Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[99percentatheism]

99% you continue to accuse others of 'blatant misrepresentation of the truth, yet claim you are not calling anyone a liar. You cite Matthew 19: . . . . for the proposition that it prohibits homosexuality, yet there's not a word about homosexuality. Not one word. But now you are explicitly calling me 'a liar' because you insist on claiming I am "doing this on purpose to evade admitting what is true."

You are claiming that when the disciples referred to a man and a wife and said 'then it is better not to marry' that, that is a specific prohibition of homosexuality. It is not.

Show me where the NT explicitly prohibits polygamy. If you can not, then you have to admit there is no explicit prohibition of polygamy in the NT and homosexuality by default has the same status as polygamy: neither are explicitly prohibited in the NT, but only in the Gospel according to 99%

I've been debating polygamy with people for over 2 years and not one person has been able to give me a logical explanation that reconciles the practice in the OT with their claims that it is prohibited in the NT. I've narrowed down the main NT objection to Matthew 19 as you refer to in your post. While Jesus did mention marriage consisting of a husband and wife but that was nothing new to the Jews since that was stated the from the time that Genesis 2:24 applies to. And I find it hard to believe that neither God nor the Jews understood what Genesis 2:24 meant, which obviously didn't mean monogamy, since we find God helping out polygamous relationships (Genesis 29:30-33) and GODLY men openly taking multiple wives.

There is that point that Jesus made in Matthew 19:9 about a remarriage (or 2nd marriage) being adultery but he also included UNJUSTIFIED divorce in that formula. This also doesn't prohibit polygamy because polygamy does not have to involve divorce and besides that why would Jesus change the rule on polygamy, which was within God's original plan for marriages (look at how OT defines adultery or what that allows the man to be able to do), while complaining that Moses and others changed God's original marriage plan? Makes no sense for him to prohibit polygamy. In my view, if you refer to the OT MORAL rules (adultery is in the 10 commandments) and combine it with Jesus' teachings, just like Jesus refers to the OT in Matthew 19, then I can reasonably conclude that polygamy without divorce is allowed. Jesus did not say that Moses was the one that allowed polygamy or that Moses defined adultery so Moses did not change these things like he did for divorce.

Sure, some may say it's odd for Jesus to give a standard for adultery just to restrict unjustified divorces and remarriages rather than trying to reinforce monogamy. But then again, it doesn't take banning remarriages to reinforce monogamy since many Westerners divorce (for ANY reason) and start another monogamous marriage and don't count that as adultery. Whatever happened to adultery that involves no divorce or remarriage like when one spouse has sex with a non-spouse while still married? So even in monogamous marriages we find different standards for when sex (or remarriage) is allowed or when it's not. Adultery is just simply about prohibiting (legal or morally) sex in the context of marriage. It would seem that in Matthew 19, Jesus was reinforcing something other than or more than just monogamous marriages. I personally think the context of Matthew 19:9 is clear, especially when you apply the rules of the OT (factor in my previous points), that Jesus was reinforcing something other than monogamy, like LiFETIME (non-divorce) marriages.

Sidenote:
Rick Santorum (start around 3:30 minute mark into video) in his talk on marriage during his recent presidential run. The logic for allowing gay marriage can lead to polygamy in some ways. Polygamy was decriminalized in Utah on Friday (December 13, 2013).

Sources:


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894 ... g.html.csp

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wir ... w-21238000

The Utah issue does not legalize multiple marriages. It says that what goes on in private is none of the goverment's business.

Now, can you show ploygamy anywhere in the description of marriage from God in the Old Testament and God (Jesus) in the New Testament?

And of course "if" you desire a leadership position in The Church, you must have only one wife. And Mormonism and its offshoots certainly cry out that they have biblcail authority (sort of) for the lasciviousness of multi wives.

Why can't women have multiple husbands?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm . . .

Of course that day has been here for many moons. I believe it's called "Babay daddy" now.

This thing in the secular world is going exactly as chaos dictates. You may want to see the condition of society when things turn licentious in the last historicsal report in Judges. We are at "Do as thou wilt . . ." and that is decidely pagan and not Christian. What is transpiring in secular morality is showing us the veracity of Biblical writ.

[Joab]

[Replying to post 1248 by 99percentatheism]

So you are quite happy with your belief that you could become a homosexual under the right circumstances?

That may go some way to explain your hatred, it may or may not be self loathing, what do you think?

Does your "church" (whatever that is) spend every Sunday manning the battlements to repel the homosexual hordes trying to raise a rainbow flag on your flagpole?

Are the rest of your congregation as convinced as you that they can be turned into a homosexual? What percentage of people in your "church" are as insecure regarding their sexuality as you seem to present as being?

[Joab]

99% you continue to accuse others of 'blatant misrepresentation of the truth, yet claim you are not calling anyone a liar. You cite Matthew 19: . . . . for the proposition that it prohibits homosexuality, yet there's not a word about homosexuality. Not one word. But now you are explicitly calling me 'a liar' because you insist on claiming I am "doing this on purpose to evade admitting what is true."

You are claiming that when the disciples referred to a man and a wife and said 'then it is better not to marry' that, that is a specific prohibition of homosexuality. It is not.

Show me where the NT explicitly prohibits polygamy. If you can not, then you have to admit there is no explicit prohibition of polygamy in the NT and homosexuality by default has the same status as polygamy: neither are explicitly prohibited in the NT, but only in the Gospel according to 99%

I've been debating polygamy with people for over 2 years and not one person has been able to give me a logical explanation that reconciles the practice in the OT with their claims that it is prohibited in the NT. I've narrowed down the main NT objection to Matthew 19 as you refer to in your post. While Jesus did mention marriage consisting of a husband and wife but that was nothing new to the Jews since that was stated the from the time that Genesis 2:24 applies to. And I find it hard to believe that neither God nor the Jews understood what Genesis 2:24 meant, which obviously didn't mean monogamy, since we find God helping out polygamous relationships (Genesis 29:30-33) and GODLY men openly taking multiple wives.

There is that point that Jesus made in Matthew 19:9 about a remarriage (or 2nd marriage) being adultery but he also included UNJUSTIFIED divorce in that formula. This also doesn't prohibit polygamy because polygamy does not have to involve divorce and besides that why would Jesus change the rule on polygamy, which was within God's original plan for marriages (look at how OT defines adultery or what that allows the man to be able to do), while complaining that Moses and others changed God's original marriage plan? Makes no sense for him to prohibit polygamy. In my view, if you refer to the OT MORAL rules (adultery is in the 10 commandments) and combine it with Jesus' teachings, just like Jesus refers to the OT in Matthew 19, then I can reasonably conclude that polygamy without divorce is allowed. Jesus did not say that Moses was the one that allowed polygamy or that Moses defined adultery so Moses did not change these things like he did for divorce.

Sure, some may say it's odd for Jesus to give a standard for adultery just to restrict unjustified divorces and remarriages rather than trying to reinforce monogamy. But then again, it doesn't take banning remarriages to reinforce monogamy since many Westerners divorce (for ANY reason) and start another monogamous marriage and don't count that as adultery. Whatever happened to adultery that involves no divorce or remarriage like when one spouse has sex with a non-spouse while still married? So even in monogamous marriages we find different standards for when sex (or remarriage) is allowed or when it's not. Adultery is just simply about prohibiting (legal or morally) sex in the context of marriage. It would seem that in Matthew 19, Jesus was reinforcing something other than or more than just monogamous marriages. I personally think the context of Matthew 19:9 is clear, especially when you apply the rules of the OT (factor in my previous points), that Jesus was reinforcing something other than monogamy, like LiFETIME (non-divorce) marriages.

Sidenote:
Rick Santorum (start around 3:30 minute mark into video) in his talk on marriage during his recent presidential run. The logic for allowing gay marriage can lead to polygamy in some ways. Polygamy was decriminalized in Utah on Friday (December 13, 2013).

Sources:


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894 ... g.html.csp

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wir ... w-21238000

The Utah issue does not legalize multiple marriages. It says that what goes on in private is none of the goverment's business.

Now, can you show ploygamy anywhere in the description of marriage from God in the Old Testament and God (Jesus) in the New Testament?

And of course "if" you desire a leadership position in The Church, you must have only one wife. And Mormonism and its offshoots certainly cry out that they have biblcail authority (sort of) for the lasciviousness of multi wives.

Why can't women have multiple husbands?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm . . .

Of course that day has been here for many moons. I believe it's called "Babay daddy" now.

This thing in the secular world is going exactly as chaos dictates. You may want to see the condition of society when things turn licentious in the last historicsal report in Judges. We are at "Do as thou wilt . . ." and that is decidely pagan and not Christian. What is transpiring in secular morality is showing us the veracity of Biblical writ.

Judges? Doesn't your god tell men to kill everybody but young girls? Doesn't he also tell them they can rape the little girls? Or is that another book? Yeah I know there are quite a few. Liked a bit of little girl rape to go with his infanticide didn't he?

[Danmark]

This thread is clearly defined in the OP. It only needs one honest reply....

And the honesty of that reply will be judged by whether or not the reply agrees with your position.
Things are in a bad state when you have to cite the Laws of Utah and Rick Santorum on homosexuality and polygamy. Yes Santorum may have said homosexuality will lead to polygamy. I don't know how he's made that calculation, but let's look at what the Bible says about Polygamy.

Lamech, had two wives, Adah and Zillah. Abraham had multiple wives, Sarah, Hagar, Keturah, plus concubines. Jacob's four wives were Leah and Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah. Moses' had Zipporah and an African woman; and of course David had at least five, + many concubines, and Solomon had 1000 wives and concubines.

Of course, one can argue that the culture has changed, but for some reason dramatic culture change is not an argument some Christians accept in other areas of conduct. They only apply that argument against practices they personally object to.

Now let's look at the New Testament.
There are simply no passages that limit the number of wives. There are passages saying a man should not divorce his wife, particularly if he has a position of leadership and that he should treat his wife well. But there is nothing that overturns the practice of polygamy as seen in the New Testament.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Of course, one can argue that the culture has changed, but for some reason dramatic culture change is not an argument some Christians accept in other areas of conduct. They only apply that argument against practices they personally object to.

One could argue that, but it would be a bad argument since morality/evil should not change. If it's wrong, it's wrong, right? Otherwise, culture could simply change and make homosexuality ok. Oddly enough, God didn't seem to have a problem with polygamy then, so why would he now? Now, taking a census though, that's some bad stuff there. Worthy of slaughtering thousands.

There are simply no passages that limit the number of wives.

This one could be argued against but not with a fool-proof argument. It says each man is to have his own wife and each wife her own husband. It's not plural. But then, to "have" might be referring to relations in which case you can have 10 wives and so long as you don't "have" relations with a wife that isn't your own, you are fine. But it clearly seems to be that they're defining good character for a leader and thus they think it's good character to have only one wife. But Christians are often fine with having poor character as long as they 'believe' .

[Danmark]

Of course, one can argue that the culture has changed, but for some reason dramatic culture change is not an argument some Christians accept in other areas of conduct. They only apply that argument against practices they personally object to.

One could argue that, but it would be a bad argument since morality/evil should not change. If it's wrong, it's wrong, right? Otherwise, culture could simply change and make homosexuality ok. Oddly enough, God didn't seem to have a problem with polygamy then, so why would he now? Now, taking a census though, that's some bad stuff there. Worthy of slaughtering thousands.

There are simply no passages that limit the number of wives.

This one could be argued against but not with a fool-proof argument. It says each man is to have his own wife and each wife her own husband. . . .

It's important to actually quote or cite your reference, including the context, since we are drawing fine lines here. Since the Hebrew Bible clearly approves of plural marriage, if the New Testament was to outlaw it, one would expect it to do so with clarity. It does not.

[ElCodeMonkey]

It's important to actually quote or cite your reference, including the context,

I see... just like you, then? I think I'm capable of deciding when it's necessary to cite information while I'm agreeing with someone... When did you join the forum police-squad anyway? Yeesh.

[Danmark]

It's important to actually quote or cite your reference, including the context,

I see... just like you, then? I think I'm capable of deciding when it's necessary to cite information while I'm agreeing with someone... When did you join the forum police-squad anyway? Yeesh.

Would you please show the context and citation for "It says each man is to have his own wife and each wife her own husband. . . ."

[ElCodeMonkey]

It's important to actually quote or cite your reference, including the context,

I see... just like you, then? I think I'm capable of deciding when it's necessary to cite information while I'm agreeing with someone... When did you join the forum police-squad anyway? Yeesh.

Would you please show the context and citation for "It says each man is to have his own wife and each wife her own husband. . . ."

Sure, no problem. Like I said, it can still be argued against, but since you asked:

1 Corinthians 7:2

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

[Danmark]

Sure, no problem. Like I said, it can still be argued against, but since you asked:

1 Corinthians 7:2

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Thank you. Would you agree that taken in context, or rather by looking at the entire verse, it is clear this is a reference that it is better to marry, to avoid fornication?

That is clearly the focus and intent of the verse. It seems a difficult stretch to argue this verse means one should only have one wife.