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.
Jesus was married but was a polygamist. His heir (the Davadic servant to come) came by way of He and Mary Magdalene. Mary went to France. The Jesus line went to the Visgoth's kindgom, and on to the Mergovian Kingdom.
The Bible we have was filtered through the early Catholic church, and thanks to Augustus celibacy was considered superior over the congress of man and woman and matrimony. Any text that would explicitly describe Jesus' matrimonial relationship with a woman or women would be excluded from the canonized texts we now have as a matter of course. Such texts do exist. Moreover, ancient Jewish/Israelite culture did not look upon celibacy favorably - quite the opposite. Men and women were expected to marry and have children. Marriage was ordained of God and is godly.
Nonsense. Of course there will be marriage in heaven. Everybody who's against the idea of marriage in heaven always falls back on that tired old quote of Jesus In Matthew and Luke. Why quote it; everybody knows it.
But Jesus was operating under the law of Moses, so his comment to the Sadducees was strictly in reference to the Mosaic Levirate marriage. It has no application to to the common type of marriage we practice today.
Quite simply, the marriage Jesus was saying would not be in heaven was the legal contract marriage to insure the family name was carried on. As there will be no procreation in heaven there will be no need for this particular type of marriage, which is what Jesus was referring to.
Emmanuel Swedenborg, a famous Christian who had visions of heaven stated in his writings that he saw numerous married couples on numerous occasions in heaven:
There is one marriage in heaven. Jesus to his "bride". That is it. Symbolic too.
I've studied a bit on this and similar topics and while back (after some crazy forum discussions ;p ) so I'll share some of what I discovered. First of all, its important to distinguish between swingers and polyamorists. Most polyamorists will get very angry for for being called swingers. Polyamorists are most often people that fall in love with more than one person and everyone is ok with it and create an arrangement that works for everyone to avoid jealously. Inspite of these often happy relationships based good intentions where there may or may not happen to be sexual relations, most modern Christians are programmed to freakout over any kind of non state or church recognized relationship that doesn't have the word "marriage" in it.
Being now a semi-progressive Christian, I'm not entirely convinced God condemns all forms of Polyamory as a biblical sin. He never directly condemns concubinage or polygamy and in some cases even commanded it in old testament law (levirate marriage whether the brother was already married or not). Concubines were basically live in wives who were either not of Hebrew decent or did not have formal weddings or status of a normal wife where their offspring together had top inheritance rights. Premarital sex was only considered a sin when there was no one to take protection of the woman and pay off the father for the exchange, and therefore, it likely does not fall under the sin of Porneia (fornication/prostitution/immorality) in all cases. At no point was there any temple sacrifice or a shedding of blood death sentence required which meant no sin had been committed.
I believe God allowed these practices for the protection of women back in those times and in part because of this, his verses on "one flesh" are not as rigid or narrow in their meaning as most fundamentalists think. Also, the role and general picture of marriage was viewed very differently back then compared to today and even varied a bit over the past 2000 years. If you were to bring a Christian from the first century to our modern time and tell them that you have a live in Girlfriend that you were not yet married too, they would very likely consider them to be a concubine and not condemn you for it, though they may ask why she does not have the status of a wife. If you were a Mormon and told them you had several wives, they would probably ask if the ruling Government or the culture allowed for it since the Romans and (therefore) Hellenized Jews really didn't like it in the 1st century, but they probably also wouldn't condemn you.
I think its foolish for anyone today to assume there is absolutely no cultural relativity in the bible especially between the old and new testament and I think it is unwise to assume that some culture relativity shouldn't be allowed between the New Testament and today without legalistically calling everything that doesn't match up perfectly a sin. Today, Women have equal or near equal status with men and are able to support themselves complete without prostitution..which was often their only means of survival in those times.
Given these factors, perhaps you can now see why I find this issue questionable as to how God views these relationships when they really are focusing on love. Today's married and intimate relationships are based predominately on love and happiness as opposed to property and inheritance rights as they were back in bible times. Even though God set up the relationship laws in the Torah in a way that honors and regulates property, I personally think he welcomes the love centered change in our culture. I think we should turn off our modern christian mental auto response programs and ask ourselves if we truly think these Polyamory relationships are really less loving overall than many of the biblically legal relationships in the bible. Given these radical cultural changes and what has been allowed, I'm also starting to suspect that God is less of a legalist than modern Christians. If Love is the ultimate goal of the law, legal documents, ceremonies, and other love demographics may not matter so much...but the extent Christians should allow for Polyamory?.. as we have seen depends on how you want to understand scripture, cultural relativity, and much of a situationist you want to become. Of this, I remain cautious but slow to judge.
I've studied a bit on this and similar topics and while back (after some crazy forum discussions ;p ) so I'll share some of what I discovered. First of all, its important to distinguish between swingers and polyamorists. Most polyamorists will get very angry for for being called swingers. Polyamorists are most often people that fall in love with more than one person and everyone is ok with it and create an arrangement that works for everyone to avoid jealously. Inspite of these often happy relationships based good intentions where there may or may not happen to be sexual relations, most modern Christians are programmed to freakout over any kind of non state or church recognized relationship that doesn't have the word "marriage" in it.
Being now a semi-progressive Christian, I'm not entirely convinced God condemns all forms of Polyamory as a biblical sin. He never directly condemns concubinage or polygamy and in some cases even commanded it in old testament law (levirate marriage whether the brother was already married or not). Concubines were basically live in wives who were either not of Hebrew decent or did not have formal weddings or status of a normal wife where their offspring together had top inheritance rights. Premarital sex was only considered a sin when there was no one to take protection of the woman and pay off the father for the exchange, and therefore, it likely does not fall under the sin of Porneia (fornication/prostitution/immorality) in all cases. At no point was there any temple sacrifice or a shedding of blood death sentence required which meant no sin had been committed.
I believe God allowed these practices for the protection of women back in those times and in part because of this, his verses on "one flesh" are not as rigid or narrow in their meaning as most fundamentalists think. Also, the role and general picture of marriage was viewed very differently back then compared to today and even varied a bit over the past 2000 years. If you were to bring a Christian from the first century to our modern time and tell them that you have a live in Girlfriend that you were not yet married too, they would very likely consider them to be a concubine and not condemn you for it, though they may ask why she does not have the status of a wife. If you were a Mormon and told them you had several wives, they would probably ask if the ruling Government or the culture allowed for it since the Romans and (therefore) Hellenized Jews really didn't like it in the 1st century, but they probably also wouldn't condemn you.
I think its foolish for anyone today to assume there is absolutely no cultural relativity in the bible especially between the old and new testament and I think it is unwise to assume that some culture relativity shouldn't be allowed between the New Testament and today without legalistically calling everything that doesn't match up perfectly a sin. Today, Women have equal or near equal status with men and are able to support themselves complete without prostitution..which was often their only means of survival in those times.
Given these factors, perhaps you can now see why I find this issue questionable as to how God views these relationships when they really are focusing on love. Today's married and intimate relationships are based predominately on love and happiness as opposed to property and inheritance rights as they were back in bible times. Even though God set up the relationship laws in the Torah in a way that honors and regulates property, I personally think he welcomes the love centered change in our culture. I think we should turn off our modern christian mental auto response programs and ask ourselves if we truly think these Polyamory relationships are really less loving overall than many of the biblically legal relationships in the bible. Given these radical cultural changes and what has been allowed, I'm also starting to suspect that God is less of a legalist than modern Christians. If Love is the ultimate goal of the law, legal documents, ceremonies, and other love demographics may not matter so much...but the extent Christians should allow for Polyamory?.. as we have seen depends on how you want to understand scripture, cultural relativity, and much of a situationist you want to become. Of this, I remain cautious but slow to judge.
You are correct in some of your assumptions. However that arrangement ended when Christ specifically stated that it is one man and one woman as in the beginning. Anything else is immoral and condemned regardless of the level of "love" some feel for another. True love for another would cause one to avoid involving them in a sin before God. Love of self would ignore that.
[quote=bartstarr1960;32061225]What is Christian polyamory, one may ask? It’s not polygamy, though polygamy is part of it.
From a church brochure:
Quote:
Polyamory is the potential for loving more than one person within a given period of time. Here we'll define "love" as a serious, intimate, romantic, stable, affectionate bond which a person has with another person or group of people. Responsible non-monogamy is another way of saying polyamory, and it is used to distinguish polyamory from "cheating."
That's a Unitarian Universalist "church". There's nothing Christian about it. Unitarian Universalism isn't really a religion... it's more a doctrine of "whatever is right for you is right and nobody should question you".
You are correct in some of your assumptions. However that arrangement ended when Christ specifically stated that it is one man and one woman as in the beginning. Anything else is immoral and condemned regardless of the level of "love" some feel for another. True love for another would cause one to avoid involving them in a sin before God. Love of self would ignore that.
Everything else is immoral? Ok, that's the modern Christian assumption, but prove it. Jesus' Words to the Pharisees were about divorce, not polygamy and the fact that God allowed and even commanded polygamy indirectly through Levirate marriage shows that more than two people can become "one flesh." In my opinion, God doesn't change, he only clarifies. Where the Old Testament heros really only married to their very first wives?! Sorry I just can't picture God saying this: "hey David, I didn't tell you this at the time, but your were actually sinning the whole time after you took on more wives!!...Even though I said you were blameless aside from the whole Bathsheba thing." You have to remember that something is only defined as a biblical sin: 1. if it is listed in the torah requiring a sacrifice at the temple or death sentence. 2. If it is defined in the new Testament as as sin. 3. if it is done not in Love or Faith. (I'll pull the verse references later if needed but I'm running out of time )
Also, the restrictions made by Paul as far as "Elders" being men of one wife were for the Elders and given that the culture was already monogamous because of Roman Tradition (and Romans not wanting the Jews to multiply out of control), Paul may have been referring more to men who had never been divorced and remarried. Sure, its probably something to aspire to to be an Elder, but its not a requirement and not practical for alot of people especially in times past. If you were a missionary, would you tell polygamists in other countries that they are immoral eventhough many economies and social structure of some villages are based partially on it? What will you tell them when they do a little research and start using my arguments?
Last edited by Jrhockney; 11-06-2013 at 10:26 AM..
What is Christian polyamory, one may ask? It’s not polygamy, though polygamy is part of it.
From a church brochure:
That's a Unitarian Universalist "church". There's nothing Christian about it. Unitarian Universalism isn't really a religion... it's more a doctrine of "whatever is right for you is right and nobody should question you".
That is Satanism...
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.
Sorry I just can't picture God saying this: "hey David, I didn't tell you this at the time, but your were actually sinning the whole time after you took on more wives!!...Even though I said you were blameless aside from the whole Bathsheba thing." You have to remember that something is only defined as a biblical sin: 1. if it is listed in the torah requiring a sacrifice at the temple or death sentence. 2. If it is defined in the new Testament as as sin. 3. if it is done not in Love or Faith. (I'll pull the verse references later if needed but I'm running out of time 
)
