Religious Controversies: Man/Woman Equality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
322

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

…Matthew 19: 8-9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” - this passage has the clearest denunciation of polygamy possible.

Christ plainly says that anyone who divorces a wife for an invalid reason (ie the original marriage still is in force) and HE marries another woman (no marital status given for her) HE commits adultery.

A divorce for an invalid reason leaves the original marriage intact in the eyes of God. The only way the marriage covenant could be dissolved in the eyes of God was for it to be for the one legitimate reason provided - unfaithfulness in the marriage - otherwise, God states that the original marriage covenant is still in force. And then God goes on to state that if I marry another woman while still married to the first woman - I am an adulterer.

In my understanding this cannot be any plainer. If I am married, and while that marriage covenant is in force I marry another woman regardless of her age, virginity or marital status - I have committed adultery.
[/quote]

That is taking that passage and stretching it quite a bit. The prohibition contained therein is against divorce not polygamy. Honestly and without any sarcasm, I don’t think that could be any plainer.
[/quote]

hmm, I’m trying to make sense of your approach, but my explanation flows with the actual text of the verse. The man legally divorces his wife, but does so for an invalid reason, God does not recognize the divorce as being valid, thus he remains married and in marrying the second woman, he committs adultery. - where is my narrative off-track?

325

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

So, given the above passage, if both “rulers” consented to having others join in, would that make it okay?[/quote]

Thelos makes that point, as a matter of fact. There can be no “unfaithfulness” in that scenario.

When Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, Abraham was not being “unfaithful” to Sarah. Now one can argue that it didn’t turn out all that great because Ishmael sure complicated things later on down the line but the fact of the matter is…the sex between the Hebrews 11 Hall of Famer and his wife’s servant girl was NOT unfaithfulness and it was NOT immoral.[/quote]

Sorry, my chin strap was a little crooked.

It may not have been unfaithfulness to Sarah, but it was disobedience to God.[/quote]

Cite references.[/quote]

How about Sarah and Abraham taking into their own hands the promise that God told them? God said to both Sarah and Abraham that their decendents would be like the stars in the sky. The promise was through both Sarah and Abraham. This disobedience is why we have the issues in the Middle East today.[/quote]

Cite references that establish that Abraham’s sex with Hagar was immoral.

A synopsis of how Ishmael became the father of the Arab people and the subsequent intra-semitic conflict that ensued is not the citation of a sexual sin.[/quote]

I never said it was immoral. I said it was disobedience to God.

328

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< Meh. Your tactics are failing.[/quote]
The Bible is not a book of specific points. It is a systematic revelation of the divine mind. Which is why I am always very hesitant to get involved in topics like this online. Yes a system is made up of points, but the system defines the points and the subject matter is vast and it is too easy to fumble about with points while never actually revealing the system. Which truth I have seen borne out in the exactly 2 religious internet threads I have ever participated in in my life.

THE system, consisting of all the points, represented by my irritatingly long yet still woefully inadequate posts are the long standing refutation of all points that refuse governance by the system. Points spawn cults. THE system is the Christian faith.

If there has been any post of mine in this thread entirely devoid of specific criticism of you this is it. It is a concise exposition of the method of systematic theology.

331

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< Meh. Your tactics are failing.[/quote]
The Bible is not a book of specific points. It is a systematic revelation of the divine mind. Which is why I am always very hesitant to get involved in topics like this online. Yes a system is made up of points, but the system defines the points and the subject matter is vast and it is too easy to fumble about with points while never actually revealing the system. Which truth I have seen borne out in the exactly 2 religious internet threads I have ever participated in in my life.

THE system, consisting of all the points, represented by my irritatingly long yet still woefully inadequate posts are the long standing refutation of all points that refuse governance by the system. Points spawn cults. THE system is the Christian faith.

If there has been any post of mine in this thread entirely devoid of specific criticism of you this is it. It is a concise exposition of the method of systematic theology.
[/quote]

Funny thing is…I have used this systematic approach in my argument as well. Throughout.[/quote]
You have presented a subsystem that refuses governance by THE system.

334

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

So, given the above passage, if both “rulers” consented to having others join in, would that make it okay?[/quote]

Thelos makes that point, as a matter of fact. There can be no “unfaithfulness” in that scenario.

When Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, Abraham was not being “unfaithful” to Sarah. Now one can argue that it didn’t turn out all that great because Ishmael sure complicated things later on down the line but the fact of the matter is…the sex between the Hebrews 11 Hall of Famer and his wife’s servant girl was NOT unfaithfulness and it was NOT immoral.[/quote]

Sorry, my chin strap was a little crooked.

It may not have been unfaithfulness to Sarah, but it was disobedience to God.[/quote]

Cite references.[/quote]

How about Sarah and Abraham taking into their own hands the promise that God told them? God said to both Sarah and Abraham that their decendents would be like the stars in the sky. The promise was through both Sarah and Abraham. This disobedience is why we have the issues in the Middle East today.[/quote]

Cite references that establish that Abraham’s sex with Hagar was immoral.

A synopsis of how Ishmael became the father of the Arab people and the subsequent intra-semitic conflict that ensued is not the citation of a sexual sin.[/quote]

I never said it was immoral. I said it was disobedience to God.[/quote]

Now we’re gittin somewhere. I have no problem with one pursuing the angle that Abe disobeyed God in jumpin’ the gun in his procreative efforts to father the Chosen People.

But as you said, the sex with Hagar wasn’t immoral.

Finally we are making some headway. Welcome to the world of biblically based reason.[/quote]

Disobedience is a sin. By jumping in the sack with Hagar he was sinning against God. The original meaning of marriage by God was literally set out in the Genesis story. Are you now saying that those verses were to be take figuratively?

God hates divorce, but he gave the Israelites Divorce. So because God said you can divorce that means you should divorce over and over again? The NT clearly shows there is only one reason for divorce and that comes from Jesus. God allowed polygamy, does that mean he likes it? The NT shows that he does not like it.

Galations 5:16-26. This sums it up.

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

This sums it all up at least in my mind. Orgies, Sexual Immorality. These are desires of the flesh. The Spirit is what we need to be following. God gave us his true meaning of marriage and a love relationship in Genesis. Live by the Spirit and not by the flesh. Sex is of the flesh. With in the confines of marriage there is nothing wrong with sex. It is a physical and spiritual blessing that God gave to humans. We must have self control when it comes to sins of the flesh and they are all laid out above.

339

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The new standard is being misconstrued. The new standard does not mean God repealed old laws of morality and legislated new ones. God’s standard of sin has always been the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow - Old and New Testament.

Christ distilled the meaning of the Law into “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” He repealed the ceremonial levitical law that looked forward towards the coming Messiah because it was no longer needed as He, the Messiah, had arrived.

You cannot frame the new standard within a some kind of shifting paradigm. God’s standards of morality (not talking about “practicality” or customs) never change.

It is crystal clear God intended to give David all the women he wanted in 1055 B.C. and it obviously was NOT sin for God Himself to give multiple women to “a man after his own heart.” Remember, Nathan was speaking under direct, divine inspiration when he uttered these words (the promise of more women).

God isn’t about to do that ^ and then turn around 1,000 years later and say:

“I was jes foolin. It really was a sin for David (and his son Solly) to have multiple women.”

OR

“It was not sin then but henceforth and forevermore it is. My old standards of morality are hereby repealed and new ones are hereby established.”

See…things certainly changed under the new covenant but the way God looks at sin never does. Sin is sin is sin. It’s not a fluctuating concept. It doesn’t ebb and flow with the times.
[/quote]

Sorry, did not mean to intone that the “new standard” was a replacement - it was not. It is the refinement from the letter of the law to the spirit of the law.

Now to the heart of the David conundrum . . . “and your master’s wives into your arms” . . . problem here is that David never married any of Sauls’s wives or his concubines . . . there is no biblical evidence that this ever happened . . . and now we get into hebrew . . . yeah!!

I have always interpreted the passage as the plain Hebrew reads, and (I) gave (you) master’s household master’s women (into your) arms and gave (you) household (of) Israel (of) Judah (had that been) too little (I) would have increased the same (and) the same - to be a plain statement that God had blessed David by giving him his master’s household and his women (Hebrew 'ishshah) - the word is merely the plural form of woman and does not necessitate translation as wives.

There is no punctuation in the hebrew and the phrase structure combines both household and women of his master being given into David’s arms - the supposed sexual intonation is not present because of the inclusion of both nouns and the general consensus of the passage is that all of the possessions of Saul were given to David as well as the possession of all of Israel and Judah - to my eye, this passage is clearly stating this:

Look, you idiot, I gave you everything your master owned (palaces and servants) as well as all of Israel and Judah - and if that had not been enough for you, you silly man, I would have given you more of the same . . . or in other words - is my blessing not enough for you that you would covet something expressly forbidden to you?

I do not agree with the intepretation of 'ishshah as wives since there is no evidence ever given that David married either of Saul’s wives (one of whom would have been the mother of David’s wife and thus a clear violation of Mosaic law) and the textual structure does not support the interpretation - lending itself more accurate to "females of the household - ie servants.

anyhoo - my two cents for what it’s worth . . .