Why does the Bible allow polygamy but not same-sex marriage? (translation, prophets)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Homosexuality is universally condemned throughout the Bible without exception.
Absolutely wrong. You just haven't the foggiest understanding of the Bible. Homosexuality was not even discovered until the 19th Century. The only thing the Bible condemns is pagan worship practices.
I know most modern day Christians do not practice polygamy. But polygamy was a widely accepted practice in biblical times. In fact, one celebrated biblical figure, King Solomon, had 700 wives and 300 concubines!(NOTE: concubines are live-in mistresses) What exactly changed?
Concubines are not "live-in mistresses, they are effectively sex slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUDE DUDE
It's clear that polygamy was an acceptable practice in the Bible. Why is it that Christian churches no longer practice polygamy?
Polygamy was practiced for several legitimate reasons in numerous cultures. It's still practiced by many African tribal groups.
There's a big hint right there. Polygamy is part and parcel of the social security system for tribal societies. Your brother dies so you marry his spouse and adopt his children, bring them into your home to live and you treat them as your own wife and children.
That's a lot better than letting a widow and her children fend for herself.
Polygamy was also a means of providing your own labor. Your many sons had important positions in your household, positions that you would rather entrust to family, than to strangers or to a slave.
Also since women normally outnumber men in any society, and in societies that are prone to violence or where the median age is low, you end up with many unmarried women.
Finally, larger groups were more successful, if for no other reason than they were better able to defend themselves, so polygamy was a means of increasing the population of a group.
In the Muslim world, in addition to polygamy, slavery was a means of growing the population. Under Shari'a Law, a slave can only live under your own roof; your are forbidden from abusing a slave under penalty of death (the last public execution for abusing a slave was in 1876 or so in Albania just before the Tanzimat Reforms which banned slavery -- at least in the Ottoman Empire); your were required to teach the slave a trade; and you were required to teach the Qu'ran. If the slave converted to Islam, he could no longer be a slave, so you gave him a parcel of your land and then hoped he would marry one of your daughters or another girl in your family.
Homosexual marriages are anathema to polygamy, since it does not provide social security, does not increase the labor pool, does not enhance the defense of the clan/tribe, and does not increase the population.
In fact, homosexuality is anathema to all life on Earth, since the sole function of every living thing on Earth is to procreate to ensure the survival of the species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
So God changed his mind?
He's dumber than a box of rocks, what did you expect?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Christianity eventually rejected the Mosaic Law, and only kept a few precepts regarding the consumption of blood, etc. as discussed in one of Paul's letters.
Jesus didn't reject the law or the prophets.
And Paul never rejected Mosaic Law, he simply said it does not apply to Gentiles converting. The Greeks had a thing about hacking up their John Thomas and couldn't see any point in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Its a lose-lose situation, no matter what happens. Atheists will flip-flop between arguments but insist that their opponents do not.
That's a bizarre comment which is not exactly true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Absolutely wrong. You just haven't the foggiest understanding of the Bible. Homosexuality was not even discovered until the 19th Century. The only thing the Bible condemns is pagan worship practices.
You might want to read Ptolemy when you get a chance.
You're absolutely correct about that - I hope I didn't imply that he rejected the law or the prophets; he was quite vocal about their validity, and the need for a believer to keep the law even better than the scribes and pharisees. He made some areas of the law more harsh (divorce), while relaxing other areas of the law (adultery, sabbath laws) - he was practicing typical jewish interpretation of Torah, and did not intend to "abolish the law".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
And Paul never rejected Mosaic Law, he simply said it does not apply to Gentiles converting.
Paul - on the other hand - is a different cookie altogether, and disagreed with Jesus on some very basic issues. This may be from the strange curiosity that our earliest Christian writings are the Letters of Paul, which precede the Gospels, or any of another issues. But the fact remains - the words of Jesus regarding salvation, and the words of Paul - do not match.
Paul never ceased his own personal keeping of the law (if we can accept his boasts), but he did preach that the law was not necessary for salvation or a right relationship with God - and it was actually an impediment to it, leading to disaster. You are referring to the controversy over circumcision, and whether a gentile entering the Christian faith should first become "jewish" and practice the law, with all it's inconveniences for people living at that time. Paul correctly guessed that releasing Christians (whether gentile or jewish) from the obligations of the old law, would open up the door to many more potential converts than would have joined had the law still been in effect. His gamble was correct, and to this day Christians consider the Covenant between God and the Israelites to be the "Old Covenant" (a better translation than "Testament" - God did not make a "Testament" with them, he made a legal agreement with them, a "Covenant"), and their own collection of writings as the "New Testament" (which is probably accurate, noting the nature of the Gospel message, etc. as opposed to a legal agreement).
So Paul did "reject" the law, and not just for gentiles - it went deeper than that circumcision issue, as can be seen when he proceeds to list what laws should be retained from the law in one of his letters. His rejection led to the new "Covenant" through Jesus and his death. Matters of the law were secondary to Paul, for he focused on sin as an actual entity or force - and the Mosaic laws really didn't see things that way: they dealt with various issues that made for better relations between people and God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's a bizarre comment which is not exactly true.
I think it's very true - and it can be seen happening in this thread, if you take the time to look. Why do you think that is bizarre? And not exactly true? I gave a good example of it.
1st question: One of the major things that has changed is the evolution of Christianity out of Judaism. Christianity eventually rejected the Mosaic Law, and only kept a few precepts regarding the consumption of blood, etc. as discussed in one of Paul's letters.
Paul never ceased his own personal keeping of the law (if we can accept his boasts), but he did preach that the law was not necessary for salvation or a right relationship with God - and it was actually an impediment to it, leading to disaster. You are referring to the controversy over circumcision, and whether a gentile entering the Christian faith should first become "jewish" and practice the law, with all it's inconveniences for people living at that time. Paul correctly guessed that releasing Christians (whether gentile or jewish) from the obligations of the old law, would open up the door to many more potential converts than would have joined had the law still been in effect. His gamble was correct.
He thought, incorrectly, that making it easier for Gentiles to become Christians without first having to convert to Judaism would attract many people and, in that way, hasten the "Second Coming".
He thought, incorrectly, that making it easier for Gentiles to become Christians without first having to convert to Judaism would attract many people and, in that way, hasten the "Second Coming".
Pardon the looooooong post - but please bear with me. This might be worth your time.
I see what you're claiming, but Paul seems to feel differently.
Your last sentence, I feel, is incorrect - for history tells us otherwise. We may not agree with it, we may feel that it was wrong, but his decision to not require Judaism for Gentiles was probably the single most important move that jump-started Christianity. In the Greco-Roman world of the 1st Century, most people felt that having to take on the laws of the Torah (or the 613 Mitzvot, whatever you prefer) was a difficult and encumbering decision to make, just in order to become a Christian. We can see this from Paul's own letters, and other 1st-2nd Century writings on the subject.
Your first claim - we shall have to see what Paul says about it. Paul was a Pharisee, and was from the Tribe of Benjamin. He tells us that he persecuted Christians because they were jews who had given up the Torah, and he saw this as apostasy. He was an upholder of "the traditions of the forefathers" (Gal 1:14), came from Tarsus to study with Gamaliel in Jerusalem (though this information, Acts 22:3 and 26:4, contradicts Galatians 1:22), was an Israelite and claimed to have kept Torah, obviously, and was "blameless" in that area - quite a claim. Some critics have questioned why Paul's references to scripture are always from the LXX (Septuagint) and not from the Hebrew - pointing out that this is strange behavior for a Pharisaic Jew learned in Torah. Hans Dieter Betz, in the Anchor Bible Dictionary's entry on Paul, says "if Paul, as Oepke suggested (1933: 412), was an ordained rabbi and educated in Jerusalem, serious problems arise. Is it conceivable that a pupil of Gamaliel displays no evident knowledge of Hebrew scripture, instead always citing the LXX?" (V 5, p. 193) Other scholars have suggested different Jewish schools of thought - he was a Hillelite, Shammaite, etc. - but the big question remains: what was Paul's relationship to Rabbinic Judaism at that time? We can say that it was definately more Hellenistic than later Rabbinic practices would have been comfortable with.
Paul's character is hard to determine - he is not always consistent, and he easily adapted himself to circumstances. Finding a consistent theology is difficult, for it changed and evolved over the course of his letters, and the inclusion in the NT of letters not written by him makes it even more difficult. From one of the so-called 'authentic' or 'uncontested' letters, here is an interesting statement involving circumcision, Torah and it's keeping, and justification:
Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by Faith, we eagerly await for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.
(Galatians 5:2-6, NRSV)
So, a few observations can be gleaned from this passage: 1) Being circumcised initiates one into Judaism, essentially, and the initiate becomes part of the Covenant. 2) After becoming a Jew, one must follow Torah (or the 613) to become justified - as is required under the Covenant. 3) For Christians, Justification is achieved through grace, by Christ. The important requirement is "faith working through love" - not observance of Torah. 4) Anyone who becomes circumcised has given up the grace of Christ, and this grace will be useless for justification - for they have already bound themselves to achieve justification by upholding Torah, rather than by accepting Grace through Christ as their justification. 5) The assumption can be made that the idea of Justification Through Christ applies to both Jews and non-Jews. Paul, who had once valued the upholding of Torah (as any good Jew would and still does), now posits that there is an easier (and better?) way.
Paul, before his conversion, had persecuted the Church of Damascus especially for just such a theology. The Damascan Church had been apparantly been accepting converts, but not requiring them to undergo Circumcision or to observe Torah. This very same church, is where Paul received his theological training after his conversion to Christianity. So this "controversy", that became highlighted in a later famous incident, was probably already an important teaching of the Damascan Church when Paul stopped persecuting them and joined their ranks. It makes perfect sense that zealous and "blameless" Paul, who was a "Hebrew from Hebrews" and kept "the traditions of the forefathers", would have persecuted this Church for what he would have perceived as apostasty. It is ironic that he later joined them, and their theology probably influenced his own thought; it certainly appears that way from his letters, though we must again keep in mind that the historic account found in Acts can be problematic and contradictory at times.
When he converted to Christianity, at the Damascan Church he was baptized - Christianity's initiation. From Betz again, we find that "in connection with the gift of the spirit (Acts 9:17), the effect of baptism was purification and remission of sins (Acts 22:16: 'Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.')" (ABD, V 5, p. 194). This seems to have been the initiation right of Christianity (or at least - of the church at Damascus) for new converts, rather than circumcision. Paul elsewhere speaks of the importance of baptism as letting the believer 'experience' the death of Jesus and all of it's benefits; they are baptized IN Christ's death:
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his own death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. (Romans 6:3-5, NRSV)
So, in Paul's view, this baptism was more comprehensive and functional than circumcision, which had a similar purpose but was merely a sign of the Covenant. We read of circumcision's importance in the Patriarchal narratives:
And God further said to Abraham, "As for you, you and your offspring to come throughout the ages shall keep My covenant. Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. And throughout the generations, every male among you shall be circumcised at the age of eight days.... ....Thus shall My covenant be marked in your flesh as an everlasting pact. And if any male who is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin; he has broken My covenant. (Genesis 17:9-14, NJPS)
So from this we see the importance of circumcision to Judaism, and that it served as a sign - it did not have any mystic powers like Christianity's baptism was supposed to have had; it did not absolve one of sins; it did not purify one; it was merely a sign that the individual was part of the Covenant. This importance helps explain Paul's earlier hostility to the church of Damascus, for not practicing it - and also helps illuminate the later controversy concerning Gentile converts. The troubling words "an everlasting pact" and "throughout the generations" and "he has broken My covenant" points to an issue in Christianity that is troubling to many people: circumcision is required by God, and appears to be an eternal command.
But here is the important issue, I think - in the "should Gentiles be circumcised" controversy. Jews who converted to Christianity had no problem - they were already circumcised (usually) and were already practicing Torah. Gentiles who converted to Christianity were not circumcised and were not keeping Torah. Why would Gentiles need to be circumised? Well, because they were not born as Jews and did not undergo the normative operation of circumcision on the 8th day after birth. And here is where I think that Paul's view comes into play, as seen in the passage from Galatians. This controversy extended to Jews as well, and we get the mistaken impression that it was merely a "Gentile Problem" because Christianity was still in it's infancy and most converts were already adults, and initiated into the new religion. After time had passed, converts would not just be coming in while adults - they would be born into the religion, and then this issue would affect both Jews and Gentiles. It only appears to be a problem for Gentiles, because at this time the Church was young and it's converts were already grown.
If we read Paul's words carefully, it becomes clear that while he did allow some of the Noachic Covenantal commands, he was definately of the opinion that justification was better achieved through Christ. Upholding the laws of the Torah (the 613) was impossible for humans, in his opinion. While this issue is still debatable today, here is a quick rundown on how Paul probably viewed the situation: 1) The Torah was only temporary and did not lead to salvation alone, and the strict observance of Torah ended with the advent of Christ:
But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were bapitized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:22-28, NRSV)
2) He accepted the teaching of Hillel and Jesus that Torah and it's 613 commandments could be condensed into one law, already present in the Torah: Love (Lev 19:18)
For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself". (Galatians 5:14, NRSV)
The previous points have imporant consequences for believers. The observance of Torah in it's "wholeness" is replaced by the one command to "love" - and it enables both Jews and Gentiles to follow this 'new' law.
But how does this lead to entire justification?
3) Christ's death represents his taking on of the sins of the world, and atoning for them. Believers can share in this atonement and freedom from the consequences of Sin and the impossible requirements of the Torah by being baptized, accepting a "new" summarized Torah, and sharing in the Spirit that is at work:
There is therfore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fullfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4, NRSV)
Sorry for the long post, but Paul is a complicated writer to get a grip on and this entire issue is complicated, not to mention controversial. It appears to me (and most scholars who have dealt with Paul) that Paul's view on circumcision and Torah applied to both Jew and Gentile, but that the specific time in which the controversy took place gives a false impression that is easily resolved by considering Paul's words and how they would apply to the next generation of believers.
Paul's concession with the Noachic Covenant seems to have been done to address a specific problem with one of the churches he was writing to, and this is part of Paul's theology - he is able to adapt it to meet circumstances, when necesarry.
Rabbi Hillel (HIL-el; hil-EL) lived in Judea just prior to the 1st century C.E.
Hillel will forever be known for the reply he gave to a Gentile who asked Hillel, "Teach me the Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel's reply: "What is hateful to you, do not do unto others." (This has also been translated as, "Do not do unto others what you do not want them to do to you.")
Hillel is also known for saying, "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?"
The Hillel organization, a network of on-campus Jewish college student organizations, is named for him.
Rabbi Hillel (HIL-el; hil-EL) lived in Judea just prior to the 1st century C.E.
Hillel will forever be known for the reply he gave to a Gentile who asked Hillel, "Teach me the Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel's reply: "What is hateful to you, do not do unto others." (This has also been translated as, "Do not do unto others what you do not want them to do to you.")
Hillel is also known for saying, "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?"
The Hillel organization, a network of on-campus Jewish college student organizations, is named for him.
Yes, indeed! The first quote is exactly what I was referring to: thank you for providing it, and some additional information on Hillel for those who are not familiar with him (though they should be!).
We can see how similar it is to the later words of Jesus in reference to Torah, and how this later influenced Paul. The good ol' Golden Rule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This might be worth your time. 
