts in charge of overseeing such proceedings threw out the case, Kama said.

By winning a ruling from a civil court, Kama and Even may have also set a precedent for Israeli heterosexual couples, who until now have had to have rabbis steeped in ancient ritual handle their divorces, legal experts say.

Said Zvi Triger, deputy dean of the Haim Striks law school near Tel Aviv:

This is the first time in Israeli history a couple of Jews are obtaining a divorce issued by an authority other than a rabbinical court, and I think there is significant potential here for straight couples to do so as well.

He blessed 1,400 bikes and was presented with two gleaming models and a black leather biker jacket by Mark-Hans Richer, Harley-Davidson’s Senior VP, but he bottled out from testing the gifts.

Wuss!

While this went down well with the “hog” owners who converged on the Vatican, the Italian consumer association, Codacons, said it would file a complaint against the event’s organisers, and blasted the Pope for giving the company free publicity.

Since it was a marketing event, the pontiff would have done well to avoid giving free advertising to a well-known brand, especially considering the damage done to the city and its inhabitants.

This referred to the fact that a 40-km (25-mile), three-day Harley-Davidson rally that took place from the port city of Ostia through central Rome annoyed some residents who complained about the traffic and noise.

To make matters worse, ten bikes were involved in a serious prang on the capital’s ring road. Not sure whether this happened before or after the papal blessing.

Abortion is currently illegal in Ireland except if there is a substantial risk to the mother’s life but there has been much confusion about implementing it. The new legislation is aimed at clarifying the rules that legalise abortions in exceptional cases where doctors deem it necessary to save a woman’s life.

But when the Government published a draft  abortion bill on Thursday aimed at ensuring that the horrifying Halappanavar incident is never repeated, hysterical anti-abortionists turned their fury on Prime Minister Enda Kenny, who – according to this report – revealed in Parliament that he had received plastic foetuses and letters written in blood claiming he is a murderer.

Enda Kenny

I am now being branded by personnel around the country as being a murderer, and that I am going to have on my soul the death of 20 million babies.

Kenny said he was a Catholic but he was proud to be a Taoiseach, or prime minister, for all the Irish people.

Meanwhile, an Irish Health Service Executive review into the death of Savita Halappanavar has identified failings in her health care. It concluded that staff did not adequately monitor her deteriorating condition and failed to:

Offer all management options to a patient experiencing inevitable miscarriage.

The report also said existing clinical guidelines related to the management of sepsis and septic shock were not correctly adhered to by staff.

The review team stated:

There was a lack of recognition of the gravity of the situation and of the increasing risk to the mother which led to passive approaches and delays in aggressive treatment. This appears to have been either due to the way the law was interpreted in dealing with the case or the lack of appreciation of the increasing risk to the mother and the earlier need for delivery of the foetus.

The HSE review added that there was:

An apparent over-emphasis on the need not to intervene until the foetal heart stopped together with an under-emphasis on the need to focus appropriate attention on monitoring for and managing the risk of infection and sepsis in the mother.

Savita Halappanavar

The investigation team’s report also said:

The interpretation of the law related to lawful termination in Ireland, and particularly the lack of clear clinical guidelines and training is considered to have been a material contributory factor in this regard.

The review team added that “similar incidents with a similar clinical context could happen again” unless there was:

Clarity as to the application of the law in a situation where it may be necessary for a doctor to consider, in the exercise of their clinical professional judgement, the termination of a pregnancy in the clinical welfare interest of their patient.

The report also said there could be a repeat of the Halappanavar case:

In the absence of appropriate national clinical guidelines on the clinical management of inevitable miscarriage. Among its recommendations, the review team stated:

There is an immediate and urgent requirement for a clear statement of the legal context in which clinical professional judgement can be exercised in the best medical welfare interests of patients.

In its call for new guidelines for doctors, the team added:

We recognise that such guidelines must be consistent with applicable law and that the guidance so urged may require legal change.

In April, an inquest into Halappanavar’s death recorded a verdict of medical misadventure.

The eight-day hearing, held in Galway, concluded there had been failures in her health care at the hospital, but did not apportion individual blame.

The inquest found there had been poor communication between staff members, inadequate assessment and monitoring and a failure to follow up blood test results that would have indicated the presence of infection.

Following world-wide controversy over Mrs Halappanavar’s death, which reopened the debate about the Irish Republic’s abortion law, the HSE launched its clinical review of her health care last November.

Please submit a letter on official church stationery, attesting to the fact that you are a member in good standing and the church’s official position on the bearing of arms.

This was in response to a letter Doughty, an atheist from the UK, wrote to USCIS when applying for American citizenship.

She has spent over 30 years in the US and is currently a permanent resident running non-profit adult literacy organisations, doing her part, according to this report, “to enrich the lives of American citizens”.

Margaret Doughty and her son New York photographer son Chris Johnson

In the process of applying for citizenship, all candidates are asked if they’d be willing to take up arms in defence of of America. Doughty responded:

I am sure the law would never require a 64-year-old woman like myself to bear arms, but if I am required to answer this question, I cannot lie. I must be honest. The truth is that I would not be willing to bear arms.

Since my youth I have had a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or in the bearing of arms. I deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person’s life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arm … my beliefs are as strong and deeply held as those who possess traditional religious beliefs and who believe in God …

I want to make clear, however, that I am willing to perform work of national importance under civilian direction or to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States if and when required by the law to do so.

Despite being an atheist, Doughty was told that any conscientious objection must be based on religious grounds, not simply moral objections. So as someone who was not religious, and didn’t believe in a god, she had no basis for objecting.

Her statement was rejected and she has been informed that to move forward in the process she must submit a letter from the elders of her church to prove her conscientious objections are religiously based.

She has been given until June 21st to show that her objection is grounded in religion, or her application will be denied.

This is not the first time a non-religious person has raised a conscientious objection to joining the armed forces. In fact, related issues have gone to the Supreme Court and have been ruled in favour of the non-religious objector.  In Welsh v United States, Elliott Ashton Welsh refused to take up arms on a moral objection rather than a religious one.

However, under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, one could only object to joining the armed forces based on a religious conviction involving a Supreme Being. The Court agreed that Welsh could be considered a conscientious objector based on his personal moral grounds, and that the exemption being purely religious was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Divided Under God site says:

It appears that Margaret Doughty is facing a very similar First Amendment violation. As a conscientious objector to war, she is basing her position on her personal ethical code rather than a religious one. The response from the INS suggesting her claim must be based on religion is the same sort of First Amendment violation we saw in Welsh v US.

Please join us in spreading the word about this case so that we can fight discrimination against non-believers.

Coincidentally, Doughty’s stepson is Chris Johnson, a New York based photographer. He’s working on a book called A Better Life, which aims to shine a positive light on atheists by featuring 100 non-believers who found joy and meaning in their lives without god.

Hat tip: Tim Danaher and Pete H.

According to this report, the first wave of defections has seen six congregations quit, with half of the parishes in the Kirk’s financial heartland. The controversy could have a bigger impact on Kirk coffers as more are expected to follow over the next two years.

In 2009 the Church of Scotland voted 326-267 to support the appointment of openly gay minister Rev Scott Rennie.

In Edinburgh, Holyrood Abbey Church worshipers give £215,000 a year, New Restalrig gives £114,000 and St Catherine’s Argyle collects £196,000. Gilcomston South in Aberdeen brings in £300,000 a year and on Lewis the Kinloch and Stornoway churches bring in £210,000 between them. In total, the Kirk brought in £60.5m in givings in 2011.

It is understood that wealthier traditionalist congregations who depart may offer less well-off parishes help if they wish to leave.

Among the latest to leave in a huff are father and son ministers Rev David Randall Snr of Logie St John’s in Dundee  and Rev David Randall of Ayrshire. Said Randall Snr:

I have always just felt it seems they are willing to pursue this liberalising pro-gay agenda regardless of the cost and it is emerging the cost is going to be very high. That is inevitable. There have been warning voices over the last three or four years that have just been ignored. It’s very sad.

He added:

It’s interesting that the church is making statements about not being in crisis … the fact they make those statements is quite revealing.

About ten congregations are understood to be in negotiations with the Kirk to leave over gay ordination.

A Church of Scotland spokeswoman said:

The loss of any minister or member would be very disappointing given it is so early in the process of decision making on this matter, with a final decision not due until 2014 at the earliest.The Church of Scotland has an annual budget of around £120m.

It is far too early to predict the precise effect of a drop in givings from the very small number of ministers and members who have given early indications of a wish to depart. We do not anticipate a serious effect on the budget and our overall finances.

Rebel Church of Scotland congregations are being wooed by the Free Church after they announced plans to quit the Kirk. The Free Church, which takes a strong traditionalist stance, is understood to have set up a working group to hold talks with congregations who are unhappy with the decision to allow gay ordination.

Logie and St John’s Cross Church in Dundee has become the fifth to confirm its intention to leave the Kirk over the ordination of gay ministers.

In a statement it said:

Following the decision of the General Assembly on May 20 (to allow the ordination of openly gay ministers in civil partnerships), we have decided with deep regret that it is no longer possible for our congregation to remain within the Church of Scotland. The issue which we cannot accept is the Church’s departure from its Scriptural foundation.

The Holyrood Abbey Church in Edinburgh, also announced its intention to leave last week.

Gilcomston South Church, Aberdeen, and St George’s Tron Church, Glasgow, have already left the Kirk for similar reasons.

In 2009 the Church of Scotland voted 326-267 to support the appointment of openly gay minister Rev Scott Rennie.

The author of the piece in the Commentator, Vincent Cooper, said that the country was “in denial” over demographic trends that would lead to a Muslim population rising to over 50 percent of the UK population within 37 years.

I would venture that the problem goes well beyond “denial”. A pattern is emerging in British society that suggests that those who dictate social policy are actively preparing the non-Muslim population for a sharia state.

It seems that not a day passes without some or other report emerging in the media which shows to what amazing lengths people will go to accommodate Muslim demands, and avoid bruising their inordinately thin skins.

Here, for example, is the ludicrous tale of SANDWICHES which cost an IT consultant a lucrative NHS contract. Not an actual sandwiches, mind, but the suggestion of sandwiches containing bacon.

Clive Hunt

Clive Hunt, 58, attended an interview set up by recruitment firm Reed. Having clinched the £1,000 a week post, Hunt told Sharika Sacranie, 29, a Reed consultant identified here as a Muslim, that he would:

Get the bacon sarnies in.

Hunt said wasn’t aware he had offended Sacranie, 29, during a meeting at the firm’s city centre office until he received a phone call from a senior manager.

Later, as I was driving home, Ms Sacranie’s manager called me and wanted to know about the racist remark I had made. I said I had not made one and he said I had said that I would get her a bacon sandwich. But I only made the remark because she referred to breakfast.

He added:

The woman was of Asian appearance. I am not a racist, never have been. I wasn’t brought up that way, Bacon sandwiches are often eaten at breakfast. I didn’t think for a minute this would have caused offence otherwise I wouldn’t have said it.

Hunt said he was due to take up the NHS role last Monday.

I’m really gutted that I’ve missed out on this job. I was over the moon when I got it. I love working for the NHS, I know their systems.

A spokesman for Reed said:

Due to inappropriate comments made to members of our staff during the recruitment process before Mr Hunt started his new role we have unfortunately decided that we do not feel we can represent this client further.

 Reed is committed to supporting its staff, clients and candidates and this is not a decision we have taken lightly.

Hunt said:

When the manager called me, I was driving and I got increasingly exasperated as he kept telling me I should admit to my wrongdoing for referring to bacon sandwiches.

In the end I told him to ‘sod off’ and put the phone down. They have blown this out of all proportion.

Lest I be accused of “Islamophobia” for posting this piece, let me direct you to Pat Condell, who shows just how ridiculous this term really is.

Hat tip: BarrieJohn

Dr Nagy Iskander

This is all good and well if Jesus spins your wheels. But it’s his links with Calderglen High School, a publicly funded non-denominational school in East Kilbride near Glasgow, that’s cause for considerable  concern.

The school, which presumably exists to educate, rather than indoctrinate, has more biblical advisers than you can shake a crucifix at.

According to the Old Earth – Young Earth blog, established by Professor Paul Braterman – its chaplaincy team numbers SEVEN. The team includes three representatives of Baptist churches and three from the Church of Scotland. The seventh – Iskander, a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in London and a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons and Physicians in Glasgow – is the evangelical representative.

On the school website, Iskander says:

I am interested in Science and the Bible and always happy to tackle questions in this area, so please feel free to contact me about any questions regarding Science and the Christian faith.

What he does not reveal, says Braterman:

Is that he is an out and out supporter of biblical literalism, singled out for praise by Answers in Genesis, and a welcome visitor and occasional speaker at Ken Ham’s Creation Museum in Kentucky, where you will learn that the fossil record is a result of Noah’s Flood, and that ‘Biblical history is the key to understanding dinosaurs’.

You will also find on the AiG web site recorded lectures by Iskander, in which he states that belief in the literal truth of Genesis is foundational to Christianity.

As for the relationship between Science and the Bible, Iskander had this to say to his local newspaper, on the occasion of Answers in Genesis’ Scottish Conference this month:

Both the creationists and evolutionists have the same facts – we have the same earth, the same geological layers, the same fossils – but when we examine the facts we might come to different conclusions, depending on our starting point.

Iskander added:

Creation according to the Christian faith is a supernatural act of God, so it will not be repeated and we can’t test creation in the lab. Evolution needs to take place over millions of years and we cannot test that either. My view on this is we should mention everything – we should examine all the evidence and all the facts and have an open and civilised discussion about all of this without excluding one or the other.

On reading this, the steam that came out of Roger Downie’s ears was enough to melt a glacier. Downie, Professor of Zoological Education at Glasgow University, blasted off a letter to the Sunday Herald in which he wrote:

Your quotation from Dr Nagy Iskander illustrates why creationists should not be let near science classes. He said ‘Evolution needs to take place over millions of years and we cannot test that …’ On the contrary, evolution through Darwin and Wallace’s process of natural selection is happening all the time, sometimes quite quickly.

Since Dr Iskander is said to be a surgeon, I would hope that he is fully aware of the evolution of the antibiotic resistance that has made hospital procedures so risky. Science advances through the testing of hypotheses and the accumulation of evidence. Both medicine and biology have greatly benefited from this process. I presume Dr Iskander’s medical practice is based on such advances, rather than the superstitions of previous times.

Braterman commented:

It is perhaps unkind to describe pre-scientific views as ‘superstitions’ when considered in the context of their time. But to put such views forward today in the name of religion, as serious alternatives to scientific knowledge, brings religion itself into disrepute.

Who appointed Dr Iskander to his position with the school? Were they aware of his Young Earth creationist views? What do the school’s own teachers, including both the science teachers and those who teach about religion, think of his role, and does he have any influence over their teaching?

How often does he address the school, and on what subjects? Are parents notified of his views and influence? Do he and his fellow members of the Chaplaincy Panel receive any payments or reimbursements from the school? And does the school obtain any materials from a company called Christian Schools Scotland, of which he is a director?I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, but intend to find out by addressing a Freedom of Information request of the school. I will let you know what they say.

Hat tip: Mike Battman

IN an interesting op-ed piece carried by the Altoona Herald earlier this month, three biblical experts – Robert R Cargill, Kenneth Atkinson and Hector Avalos – had this message for readers:

As academic biblical scholars, we wish to clarify that the biblical texts do not support the frequent claim that marriage between one man and one woman is the only type of marriage deemed acceptable by the Bible’s authors.

They pointed out that:

The fact that marriage is not defined as only that between one man and one woman is reflected in the entry on ‘marriage’ in the authoritative Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000): Marriage is one expression of kinship family patterns in which typically a man and at least one woman cohabitate publicly and permanently as a basic social unit (p 861).

They added:

The phrase ‘at least one woman’ recognizes that polygamy was not only allowed, but some polygamous biblical figures (eg, Abraham, Jacob) were highly blessed. In 2 Samuel 12:8, the author says that it was God who gave David multiple wives: ‘I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom. … And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more’ (Revised Standard Version).

In fact, there were a variety of unions and family configurations that were permissible in the cultures that produced the Bible, and these ranged from monogamy (Titus 1:6) to those where rape victims were forced to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and to those Levirate marriage commands obligating a man to marry his brother’s widow regardless of the living brother’s marital status (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Genesis 38; Ruth 2-4). Others insisted that celibacy was the preferred option (1 Corinthians 7:8; 28).

Although some may view Jesus’ interpretation of Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:3-10 as an endorsement of monogamy, Jesus and other Jewish interpreters conceded that there were also non-monogamous understandings of this passage in ancient Judaism, including those allowing divorce and remarriage.

In fact, during a discussion of marriage in Matthew 19:12, Jesus even encourages those who can to castrate themselves ‘for the kingdom’ and live a life of celibacy.

Ezra 10:2-11 forbids interracial marriage and orders those people of God who already had foreign wives to divorce them immediately.

So, while it is not accurate to state that biblical texts would allow marriages between people of the same sex, it is equally incorrect to declare that a ‘one-man-and-one-woman’ marriage is the only allowable type of marriage deemed legitimate in biblical texts.

They concluded:

This is not only our modern, academic opinion. This view of the multiple definitions of ‘biblical’ marriage has been acknowledged by some of the most prominent names in Christianity. For example, the famed Reformationist Martin Luther wrote a letter in 1524 in which he commented on polygamy as follows: ‘I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not oppose the Holy Scriptures’.

Accordingly, we must guard against attempting to use ancient texts to regulate modern ethics and morals, especially those ancient texts whose endorsements of other social institutions, such as slavery, would be universally condemned today, even by the most adherent of Christians.