[quote]TSuderman wrote:
So the wording in DEUTERONOMY 22:28 may say “lay hold” but it does not say “force her.”[/quote]
Please. That’s the best you can come up with? Word games? Might as well say that no one in the Bible ever has sex, they only get to “know” each other.
“…lay hold on her, and lie with her.” Doesn’t sound consensual to me. Why even mention “lay hold” if it doesn’t imply any kind of coercion?
[quote]coolexec wrote:
The guy’s crazy. I have one wife and she’s more than enough!
On a serious note, though, here (in South Africa) polygamy is legal for black African people who marry according to tribal custom. Our ex-Deputy President, Jacob Zuma, has three wives.
King Mswati lll of Swaziland has 12 wives (the youngest is about 14) and another fiancee.
His late father, King Sobhuza II, who led the country to independence in 1968, had more than 70 wives when he died in 1982.
So … to each his own …
[/quote]
Well, since in reality they aren’t “born again” christians and are going to hell anyway…the polygamy is just gravy.
[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Wrong! The Bible does not “sanction” anything of the sort.
You really need to read your own bible, steveo. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were greatly blessed while practicing polygamy. So was Moses. And in this verse, God directly says that he GAVE MULTIPLE WIVES TO DAVID!
“And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”
2 Samuel 12:8.
So this “deviant behavior” that your panties are in a twist over was considered quite normal by biblical standards. Nice try though, buddy! 
[/quote]
The fact that God blesses even when we sin, doesn’t mean God sanctions that sin, but it reveals that God is good and gracious.
When Moses hit the rock when God told him to speak to it, water still flowed forth and the people were provided for. However, even though Moses was greatly blessed – God spoke to Moses “as a man speaks to his friend,” Moses paid a big price by being barred from the Land of Israel because of his sin.
Forlife, the Bible is clear in its teaching about what constitutes marriage and what constitutes abominal sin. You, my lost friend, are practicing severe sin and according to the Bible (read Revelation and then come back to me) you cannot enter into Heaven, unless you repent and come to your spiritual senses – and therefore since there are only two choices, the word of God is clear as to where you are headed.
That is Bible, my friend. What you try to do is twist it to your own ends. Not suprising for someone who wishes to practice his sin and get all of us on board.
Not going to work…
[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
It is a joke that you try to use the Holy Scriptures to allow for things that the Bible clearly says is sin or in the case of sodomy – ABOMINATION.
Your supernatural holy book also says that eating lobster, wearing polyester, and eating medium rare steak is an ABOMINATION. Repent now, ye sinners!
Leviticus 11:10 on eating shellfish:
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you
Leviticus 19:19 on wearing mixed fibers:
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.
Leviticus 17:12 on eating blood:
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
[/quote]
How many times are you going to try to use this? I have explained this to you before.
The Bible says: Repent or perish!
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
The fact that God blesses even when we sin, doesn’t mean God sanctions that sin, but it reveals that God is good and gracious.[/quote]
It’s good to know that god will continue blessing me despite being a deviant homosexual
Regardless, you missed the verse where god CLEARLY says he gave multiple wives to David! Here it is again:
“And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”
2 Samuel 12:8.
Ignoring passages like this doesn’t make them go away, you know.
You’re right: it is very clear that polygamy was commonplace and sanctioned by god in the bible. It is also clear that the bible considers eating bacon, wearing mixed fibers, and keeping your steaks medium rare to be an ABOMINATION worthy of death. Sounds like a great rule book for life!
But Abraham never repented of having multiple wives. Nor did Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Solomon, or David (you know, the guy to whom god GAVE multiple wives). All of these men died as proud polygamists. I guess they won’t be entering into Heaven either 
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
How many times are you going to try to use this? I have explained this to you before.
[/quote]
If memory serves, you claimed that god changed all of these laws when Jesus arrived (despite the scriptures stating that god’s laws are immutable and do not change). I guess god can change his mind after all. Maybe he’ll decide that homosexuality is good one of these days Maybe he already has!
More to the point, you never answered why smorgasbord fundies don’t follow the new testament injunction against women speaking in church, having their heads uncovered, or the biblical support for slavery.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
It is a joke that you try to use the Holy Scriptures to allow for things that the Bible clearly says is sin or in the case of sodomy – ABOMINATION.
Your supernatural holy book also says that eating lobster, wearing polyester, and eating medium rare steak is an ABOMINATION. Repent now, ye sinners!
Leviticus 11:10 on eating shellfish:
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you
Leviticus 19:19 on wearing mixed fibers:
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.
Leviticus 17:12 on eating blood:
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
How many times are you going to try to use this? I have explained this to you before.
The Bible says: Repent or perish!
[/quote]
I guess I am going to hell because I loves me some raw meat
[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
How many times are you going to try to use this? I have explained this to you before.
If memory serves, you claimed that god changed all of these laws when Jesus arrived (despite the scriptures stating that god’s laws are immutable and do not change). I guess god can change his mind after all. Maybe he’ll decide that homosexuality is good one of these days Maybe he already has!
More to the point, you never answered why smorgasbord fundies don’t follow the new testament injunction against women speaking in church, having their heads uncovered, or the biblical support for slavery.
[/quote]
(1) Women speaking in church: We do follow this. Women cannot preach or teach men in my church.
(2) Heads uncovered – if you read the passage in context, you will see that Paul says that the woman’s hair is the covering. Some churches believe, therefore, if women have long hair, that is the covering. If not, then they should cover their heads, which some so.
(3) Where in the world do you get that the N.T. supports slavery? Again, just because the Bible records reality of the culture, doesn’t mean it supports that.
You are once again wrong about mutiple wives and sodomy. The Bible clearly doesn’t support that, although it records people sinning. You have a screwed up way of interpreting a Bible that you cannot stand upon, because it calls your lifesytle an “abomination,” and says that those who persist in it (look it up in Revelation) will go to the Lake of Fire.
Save your theological gymnastics for someone whose IQ is low enough to be fooled by you. You are a wolf in sheeps clothing. One day you will realize that you are wrong. Hopefully it will not be too late…
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
How many times are you going to try to use this? I have explained this to you before.
If memory serves, you claimed that god changed all of these laws when Jesus arrived (despite the scriptures stating that god’s laws are immutable and do not change). I guess god can change his mind after all. Maybe he’ll decide that homosexuality is good one of these days Maybe he already has!
More to the point, you never answered why smorgasbord fundies don’t follow the new testament injunction against women speaking in church, having their heads uncovered, or the biblical support for slavery.
(1) Women speaking in church: We do follow this. Women cannot preach or teach men in my church.
(2) Heads uncovered – if you read the passage in context, you will see that Paul says that the woman’s hair is the covering. Some churches believe, therefore, if women have long hair, that is the covering. If not, then they should cover their heads, which some so.
(3) Where in the world do you get that the N.T. supports slavery? Again, just because the Bible records reality of the culture, doesn’t mean it supports that.
You are once again wrong about mutiple wives and sodomy. The Bible clearly doesn’t support that, although it records people sinning. You have a screwed up way of interpreting a Bible that you cannot stand upon, because it calls your lifesytle an “abomination,” and says that those who persist in it (look it up in Revelation) will go to the Lake of Fire.
Save your theological gymnastics for someone whose IQ is low enough to be fooled by you. You are a wolf in sheeps clothing. One day you will realize that you are wrong. Hopefully it will not be too late…
[/quote]
you still cannot wriggle out of the David quote.
God gave David several wives. He would have given him more if David had wanted to.
Since God cannot sin, polygamy is not a sin.
Thank you very much.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
I don’t expect steveo, or anybody like him, to be a giant in the ethical department. So let’s keep it strictly legal.
Gay sex isn’t illegal.
Sex with minors is.
I rest my case.
Anal sex is illegal in many US States
Oral sex is illegal in many US States
I re-rest your case!
[/quote]
Many states in the US are not considered to be part of the civilised word. Everybody knows that.
To get back to the subject of polygamy, while it might not cause problems on a small scale, it wouldn’t work very well if is was the norm. I’m assuming that a polygamist society is made up of men who have multiple wives, and not the polyandrist reciprocal.
Since births tend to be 50/50 boys and girls, you’d eventually end up with a lot of leftover men who’d be without a mate. A lot of angry, horny men can cause a quite a bit of chaos when they band together and start raiding the harems.
I’m all for freedom and liberty and the right of consenting adults to do what they want; but is this a case where the “greater good” of society takes precedence over individual wants, and therefore it is legitimate for a society to forbid polygamist arrangements?
[quote]pookie wrote:
To get back to the subject of polygamy, while it might not cause problems on a small scale, it wouldn’t work very well if is was the norm. I’m assuming that a polygamist society is made up of men who have multiple wives, and not the polyandrist reciprocal.
Since births tend to be 50/50 boys and girls, you’d eventually end up with a lot of leftover men who’d be without a mate. A lot of angry, horny men can cause a quite a bit of chaos when they band together and start raiding the harems.
I’m all for freedom and liberty and the right of consenting adults to do what they want; but is this a case where the “greater good” of society takes precedence over individual wants, and therefore it is legitimate for a society to forbid polygamist arrangements?
[/quote]
You are right, but if you are a society that goes to war every other year there is bound to be a surplus of women (or a lack of men, depends on the fighting skills).
In this case polygamy is welfare, especially in societies where a woman alone is worth nothing.
Which is probably why polygamy was a-ok with Jesus, it often was more of an act of mercy than an act of sexual greed.
However, even in our monogamous society wealthy man very often do have more than one woman, those women simply have fewer rights than they would have,were they married.
[quote]orion wrote:
You are right, but if you are a society that goes to war every other year there is bound to be a surplus of women (or a lack of men, depends on the fighting skills).[/quote]
With modern warfare, the numbers of casualties diminish greatly. For example, in Iraq, after 3 years of war, the US is still below 3000 deads troops. Not enough to make a dent in the men/women ratio of the population at home.
Here again, doesn’t really apply to modern Western society.
Even not so wealthy men have affairs; and those are looked upon as dishonorable by society in general.
I was simply wondering whether my initial assertion that as long as it was “between consenting adults” was wrong; in the sense that if you scaled the freedom implied to the whole of society, this society would have problems functioning. Unless a particular role can be found for the mateless men. Sending them all to war doesn’t seem to be a very “humane” solution.
[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
You are right, but if you are a society that goes to war every other year there is bound to be a surplus of women (or a lack of men, depends on the fighting skills).
With modern warfare, the numbers of casualties diminish greatly. For example, in Iraq, after 3 years of war, the US is still below 3000 deads troops. Not enough to make a dent in the men/women ratio of the population at home.
In this case polygamy is welfare, especially in societies where a woman alone is worth nothing.
Here again, doesn’t really apply to modern Western society.
Which is probably why polygamy was a-ok with Jesus, it often was more of an act of mercy than an act of sexual greed.
However, even in our monogamous society wealthy man very often do have more than one woman, those women simply have fewer rights than they would have,were they married.
Even not so wealthy men have affairs; and those are looked upon as dishonorable by society in general.
I was simply wondering whether my initial assertion that as long as it was “between consenting adults” was wrong; in the sense that if you scaled the freedom implied to the whole of society, this society would have problems functioning. Unless a particular role can be found for the mateless men. Sending them all to war doesn’t seem to be a very “humane” solution.
[/quote]
Since monogamy did probably tame society, you are probably right that polygamy would “untame” it.
Just for the sake of the argument, does that necessarily need to be a bad thing?
Yes, competition would be fiercer and crime rates would probably go up, but fierce competition could be a good thing in business, science, medicine, etc…
Maybe we have no way to avoid it anyway.
If a man chooses to live with several women and to father their children, what could we do to stop him?
Courts would have to start to deal with questions of custody or alymony in such relationships, which sooner or later must lead to the government making laws.
If people decide to shake off Christian mores when it comes to marriage, there is very little society could do, even if the consequences were less than desirable.
edit: http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1236527
looks like the allready start playing around with the idea.
[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David,…and all born-again by faith individuals, are indeed sinful, but we came to the knowledge that the grace of God washes away our sin if we come on His terms.
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses all died having multiple wives. They did not “repent” of practicing polygamy, because they never considered it a sin!
So by your standards, these men are bound for hell, just as I am bound for hell, due to never changing their ways.
It’s all good, though. I would rather be in their company than yours, anyway :)[/quote]
I do not know about the days of Jacob Isaac or Abraham. But what Warren Jeffs did to that northern AZ community and Southern Utah communities was nothing but evil. Not only did he rape the young women he also ran the young men out of town so the old fucks did not have to worry about the young men servicing their dissatisfied wives. He ruined thousands of lives. In my opinion he deserves to be turned lose in general population.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
(1) Women speaking in church: We do follow this. Women cannot preach or teach men in my church.[/quote]
However, many christians (even including many fundies) do not follow this. Are they in a state of sin as a result?
Blatantly false. Here is the scripture for you (1 Corinthians 11:4-7):
[quote]4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.[/quote]
Vs. 4: If having your head covered meant having hair as you claim, that would mean all men must pray while bald since they can’t pray with their head covered!
Vs. 5: Paul says that a woman praying with her head uncovered is “as if she were shaven”, which CLEARLY distinguishes it from actually being shaven. “As if” means “like”, not “identical”.
Vs. 6: If the woman is not covered, she should ALSO be bald…again a clear distinction between having one’s head covered and having hair.
Vs. 7: Gotta love women being considered second class citizens, and existing to glorify men.
Anyone with a grain of honesty would recognize that Paul was talking about women wearing head coverings in church here. But even if he wasn’t, would you then conclude that bald women are in a state of sin if they attend your church?
I provided several scriptures earlier, which clearly sanction the taking of slaves, and instruct slaves to obey their masters. Again, anyone with an ounce of honesty will acknowledge this.
You have yet to address the scripture in which God clearly says he gave multiple wives to David. Still running around with your fingers plugged in your ears?
Seriously, how do you live with judging others based on cherry picking scriptures from your holy book, when it is so blatantly obvious that you don’t follow other scriptures from that same book? Can you not acknowledge that things can and do change as society has become more enlightened in the past 2,000 years?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not know about the days of Jacob Isaac or Abraham. But what Warren Jeffs did to that northern AZ community and Southern Utah communities was nothing but evil.[/quote]
Agreed!
Homosexuallism is a natural inclanation of the human mind.
Polygamy isn’t.
No slippery slope, just a step onto a broad platform.
I’m not out in the streets “demanding gay marriage”, but I see no particular reason why it should be illegal, and I would say the same thing about each of the other practices you mentioned.