'Traditional Marriage'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
A story about Sarai and Abram’s screw-up is not a justification for repeating the behavior of that screw up.[/quote]

Still waiting for a single scripture stating that Abraham’s polygamy was a screw up. Oh, that’s right…you don’t have one and are just pushing your personal opinion.

I recall God promising Hagar fertility, and I’m pretty sure that counts toward Abraham since he was the father.

Which is why Abraham went on to marry yet another wife, Keturah. Gotcha.

It calls into question the integrity and consistency of your source. If you really believe in the new testament, why aren’t you following the highest standard of celibacy rather than settling for a second rate standard?

Which specifically included Saul’s wives.

It doesn’t get much clearer than that. If God opposed polygamy, why the hell would he gave David the wives of Saul?

242

No problem. From Genesis 2 BEFORE the Fall (go ahead and see Jesus exegesis of the same in Mark 10 at some point):

[quote]21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. [/quote]

Yes, you’re still trying to use Abraham as a normative standard of behavior, even though he did a lot of things he ought not have done, including sleeping with Hagar. Gotcha.

How does this have anything to with how the Bible defines marriage. Non-sequitur.

[quote]Which specifically included Saul’s wives.

It doesn’t get much clearer than that. If God opposed polygamy, why the hell would he gave David the wives of Saul? [/quote]

Already addressed this. Can’t you read? Did your PhD program admission include a reading comprehension test?

243

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
A story about Sarai and Abram’s screw-up is not a justification for repeating the behavior of that screw up.

Still waiting for a single scripture stating that Abraham’s polygamy was a screw up. Oh, that’s right…you don’t have one and are just pushing your personal opinion.

You’ll recall God promising Abram a seed through his wife, Sarai, not his servant Hagar.

I recall God promising Hagar fertility, and I’m pretty sure that counts toward Abraham since he was the father.

The fact that God chose to bless Hagar in spite of Abram’s screw-up is not an endorsement of further like screw-ups down the road.

Which is why Abraham went on to marry yet another wife, Keturah. Gotcha.

Uh, no. You’ve committed a category error. “Celibacy,” by definition, is not “marriage,” which the Bible defined in Genesis 2 (and later exegeted by Jesus) to be between a man and a woman. We’re discussing the standard for “marriage” here, not what is better for the sake of the kingdom.

It calls into question the integrity and consistency of your source. If you really believe in the new testament, why aren’t you following the highest standard of celibacy rather than settling for a second rate standard?

The point of the passage, to the ancient Near Eastern literature illiterate, is that God gave David the spoils of Saul’s house.

Which specifically included Saul’s wives.

It doesn’t get much clearer than that. If God opposed polygamy, why the hell would he gave David the wives of Saul?[/quote]

Because God oversaw and regulated things that weren’t the intended good doesn’t mean he endorsed them.

Israel had kings, does that mean that God endorses monarchies? NO! In fact originally Israel wasn’t supposed to have any king, but the perversion of the people forced it. Yes, in the end God regulated Israel through a king, but that was a result of people’s imperfection. God even went as far as choosing the kings of Israel, WITHOUT endorsing monarchy.

It’s clear to me that many times people aren’t ready for the good God has planned.

244

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. [/quote]

Logical fallacy, because:

  1. Saying a is included in c does not imply that b is not also included in c. God does not prohibit polygamy in this verse. Obviously, polygamy was impossible at the time because Adam and Even were the only people on the planet, so why would God even address it?

  2. Even if #1 were not true, you have only shown that the definition of marriage changed from Adam to Abraham.

You have yet to do what I asked, which is to provide a single verse in scripture condemning Abraham for his polygamy. There is none, and you know it.

It has to do with upholding marriage between one man and one woman as the ultimate standard, while ignoring Paul’s injunction toward celibacy.

No, you tried to obfuscate it by saying God was only referring to Saul’s possessions.

How about actually answering the question?

Why would God give the wives of Saul to David if God disapproved of polygamy?

245

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It’s clear to me that many times people aren’t ready for the good God has planned.[/quote]

By that logic, the people of Paul’s time weren’t ready for the good God has planned either.

I know you like to think that jews living 2,000 years ago achieved the pinnacle of social enlightenment, but I beg to differ (consider advocation of slavery, misogyny, and homophobia among Paul’s unenlightened “flaws”).

246

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
It’s clear to me that many times people aren’t ready for the good God has planned.

By that logic, the people of Paul’s time weren’t ready for the good God has planned either.

I know you like to think that jews living 2,000 years ago achieved the pinnacle of social enlightenment, but I beg to differ (consider advocation of slavery, misogyny, and homophobia among Paul’s unenlightened “flaws”).[/quote]

Please show me where he advocates these things.

247

No what changed “from Adam to Abraham” occurred in Genesis 3: Adam sinned, plunging mankind into sin and sinful behavior.

LOL. There was a lot Abraham did that God did not specifically condemn, but we know it to be so because we have the entire, completed canon of Scripture and can look at passages in their redemptive-historical context. Just because you hate context doesn’t mean the rest of us ought to as well.

[quote]No, you tried to obfuscate it by saying God was only referring to Saul’s possessions.

How about actually answering the question?

Why would God give the wives of Saul to David if God disapproved of polygamy? [/quote]

Considering God ordered the king of Israel “not to multiply wives” Deut 17 (prior to a king actually even existing, btw), and considering God discussed giving David “his master’s house…and the house of Israel and Judah,” we can see my interpretation fits. The point of the passage is, “God gave David Saul’s stuff.” He blessed him.

BTW, when are you going to try to refute the exegesis I posted on Mark 10? Are you just going to ignore that as you do with all other arguments you don’t like?

248

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
If God had intended Adam to have more than one wife, (in the pre-Fall condition of Creation), he would have made Adam more than one wife.[/quote]

There you go again. If God made Adam one wife, it does not automatically follow that God disapproves of multiple wives. It says nothing other than the fact that God approved of one wife on that particular occasion.

You can approve of something without automatically disapproving of an alternate arrangement. Multiple arrangements can be simultaneously approved.

You are assuming exclusivity without warrant.

I’m not just talking about Abraham. Nowhere, in your entire holy book, does God universally and permanently condemn polygamy as a practice. However, there are many examples of God sanctioning the marriage of his servants to multiple women.

[quote]Considering God ordered the king of Israel “not to multiply wives” Deut 17 (prior to a king actually even existing, btw), and considering God discussed giving David “his master’s house…and the house of Israel and Judah,” we can see my interpretation fits.

The point of the passage is, “God gave David Saul’s stuff.” He blessed him.[/quote]

No, it only shows that God has the penchant for changing his mind, which is evidenced throughout the bible. God specifically mentions that he gave David the wives of Saul. You can obfuscate it by lumping his wives into “Saul’s stuff”, but that doesn’t change the fact that God gave David multiple wives. If God disapproved of polygaymy, he could have given David everything except Saul’s wives, but he didn’t.

That is an interesting discussion in its own right. Do you really want to get into why you don’t believe Jesus when he says that divorce is wrong, and marrying a divorced woman is the same as committing adultery in the eyes of God?

249

[quote]forlife wrote:
It has to do with upholding marriage between one man and one woman as the ultimate standard, while ignoring Paul’s injunction toward celibacy.
[/quote]

1 man and 1 woman is the standard for MARRIAGE! What does celibacy have to do with a man and a woman who’ve decided they’re called to marriage? If they decide they wan’t to marry, the model is there. If not, since they’re not married, they must remain celibate. No sex outside of marriage.

And if one has a calling to serve the church and it’s flock undistracted while refraining from marriage and the responsibilities of having a family, celibacy would be the only choice. Because, again, no sex outside of marriage. The person in question has committed to a life of service.

I’m pretty watch done here. After all, I see PRcaldude has had to familiarize you with concepts such as singular and plural…That’s a sign to me this debate isn’t going anywhere.

250

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
If God had intended Adam to have more than one wife, (in the pre-Fall condition of Creation), he would have made Adam more than one wife.

There you go again. If God made Adam one wife, it does not automatically follow that God disapproves of multiple wives. It says nothing other than the fact that God approved of one wife on that particular occasion.

You can approve of something without automatically disapproving of an alternate arrangement. Multiple arrangements can be simultaneously approved.

You are assuming exclusivity without warrant.

There was a lot Abraham did that God did not specifically condemn, but we know it to be so because we have the entire, completed canon of Scripture and can look at passages in their redemptive-historical context.

I’m not just talking about Abraham. Nowhere, in your entire holy book, does God universally and permanently condemn polygamy as a practice. However, there are many examples of God sanctioning the marrige of his servants to multiple women.

Considering God ordered the king of Israel “not to multiply wives” Deut 17 (prior to a king actually even existing, btw), and considering God discussed giving David “his master’s house…and the house of Israel and Judah,” we can see my interpretation fits. The point of the passage is, “God gave David Saul’s stuff.” He blessed him.

No, it only shows that God has the penchant for changing his mind, which is evidenced throughout the bible. God specifically mentions that he gave David the wives of Saul.

You can obfuscate it by lumping his wives into “Saul’s stuff”, but that doesn’t change the fact that God gave David multiple wives. If God disapproved of polygaymy, he could have given David everything except Saul’s wives, but he didn’t.

BTW, when are you going to try to refute the exegesis I posted on Mark 10?

That is an interesting discussion in its own right. Do you really want to get into why you don’t believe Jesus when he says that divorce is wrong, and marrying a divorced woman is the same as committing adultery in the eyes of God?

[/quote]

LOL. I think I’ve spent enough time trying to address the reading of the Bible generated by your various gay neuroses and insecurities. I doubt anyone reading your frequent dodges and repetitions will be convinced by you, but I can’t really help if they are. Like I said, this is what you do with TB23 when he pwns you, you just ignore what you can’t refute and just keep repeating it.

On the other thread, you mentioned that the only solution to homophobia was more interaction with homosexuals. Thank you for refuting this argument with your behavior and intellectual dishonesty on this forum.

251

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I doubt anyone reading your frequent dodges and repetitions will be convinced by you, but I can’t really help if they are. [/quote]

Typical duck and run tactics. Instead of addressing the logical points of the argument, you declare VICTORY and accuse your opponent of intellectual dishonesty.

Nice, but it doesn’t change the fact that God specifically sanctioned polygamy in the bible, despite your claim that it was always considered a sin.

It also doesn’t change the fact that Jesus said people who marry divorcees are committing adultery. I guess that is just one of those other “inconvenient truths” you cherry picking fundamentalists are fond of ignoring.

252

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
On the other thread, you mentioned that the only solution to homophobia was more interaction with homosexuals.[/quote]

On this point, I didn’t say the only solution to homophobia was interaction with gays. I said that having gay friends, coworkers, and family members tends to decrease a person’s homophobia, since they see the person as a human being rather than a stereotype.

No matter how many posts you exchange with me, I don’t expect your homophobia to ever change. Hopefully you have a gay brother that will come out some day, then we can talk.

253

[quote]forlife wrote:

Hopefully you have a gay brother that will come out some day, then we can talk.[/quote]

My brother is discriminated against every day of his life even by the United States Government. He’s known since he was very young that his life was not going to be exactly typical. He’s drawn to the lifestyle he lives and is forced to endure social and financial hardship to enjoy it.

I’ve indulged in the lifestyle he lives, but ultimately found it to be, personally, more about self-destruction than fulfillment, but he truly feels incomplete without… a cigarette.

When you can’t be gay in a post office, restaurant, public park, dorm room or library, then we can talk. When the City, County, State, and Federal gov’t levy taxes that make being gay nearly twice as expensive as being celibate, then we can talk.

When going without sex for six hours gives you migraines and makes your hands twitch, then we can talk. Until then, put the ball gag back in your mouth and get in line behind the hippies with the ‘legalize it!’ t-shirt on you whiny baby.

254

Because God knows that getting your cigarette fix is more important than sharing your life with someone you love.

257

[quote]forlife wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Can we reform that too? Nope, Paul made it clear that sodomy is unnatural, “unseemly”, and wicked.

Paul made it clear that the highest standard should be celibacy, rather than marriage between a man and woman. He also commanded women to keep their heads covered, and not to speak in church.

Glad to see you are living true to Saint Paul’s words.[/quote]

Your answer is a perfect example of Paul’s words- “God gave them over to a reprobate mind”. Your brain has lost the ability to use logic.

Unraveling it would give us this- You can disregard what Paul says about sodomy, because I am married, even though Paul certainly allows for that state, never says it is bad in any way, and writes quite positively about it in many places in the NT.

Certainly, from some aspects being unmarried is preferable. That fact has nothing to do with you being a sodomite, which is everywhere condemned in the bible.

Oh, and by the way, my wife does cover her head, just like the NT tells her to- “for her hair is given her for a covering.”

Since you enjoy referring to the bible so much, what’s your take on this passage-

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, …For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27)

258

[quote]forlife wrote:
sharing your life with someone you love.[/quote]

This seems to be one of the mainstays of your justification for your homo lifestyle. You ignored my comment from page 10 that touched on this- Just because you are able to tie this unnatural act to higher feelings of love and companionship does not change that. It just means you are perverted, have found someone to share in that perversion, and have made it the center and obsession of your life.

Why won’t you address my arguement? It doesn’t really matter what type of feelings you add on top of your vile lust. It’s still what it is- unnatural and unseemly. I bet if a guy had sex with his 18yr old daughter, he could describe all kinds of feelings of “love”. It still wouldn’t justify the base act.

As U.S. Senator Rick Santorum said before the Supreme Court-

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.”

Bigamy is outlawed. Adultery is outlawed in some instances in the US. Incest is illegal if one party is a minor. Sodomy should be outlawed. Just like these others, even if it is between consenting adults. It degrades society as a whole.

259

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Sure you did forliar…You were a committed male homo and then decided to marry a woman. Makes perfect sense to me.
[/quote]

That’s what happens when religion fucks up your life.

The point is that I was always honest and faithful with my wife. Our decision to divorce was mutual, because we both realized that being in a mixed orientation made no sense, despite what our church leaders told us.

260

I haven’t been following this thread and haven’t read all the posts, but I agree with Forlife.

Marriage is an institution and like all institutions it evolves. If you really want to look at “traditional marriage” in the West then you will realize for a great part of its history, marriage has not been about “love” it has been about passing on property to heirs.

Also even if you want to be literal about the Bible, there are problems. First of all, in the Bible as it exists, there are conradictions in the Gospels.

Are you going to believe the hateful things like John calling the Jews devils and children of lies (John 8:39-44),
or how about Exodus where slavery is justified (Exodus 21:21) or all the hateful stuff in Leviticus…Or are you going to choose the bits where Jesus tells us to love our enemies (Matthew 12:34)?

Two Gospels say Jesus was baptized by John The Baptist. Luke says that John the Baptist was already in prison.
There are three seperate and different versions of the 10 Commandmants (Exodus 20, Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 5).

Then there are problems with what makes up the Bibles. Do you know how many different versions of the Gospels of, say, John that were in circulation? Numerous? Why were all of these other purported books of the Bible left out? Why were the books of Thomas and Mary left out? God didn’t make that decision. Men did.

So which Bible, which stories are you going to choose? Sorry, but if you are going to literally interpret the Bible, it comes down to cherry-picking what’s in the Bible to support your version of Christianity. That’s why the Bible has easily been used to justify everything from the KKK on the Right to Liberation Theology on the Left.

Now there is another, intelligent way, for Christians and others to interpret the Bible. That is to recognize the contradictions and realize what it means. The Bible was written by men trying to come to terms with the mystery of life and that we need to live in that mystery instead of trying to project our own beliefs, fears, prejudices and worldviews on a God, in the hope that we can live in certainty. People with certainty are always DANGEROUS. All fundamentalists, be they Christian, Jewish or Muslim are always CERTAIN of their beliefs and have no doubt.

If you want to hate Gays, so be it, but don’t use God as a support to justify your hate.