[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< I have no problem swimming upstream on any number of issues. >>>[/quote]
There is no upstream on fundamentals like this in the Gospel man. You’re killin me. That’s one of the things that guys like Mike hate about it. “Nobody’s conformin me to that shit” But in every significant area of life Christianity IS conformity. I freely admit and own that. In that conformity comes the only real liberation there is.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< The irony is that it really doesn’t bring dishonor to the name of Jesus, at least I don’t think so. The historical figure of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible was kind, caring, and generally a good guy. And the purpose of religion should be to further these values. Many religions do this, and these religions also realize that taking the Bible literally, especially the Old Testament books, doesn’t necessarily accomplish these goals. [/quote]
This is a civil response to which I will provide a civil answer. I mean it as no insult when I say that without an absolutely literal old testament Jesus of Nazereth was an even bigger fraud than you would think He is if you actually knew what he was about. It makes no difference whether you (or I) think he’s being dishonored. He is. By the vaaaaaaast majority Christian view to put it in your terms.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
…But that doesn’t mean that I can’t question your sincerity in calling yourself a good Christian because your view is most definitely not the majority Christian view.[/quote]
You certainly have the right to your opinion and that opinion certainly can include that you don’t consider me a good Christian and I can certainly see how you might come to that conclusion because my view is certainly not the majority Christian view but you most certainly should come to believe by now that I have no problem swimming upstream on any number of issues.
Now you can certainly decide to engage me point by point on the issues with which you disagree with me or you can resort to character assassination as is in vogue by those who hold a weak position in virtually any debate but "hate to lose.'[/quote]
Fine, but you do the same. My point is that you and I are not that different - we vary only in degree. You have chosen to question a tenet of Christianity while I have chosen to question the whole of organized religion. But I am honest about it and call myself non-religious or agnostic. This has subjected me to derision on this forum even though, as I’ve said before, the way I lead my life is probably indistinguishable from that of a Christian. You just need to admit that you are not a mainstream Christian and you need a literal interpretation of the Bible to justify your departure from mainstream Christianity.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
<< You have zoomed by dozens of my posts and the basis of your arguments is essentially, “Push, you should be ashamed of yourself.”[/quote]
I have read every last syllable of every one of your posts and I would entreat others to peruse the previous pages of this thread for my response to this wholly unfounded calumny.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…I literally have a knot in my throat right now…[/quote]
Stop it, Tirib. Be intellectually composed and not an emotional wreck. Relax.[/quote]
I have not enjoyed this thread since the first page, but I’m not a wreck though I know you were being tongue in cheek.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
…and you need a literal interpretation of the Bible to justify your departure from mainstream Christianity.[/quote]
You are clueless here. >>>[/quote]
I actually have to agree here though I’m pretty sure for different reasons than you.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have read every last syllable of every one of your posts…[/quote]
Then you are a master evader because I have reams of questions and comments that you have chosen fit to ignore. That’s fine in and of itself but when you ignore those posts by inserting basically nothing more than agonizing pleas for me to mend my evil ways it reveals a disingenuousness on your part about the actual debate. [/quote]
Until you understand that divine history before the 3rd of Genesis and after the 2nd of Acts, at which time the ministry of Jesus was fulfilled and the new covenant church was born, governs everything in between, debating old testament sex and marriage is pointless.
Edit: One other thing. If there has been any instance of my misrepresenting you I promise it has not been due to disingenuous intent. I do not operate that way ever. It erodes credibility and is ineffective.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I understand completely.
In a nutshell what I have tried to illustrate here is “Liberating sex from religious tradition.”
Religious tradition, even well intentioned, practical, wholesome tradition, CAN be insidious, creeping in and gradually assuming the role of divinely inspired doctrine. Example: in the Catholic church there are ocean basins chock full of tradition and ceremony that have little to no true biblical foundation. In evangelical Protestant churches there is everything from length of hair on men to anti-masturbation LAWS to children speaking in tongues and on and on.
The gluttony comparison is certainly valid. If a person engages in sexual practice to the point where its is comparable to food gluttony then he or she has taken it too far.
But the “long, flowing robes” wearing folks can and have barged into the every century since the first one. They are there; they are here; and they get deeply offended when one points them out.[/quote]
OK, i do understand the approach you are using and for sake of clarity for those that will be reading along with us, I would like to separate the two issues here: polygamy and lust/adultery
For now, I want to continue down the line of polygamy solely on its own and then we can discuss the other issue. OK?
we have already agreed that those that seek leadership in the Church are commanded to be monogamous, the rationale for which can be based in 2 (not mutually exclusive) viewpoints - practical and spiritual? Right so far?
ok, I then introduced the biblical principle of moderation in all things and that we are to avoid the excesses of the flesh with my poorly worded inclusion of the sin of gluttony - with me so far, right?
Now, I going to blow some minds with the next statement, but bear with me. The Bible does not say “they two shall be one flesh” in Genesis 2. Wait . . . let me get through this.
The Masoretic (sp?) text actually states “they will become one flesh” the “two” is a textual gloss added in later texts as a commentary note - but it is an unneeded commentary note, because the passage had already identified only 2 parties, the man and the woman.
Let stop here and examine this setting a bit closer. This is the garden at creation, the establishment of the perfect union of marriage with the as yet sinless Adam and Eve in the perfect setting. In fact, Eve had just been created to be Adam’s mate.
This bears closer scrutiny: God had just created everything and declared it good, except that man needed companionship. In creating the companion for Adam, God also establishes human families, human procreation and human marriage. Now, if multiple wives is a good thing, why did he not provide Adam with multiple wives (he’s got more ribs- lol j/k) after all he is about to command them to be fruitful and multiply and he could have been a lot more fruitful and exponential in his multiplication with multiple wives. By omission, God is plainly stating that polygamy is neither a necessity nor the right option for marriage - the perfect marriage is between one man and one woman who can within that union of two fulfill ALL of their needs and His commandments. Still with me?
ok - let’s jump from the beginning of the OT the the end of the OT - Malachi 2
Without question, the “wife of your youth” is intended to portray the first wife - the one to whom you have been married since your youth. You are to remain faithful to her (do not break faith with her) because she has been made one with you by God so that godly children would be produced - to break the ones-ness of this covenant of faith is to literally abandon God himself- the sealer of your marriage covenant.
Ok, - now let’s jump to the NT, 1 Corinthians 7 - this one gets even clearer: “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife” - the phrase “power of” is the same term describing sovereign rule over . . . the husband is the sovereign ruler of the wife’s body and the wife is the sovereign ruler of the husband’s body - would you as a husband allow your wife to take another lover? No, and this passage clearly supports your claims, BUT it also applies in reverse: the wife now has sovereign rule over your body and thus she alone is to be the one enjoying the benefit of your love. Tw0 rulers sharing control are not sovereign, they are co-rulers and thus having multiple rulers expressly violates this passages proscription - one that is unquestionably framed in context of sexual relations.
In the same chapter - verse 2 "let each (singular) have his own (singular) wife and let a woman (singular) have her own (singular) husband - his own and her won derive from the Aramaic word “khad” - entirely exclusive of all others.
You spoke earlier of the Law of Liberty - yes, there are neither “male nor female” distinctions before God, equality of all souls before him (Gal 3) - thus all NT bounds upon a woman are equally binding on the man and vice versa . . .
ok, i did another wall of text- sorry, I’ll let you catch up now.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I don’t think I have any problem with this. The fact remains that God never had a problem directly identifying sin in either testament. If He had intended polygamy (as well as the rest of the sexual practices I have mentioned that were not looked upon negatively) to be a gross violation of His moral code He would’ve mentioned it and he wouldn’t have minced words.
Please go back and address, if you don’t mind, my comments on David, Nathan and the lamb. Do you remember what I’m talking about?[/quote]
Thanks, and yes, I know the posts you’re referring to. I’ll be glad to . . … tomorrow . . . for now,though, I am going to go get some much-needed sleep next to my lovely bride.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Ok, - now let’s jump to the NT, 1 Corinthians 7 - this one gets even clearer: “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife” - the phrase “power of” is the same term describing sovereign rule over . . . the husband is the sovereign ruler of the wife’s body and the wife is the sovereign ruler of the husband’s body - would you as a husband allow your wife to take another lover? No, and this passage clearly supports your claims, BUT it also applies in reverse: the wife now has sovereign rule over your body and thus she alone is to be the one enjoying the benefit of your love. Tw0 rulers sharing control are not sovereign, they are co-rulers and thus having multiple rulers expressly violates this passages proscription - one that is unquestionably framed in context of sexual relations.
[/quote]
I’ve read some of Push’s threads on this topic and his argument was that his particular behavior was not adultery because his wife consented to his having sex with another woman. Just to prove that I can be fair, this is not a bad argument, at least in terms of defining the crime of adultery.
So, given the above passage, if both “rulers” consented to having others join in, would that make it okay?