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.
Why because they so say? Their arguments are poor. Basically comes down to "well look here, the Bible talks about other kind of marriages so that means God accepts and blesses any kind of union!"
But we can look at the story of Adam and Eve as the model. God didn't give Adam multiple mates. He didn't create a male mate either. He created one woman to bond with one man. The cases in the OT of God permitting unions like polygamy must be viewed in cultural context. It was most likely a case of cultural necessity since women back then outnumbered men and they needed a husband for survival.
Their arguments are definitely NOT poor. These are three people with multiple degrees in religion who teach religion at universities. So, what they say carries a lot more weight than the opinions of untrained, or lesser trained and lesser experienced individuals. Did you take time to look at the credentials of the three authors of the op-ed?
Secondly, it in no way says "that means God accepts and blesses any kind of union." What it says it that there are several kinds of marriages that are OK in the Bible. Nowhere in anything these guys wrote does it say God blesses ANY kind of union. It doesn't even say God blesses any union at all.
There is absolutely nothing contextual in the Bible to suggest that Adam and Eve are a model for marriages for all of mankind. There is no marriage ceremony, no "till death do us part," or anything to even suggest they were married.
So, just what is this cultural context you mentioned in which we can view polygamy that makes it OK? If your "It was most likely more women than men," show us the statistics. Show us SOMETHING to indicate that you have some basis for saying that. (Did women outnumber men 700-1 in Solomon's time?)
Their arguments are definitely NOT poor. These are three people with multiple degrees in religion who teach religion at universities. So, what they say carries a lot more weight than the opinions of untrained, or lesser trained and lesser experienced individuals. Did you take time to look at the credentials of the three authors of the op-ed?
I am familiar with Cargill and he is an enemy of the gospel and a skeptic. He even recently praised the decline in Christianity report as a good thing. I don't expect him to report anything that doesn't support his skepticism. I have presented sources in the past to atheists who had PHDs from top universities like Harvard, and it was immediately dismissed. Credentials are meaningless in these discussions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Secondly, it in no way says "that means God accepts and blesses any kind of union." What it says it that there are several kinds of marriages that are OK in the Bible. Nowhere in anything these guys wrote does it say God blesses ANY kind of union. It doesn't even say God blesses any union at all.
Which in no way means that God defined marriage to include other type of unions. He may have permitted but only for a greater good given the cultural circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
There is absolutely nothing contextual in the Bible to suggest that Adam and Eve are a model for marriages for all of mankind. There is no marriage ceremony, no "till death do us part," or anything to even suggest they were married.
Sure there is. Jesus referred to Adam and Eve in Matthew 19:4 as the model for marriage. He cements the marriage by saying "let no one separate" in Matthew 19:6
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
So, just what is this cultural context you mentioned in which we can view polygamy that makes it OK? If your "It was most likely more women than men," show us the statistics. Show us SOMETHING to indicate that you have some basis for saying that. (Did women outnumber men 700-1 in Solomon's time?)
Well here's a start:
"In that day so few men will be left that seven women will fight for each man, saying, "Let us all marry you! We will provide our own food and clothing. Only let us take your name so we won't be mocked as old maids."
How old does the buzz word "hate" get to everyone else? I am so sick of trying to be guilted into saying that homosexual acts are not immoral because they are today, yesterday and tomorrow.
I know, so basic. I guess I would doubt the dude was Jesus.
Prolonging human existence? Really? In the world today. I think the answer if there must be one in this case would be infertility. I do expect that to increase as it seems to work with nature unlike what is being described.
Apples and oranges.
And, it was never considered a sin to be a person of color. I know nothing in the Bible that says anything other than a marriage is between one man and one woman. It didn't mention color at least I never seen anything.
I second that. No one following Biblical Law is going to say that homosexual acts are moral. Plus, since this isn't in the Christianity forum and not all people that are of a religious faith that believe homosexual acts are immoral are even Christiansl, I don't think most would listen anyway. Biblical Law is unchanging despite the butcher jobs that some churches, in an effort to get butts in the seats, have done to the supposed word of God. I listened to a youtube of some nutjob the other day and was blown away by the twisting of The Word.
Someone shows up and tells me that he is Jesus and homosexuality is moral and not against Biblical law, I will call 911. This will not be the first person that told me they were Jesus.
You're free to have your opinions, but you can't force your personal version of "Biblical law" on the population. Would you want Sharia law forced on you? Probably not. It's sickening what humans will do to other humans in the name of religion. Right now, today, in Uganda, lesbians are raped and gay men are murdered thanks to opinions like yours. And the reason they do this is in great part linked straight to Scott Lively, someone you probably agree with. The Ugandan government also has ties to U.S. senators who are on their side. Is this the side you want to be on? With people who want to "exterminate" gay people? Highly unlikely it would happen in the U.S., but it is happening in other countries, and in the name of Christianity.
Again, the same paradox exists. God cannot act against His nature. Homosexual acts are sin against God. There's no getting around that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
SO when God demanded that babies heads be bashed against rocks, pregnant women's bellies be slashed open, virgins be raped, etc. that was all moral . . . or was it against His nature???
Answer the question, JJ. Your consistent God did and ordered some very inconsistent things. How do you explain that given your belief about His consistency???
Either you have not read the Bible you defend or you have serious reading comprehension problems if you do not recognize the OT descriptions of God. How much DO you know about what is in the Bible you revere??
Why because they so say? Their arguments are poor. Basically comes down to "well look here, the Bible talks about other kind of marriages so that means God accepts and blesses any kind of union!"
Abraham practiced polygamy and God made him the father of Judaism, Christianity, AND Islam. Now, if God disapproved of polygamy so much, why would he give Abraham such a massive honor? Why wouldn't have God found someone with a nice, traditional one-man/one-woman marriage? This is especially true given the holy fuss fundamentalists and evangelicals have made about gay marriage; it must be assumed that who marries whom is one of THE most important things God cares about in our trivial little insect-like lives.
God must also not care overmuch about incest considering it featured prominently not once, not twice, but three times in the Bible. Now, the Bible never implicitly says that relatives married each other, but it's an absolutely safe assumption that it happened. Otherwise, how could humanity have continued after Adam and Eve or after Noah and his family? Obviously brothers and sisters would have had to marry at some point. Since God knowingly set up a situation where incestuous marriages were necessary, he couldn't have hated the idea or found it sinful.
I suppose it's possible that brothers and sisters did the wild thing often enough so that they could switch to 1st, 2nd, and eventually 3rd cousins without marrying - but that would be fornication and God doesn't like that, either.
Which is to say that polygamy and something as genetically non-viable as incest were signed, sanctioned, and approved by God.
While that doesn't do much for the argument supporting gay marriage, what it DOES do is show how the Bible, either directly or indirectly, shows that God did, in fact, approve of "non-traditional" marriages.
I am familiar with Cargill and he is an enemy of the gospel and a skeptic. He even recently praised the decline in Christianity report as a good thing. I don't expect him to report anything that doesn't support his skepticism. I have presented sources in the past to atheists who had PHDs from top universities like Harvard, and it was immediately dismissed. Credentials are meaningless in these discussions.
Which in no way means that God defined marriage to include other type of unions. He may have permitted but only for a greater good given the cultural circumstances.
Sure there is. Jesus referred to Adam and Eve in Matthew 19:4 as the model for marriage. He cements the marriage by saying "let no one separate" in Matthew 19:6
Well here's a start:
"In that day so few men will be left that seven women will fight for each man, saying, "Let us all marry you! We will provide our own food and clothing. Only let us take your name so we won't be mocked as old maids."
Isaiah 4:1
So what if letting gay couples get married was "permitted but only for a greater good given the cultural circumstances."? What about that Jeff? It would certainly take a strain off of a whole lot of people, which would be for the greater good. You are a hypocrite, and it is really pointless to talk to someone who's brain is completely turned off to any info not fundie related.
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.
