Premarital Sex

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

Paradigm
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Premarital Sex

Post #1

Post by Paradigm »

According to Matt 7:12 It's not only ok, it is required by law that you do to your girlfriend whatever naughty things you would have her do to you.

The Greek word "pornea" has been translated in the New Testement quite accurately as "sexual immorality.". Since it is inarguably moral to obey Jesus, and He commanded that you do to your girlfriend whatever naughty things you would have her do to you, injunctions against sexual immorality obviously do not amount to an injunction against premarital sex.

If your argument is that "sexual immorality" means "any sex outside of marriage" please cite the passage that defines it as such.

Question for debate: Does the Bible prohibit premarital sex?
Last edited by Paradigm on Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
therolanpen
Student
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:33 am
Location: New Mexico USA
Contact:

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #41

Post by therolanpen »

I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that sin is only what Jesus spoke about because that's incorrect. Jesus spoke about some things that are sin but he did not cover everything nor did he have to since its already laid out in the Law (Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7). Also, contrary to your claim that the Law is sin, the Bible says the Law is NOT sin if you read Romans 7:7.
You are a follower of Moses and the Law.

I am a follower of Jesus and the Way.

These two ways are polar opposites and cannot be reconciled. Your God is Allah who kills steals and destroys. Jesus called your god the devil and said he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning.

I follow a god who kills no one, and who is kind, gentle, compassionate, forgiving and loving like his son, Jesus, who was the image of his father, who is the god who is ONE nature.

To a follower of Jesus and the way, Jesus delivered the truth, in it's fulness. He left nothing undone. He taught us the difference between sin and righteousness and we neither need nor do we hear any other teacher, least of all the mass murderer Moses.

Jesus taught me that the LAW, "an eye for an eye" is sin and unrighteousness. Vengeance perpetuates violence and is a bottomless pit of destruction.

Jesus taught me everything I need to know about how to do the will of HIS father, who did not write the law of sacrifice, because his law is mercy, and not sacrifice.

Jesus said "MY sheep hear MY voice and the voice of a stranger they will not hear".

I do not hear the voice of strangers. I am a sheep, who kills nothing, ever, for any reason. I only hear the voice of my shepherd, who is Jesus.

So, while you may find the doctrine of Jesus to be incomplete and lacking and incorrect, I find it to be the light the truth and the way.

Paul is not the light the truth nor is he the way. He was not called by Christ as an eyewitness, he was not an eyewitness of Christ, and his doctrine is not the doctrine of Christ, but his own. Paul taught you that the Law Of Moses was not sin. Jesus taught you that it was sin. I'm betting on Jesus.
therolanpen wrote: To break this covenant, is to practice polygamy. In this manner, a man who commits adultery (and divorces the covenant), by taking another wife, causes his own wife to commit adultery, because now she is sleeping with another womans husband.

If you have taken a wife, cleave to that wife. If you have made a promise, keep it.
The only thing I can guess that you're referring to is Mark chapter 10:2-12. But if you notice, those verses refer to taking another wife coming from a DIVORCE. It does not mention taking another wife when it does not involve a divorce which fits with polygamy. If a man wants 2 wives, all he has to do is stay married to his 1st wife and start another marriage with his 2nd wife ((i.e. Plural ( or multiple) marriage)).
False. We are talking about the marriage covenant. What is the covenant of Marriage? One rib, one wife, for one man to cleave to. That is the marriage covenant. It is the same with God is it not? How many gods are you supposed to be married to? ONE. If you have served more than one god, have you not divorced god, broken the covenant, and become an adulterer in his eyes? Indeed you have. Divorce is the breaking of the marriage covenant. You can break that covenant in one of TWO ways. You can leave and abandon your wife physically, or you can take another wife, at which point you have broken the marriage covenant of one wife for one man. You have committed adultery. Not only that, but you have caused your wife to become an adulteress, because by taking another wife, you have put her in the position of having relations with another womans husband. This is sin. It is iniquity against the tender hearts of the daughters of god.

Polygamy is not adultery nor divorce. Read the Law and you'll see that adultery is only about sexual intercourse with an already MARRIED woman. So all the references/acts are dependent on if the woman is married or not and it has nothing to do with the marital status of the guy.
Indeed, that is the law of Moses, but not the Law of Jesus.
Calling adultery by a new name does not make it any less of a heinous crime against the daughters of God. Polygamy is adultery, it always has been, it always will be. It is the Law of Hamas, the violent who destroy the earth, and tread upon the souls of women and children the world over. It is the law of the perverse, who covet other mens wives, and cannot be content with one of their own.
That's why the Law mentions that a man (Bible does not make any condition of his status) can sleep with a virgin and other 'single' women just as long as he plans to marry her. It does not call that adultery especially when the guy does not get punished and all he has to do is marry the girl (Exodus 22:16-17). Going by Deuteronomy 22:28-29, a man (no condition of marital status applies) can even rape an UNBETHROTHED girl and it would still be okay, biblically-speaking, just as long as he marries her. Interestingly, rape is not wrong if it involves an UNmarried woman but it's only wrong when it involves a BETHROTHED woman. That's parallel to the laws on adultery and sex. A man of any marital status, the Bible gives no conditions, can have sex with a UNMarried woman and be okay, but it's only when he has sex with an already MARRIED woman then it's not okay.


Really? You believe in a prophet who allows you to have sex with as many women as you want, and even rape them without consequence, and you think that he is of god and this is righteousness? The Bible is a mirror that reveals the heart of man.

On what planet in what country, other than Hamas, is this a human rights compatible doctrine? If this is your standard for righteousness then may god save us all from your righteousness.

Please show me where in the Bible that God called a married man sleeping with an UNmarried woman adultery.
I do not need a Bible, a book, a paper, a person, or a revelation to tell me that when my husband sleeps with another woman it is adultery. It is. I am telling you.

Angel

Post #42

Post by Angel »

therolanpen wrote:
I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that sin is only what Jesus spoke about because that's incorrect. Jesus spoke about some things that are sin but he did not cover everything nor did he have to since its already laid out in the Law (Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7). Also, contrary to your claim that the Law is sin, the Bible says the Law is NOT sin if you read Romans 7:7.
You are a follower of Moses and the Law.

I am a follower of Jesus and the Way.

These two ways are polar opposites and cannot be reconciled. Your God is Allah who kills steals and destroys. Jesus called your god the devil and said he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning.
I'm an agnostic so I have no adherence to any god.

You try to make a distinction between the Mosaic Law and Jesus' 'way' but there is no difference when it comes to morality, esp. on sexual behavior. In my last post I quoted 2 passages to you, Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7, which mention how the Law is still relevant to the NT and you ignored that point. One thing that I go by to know if someone's view of the Bible is correct is to see if their view goes with what the Bible mentions. Going by what you've explained so far, your views fall short of that because it ignores relevant passages and contradicts passages in the Bible.
therolanpen wrote: I follow a god who kills no one, and who is kind, gentle, compassionate, forgiving and loving like his son, Jesus, who was the image of his father, who is the god who is ONE nature.

To a follower of Jesus and the way, Jesus delivered the truth, in it's fulness. He left nothing undone. He taught us the difference between sin and righteousness and we neither need nor do we hear any other teacher, least of all the mass murderer Moses.

Jesus taught me that the LAW, "an eye for an eye" is sin and unrighteousness. Vengeance perpetuates violence and is a bottomless pit of destruction.

Jesus taught me everything I need to know about how to do the will of HIS father, who did not write the law of sacrifice, because his law is mercy, and not sacrifice.

Jesus said "MY sheep hear MY voice and the voice of a stranger they will not hear".

I do not hear the voice of strangers. I am a sheep, who kills nothing, ever, for any reason. I only hear the voice of my shepherd, who is Jesus.

So, while you may find the doctrine of Jesus to be incomplete and lacking and incorrect, I find it to be the light the truth and the way.
I'm not saying that Jesus' message is incomplete or incorrect because it is complete as far as the purpose it was intended to serve. The things I mentioned Jesus left out or perhaps they just weren't written down are some of the details of what all is sin. For instance, Jesus did not talk about bestiality as the OT laws do, so does that mean that bestiality is no longer sinful? And besides this point, Jesus did teach/reveal to NOT sin and that the LAW was the knowledge of sin. So if you can't sin under the NT, then you have to know what a sin is and that's where the Law comes back in at least for informational purposes.
therolanpen wrote: Paul is not the light the truth nor is he the way. He was not called by Christ as an eyewitness, he was not an eyewitness of Christ, and his doctrine is not the doctrine of Christ, but his own. Paul taught you that the Law Of Moses was not sin. Jesus taught you that it was sin. I'm betting on Jesus.
This goes contrary to what the Bible mentions. If you want to go beyond the Bible, then why not apply proof and evidence consistently starting with how can we prove that Jesus was divine? Prove that his miracles took place and likewise prove that Paul did NOT receive any message from Jesus, etc, etc.

The rules of this section of the forum mentions that this is about theology. The accepted Bible canon is authoritative here and it mentions that Paul was revealed his message from Christ. If you don't want to go by what the Bible mentions, then you're in the wrong part of the forum.
therolanpen wrote:
Angel wrote:
therolanpen wrote: To break this covenant, is to practice polygamy. In this manner, a man who commits adultery (and divorces the covenant), by taking another wife, causes his own wife to commit adultery, because now she is sleeping with another womans husband.

If you have taken a wife, cleave to that wife. If you have made a promise, keep it.
The only thing I can guess that you're referring to is Mark chapter 10:2-12. But if you notice, those verses refer to taking another wife coming from a DIVORCE. It does not mention taking another wife when it does not involve a divorce which fits with polygamy. If a man wants 2 wives, all he has to do is stay married to his 1st wife and start another marriage with his 2nd wife ((i.e. Plural ( or multiple) marriage)).
False. We are talking about the marriage covenant. What is the covenant of Marriage? One rib, one wife, for one man to cleave to. That is the marriage covenant.
I am in agreement with you that marriage defined/explained in the Bible is between ONE man and ONE woman. That is not incompatible with polygamy if polygamy is practiced as multiple or plural marriages. Notice that the Bible mentions how many people a marriage can have but it does not mention how many marriages someone can have at one time. That's key here. So a man with 2 wives could just simply have 2 different marriages with 1 wife in each so that way there's 2 people per marriage.
therolanpen wrote: It is the same with God is it not? How many gods are you supposed to be married to? ONE. If you have served more than one god, have you not divorced god, broken the covenant, and become an adulterer in his eyes? Indeed you have.
I'm not aware that you're supposed to be married to any God as one marries a wife or husband. Marriage in the Bible is between a man and a woman and not a man/woman and a spirit. And to flip the equation even if we could marry God, and only ONE God, but then doesn't that leave God having multiple spouses since I'm not the only one marrying God?
therolanpen wrote: Divorce is the breaking of the marriage covenant. You can break that covenant in one of TWO ways. You can leave and abandon your wife physically, or you can take another wife, at which point you have broken the marriage covenant of one wife for one man. You have committed adultery. Not only that, but you have caused your wife to become an adulteress, because by taking another wife, you have put her in the position of having relations with another womans husband. This is sin. It is iniquity against the tender hearts of the daughters of god.
Yes, a divorce breaks a marriage covenant. As for adultery, it is a violation of a marriage covenant but that by itself doesn't end the marriage if the couple choose to stay together. And sometimes you can divorce someone without there being any adultery involved, so adultery and divorce aren't necessarily the same thing.

If you study what adultery is in the Bible (I'm not talking about modern day Western culture definition), then you'll see that it is only when a MARRIED woman has sexual intercourse with a man that's not her husband. A married or single man can have sex with an UNmarried woman and it would not be adultery. I quoted passages to support my view in my last post to you, so please provide support for your claims if you're saying that I'm wrong.
therolanpen wrote:
Angel wrote: Polygamy is not adultery nor divorce. Read the Law and you'll see that adultery is only about sexual intercourse with an already MARRIED woman. So all the references/acts are dependent on if the woman is married or not and it has nothing to do with the marital status of the guy.
Indeed, that is the law of Moses, but not the Law of Jesus.
I see no difference when it comes to both saying not to sin.
therolanpen wrote: Calling adultery by a new name does not make it any less of a heinous crime against the daughters of God. Polygamy is adultery, it always has been, it always will be. It is the Law of Hamas, the violent who destroy the earth, and tread upon the souls of women and children the world over. It is the law of the perverse, who covet other mens wives, and cannot be content with one of their own.
I'm not calling adultery by a new name even if it goes against YOUR understanding. I'm going by what the Bible mentions.

Again, please quote me a passage that explains what adultery is and that polygamy would fit that. Last I recall, you did that in a previous post and I answered how you were incorrect and you just simply ignored my points. Ignoring my points and details of the Bible does not 'accurately' present what the Bible mentions. So if you're going to say that I'm wrong or that the Bible says such and such then you're going to have to show me how your views are compatible with what the Bible mentions.
therolanpen wrote:
Angel wrote: That's why the Law mentions that a man (Bible does not make any condition of his status) can sleep with a virgin and other 'single' women just as long as he plans to marry her. It does not call that adultery especially when the guy does not get punished and all he has to do is marry the girl (Exodus 22:16-17). Going by Deuteronomy 22:28-29, a man (no condition of marital status applies) can even rape an UNBETHROTHED girl and it would still be okay, biblically-speaking, just as long as he marries her. Interestingly, rape is not wrong if it involves an UNmarried woman but it's only wrong when it involves a BETHROTHED woman. That's parallel to the laws on adultery and sex. A man of any marital status, the Bible gives no conditions, can have sex with a UNMarried woman and be okay, but it's only when he has sex with an already MARRIED woman then it's not okay.


Really? You believe in a prophet who allows you to have sex with as many women as you want, and even rape them without consequence, and you think that he is of god and this is righteousness? The Bible is a mirror that reveals the heart of man.

On what planet in what country, other than Hamas, is this a human rights compatible doctrine? If this is your standard for righteousness then may god save us all from your righteousness.
I am an agnostic and not a Christian. The Bible is the accepted canon or body of Scripture for Christianity, and if it mentions polyGYNY is okay then it is just that. You can't arbitrarily say the parts you LIKE are valid and the parts you don't like aren't valid unless you have some proof to back your claims. Perhaps, I should question why are you part of a religion that depicts an all-good God, as the OT mentions, that allowed rape to go unpunished, etc.
therolanpen wrote:]
Angel wrote:Please show me where in the Bible that God called a married man sleeping with an UNmarried woman adultery.
I do not need a Bible, a book, a paper, a person, or a revelation to tell me that when my husband sleeps with another woman it is adultery. It is. I am telling you.
If you're a Christian then you need to go by God's instruction rather than your opinions. You can't just make up a definition for adultery out of thin air, although I'm sure you're going by modern-day Western culture meaning for adultery. But if you want a BIBLICALLY-based understanding, then yes, it is going to require that you go by God's instructions. You can start by going by how God or the Bible writers explained what adultery is factoring a culture where polygamy is allowed.

Angel

Post #43

Post by Angel »

..

User avatar
therolanpen
Student
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:33 am
Location: New Mexico USA
Contact:

Post #44

Post by therolanpen »

You try to make a distinction between the Mosaic Law and Jesus' 'way' but there is no difference when it comes to morality, esp. on sexual behavior.
Moses taught you to divorce your wife Deut. 24:1. Jesus taught you not to divorce your wife. These two moral doctrines are polar opposites. How can you call them the same? They are the difference between Saudi Arabia and America. Saudi keeps the law of Moses. It is the law of Hamas and Allah, the law of the violent who destroy the earth.
In my last post I quoted 2 passages to you, Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7, which mention how the Law is still relevant to the NT and you ignored that point. One thing that I go by to know if someone's view of the Bible is correct is to see if their view goes with what the Bible mentions. Going by what you've explained so far, your views fall short of that because it ignores relevant passages and contradicts passages in the Bible.
Then Jesus falls short in your eyes does he not? for he did not teach you the law of the old testament. That law taught you to divorce your wife. Jesus taught you not to. That law taught you to keep the sabbath. Jesus neither kept the sabbath nor taught men to keep it. That law taught you to hate your enemy. Jesus taught you to love your enemy. That law taught you to kill sinners. Jesus taught you to forgive sins, and sinners. He quite obviously ignored passages that you find relevant.
I'm not saying that Jesus' message is incomplete or incorrect because it is complete as far as the purpose it was intended to serve. The things I mentioned Jesus left out or perhaps they just weren't written down are some of the details of what all is sin.
Jesus came to the sons of Hamas, who kept the law of Moshe, and taught them that the law was sin, and that the sons who kept the law of sin and killing were going to be destroyed, and they are now being destroyed, yet again.
For instance, Jesus did not talk about bestiality as the OT laws do, so does that mean that bestiality is no longer sinful? And besides this point, Jesus did teach/reveal to NOT sin and that the LAW was the knowledge of sin.
Jesus did not reveal this. Paul did. Paul is not the savior of the saved, he is the savior of the unsaved. Jesus taught that the law is sin. Killing is sin. Adultery is sin. Divorce is sin. And all these things, which are sin, the law taught the sons of Hamas were righteousness. These doctrines got them destroyed, and are getting them destroyed.

I will continue later. Work calls.

Angel

Post #45

Post by Angel »

therolanpen wrote:
You try to make a distinction between the Mosaic Law and Jesus' 'way' but there is no difference when it comes to morality, esp. on sexual behavior.
Moses taught you to divorce your wife Deut. 24:1. Jesus taught you not to divorce your wife. These two moral doctrines are polar opposites. How can you call them the same? They are the difference between Saudi Arabia and America. Saudi keeps the law of Moses. It is the law of Hamas and Allah, the law of the violent who destroy the earth.
I agree that according to the NT, the law regarding divorce originated from MOses, and God allowed and approved that. Just because Jesus explains that that's not how God wanted it at the beginning that doesn't mean God didn't allow and approve Moses adding divorce as a law. That's why we don't find divorce being called a sin. And Jesus did teach on and permit divorce which is why he explains how a divorce can be done to avoid adultery. He specifies that a divorce has to be for reasons of 'sexual immorality' in order for someone to remarry after a divorce (Matthew 19:8-9).

You also mention that Jesus' 'law' (as you call it) and the Mosaic law are 'polar' opposites. All I gotta do now is find similarities to disprove your claim and even if there are differences I want you to show how do we KNOW (not assume based on what YOU want the Bible to say) what the differences are or what Jesus no longer wants us to follow. One point to disprove your claim of 'polar' opposite is Jesus moral teachings and the OT referring to adultery as being wrong. I am not even limited to just the Gospels neither because other NT passages mentions not to sin and that the Law explains what sins are, so by not sinning you're in effect living compatible to the law's moral aspects by not lying, cheating, stealing, committing adultery, etc.
therolanpen wrote:
Angel wrote: In my last post I quoted 2 passages to you, Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7, which mention how the Law is still relevant to the NT and you ignored that point. One thing that I go by to know if someone's view of the Bible is correct is to see if their view goes with what the Bible mentions. Going by what you've explained so far, your views fall short of that because it ignores relevant passages and contradicts passages in the Bible.
Then Jesus falls short in your eyes does he not? for he did not teach you the law of the old testament. That law taught you to divorce your wife. Jesus taught you not to. That law taught you to keep the sabbath. Jesus neither kept the sabbath nor taught men to keep it. That law taught you to hate your enemy. Jesus taught you to love your enemy. That law taught you to kill sinners. Jesus taught you to forgive sins, and sinners. He quite obviously ignored passages that you find relevant.
Jesus did not teach to not divorce. To the contrary he covers reasons that one can divorce for and to remarry. A person who does not want you to divorce would not be giving rules on how to do it because what moral standing is there to retain from a sin (divorce, as you say) other than to say DO NOT DO IT? Why explain how to avoid adultery due to an unjustified divorce as if you can retain some moral standing from that when that real moral standing should start at not divorcing for any reason to begin with ( that is, if divorce was wrong)?

I don't deny that there are SOME differences between what Jesus taught and what the Law taught but I don't see you admitting that there are also similarities, as well. There are similiarities like not stealing, adultery being wrong, lying being wrong, sexual immorality, etc, etc. There's no mention of Jesus wanting polygamy to no longer be practiced.
therolanpen wrote:
Angel wrote: I'm not saying that Jesus' message is incomplete or incorrect because it is complete as far as the purpose it was intended to serve. The things I mentioned Jesus left out or perhaps they just weren't written down are some of the details of what all is sin.
Jesus came to the sons of Hamas, who kept the law of Moshe, and taught them that the law was sin, and that the sons who kept the law of sin and killing were going to be destroyed, and they are now being destroyed, yet again.
Please prove where Jesus taught that the law was sin. ARe you aware that the NT mentions contrary to this, in Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7? Ignoring the parts that goes against your view and accepting the parts that go with your view is a BIASED and downright inaccurate representation of the Bible. You should be going by ALL relevant details, no matter what you want it to say. So again, answer my point about those 2 passages in Romans that contradict your view and show where Jesus says the Law is sin.
therolanpen wrote:
Angel wrote: For instance, Jesus did not talk about bestiality as the OT laws do, so does that mean that bestiality is no longer sinful? And besides this point, Jesus did teach/reveal to NOT sin and that the LAW was the knowledge of sin.
Jesus did not reveal this. Paul did. Paul is not the savior of the saved, he is the savior of the unsaved. Jesus taught that the law is sin. Killing is sin. Adultery is sin. Divorce is sin. And all these things, which are sin, the law taught the sons of Hamas were righteousness. These doctrines got them destroyed, and are getting them destroyed.

I will continue later. Work calls.
You did not answer my question. I see your standards as unreasonable and inconsistent, but yet I'm using your own standards to expose the fallacies in your view. Is bestiality NOT a sin since Jesus did not teach about it although it's in the Law?

The Law got people destroyed according to you so that means laws like not committing adultery, not stealing, not blaspheming, not lying, not murdering, led people to their destruction? To the contrary I'd think not having these basic laws in place would lead anyone to destruction so you're not making any sense.

Also, please show where Jesus said the Law was sin.

Please support your claim with Scripture that Paul was not a messenger of Jesus.

socialisview
Student
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:21 pm

Post #46

Post by socialisview »

god let the isrealites marry more than one women becuase they were under reppression, and repreesion could have caused promiscuity and it would destroy everything from the start. like why if god is all knowing that god let adam eat the fruit. since we are free and dont have to live by a bunch of customs and stress and laws, one woman is right becuase more than one causes gluttonny since you dont have all the stress the isrealites had in the old testament. plus premature sex causes promiscuity also becuase there will be no sense of value involved, and your children will do the same as you and the moral law wont be held which causes peace, and there will be disruption in later generations.

socialisview
Student
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:21 pm

Post #47

Post by socialisview »

god let the isrealites marry more than one women becuase they were under stress with the law wich causes reppression. like the question why did god let adam eat the fruit if he is all knowing. adam would have already eaten it sooner or later becuase of want of freedom which is the god nature of us. but since we are free now without all the repression of the law, one women is the proper choice, becuase more would cause gluttony since we dont have all the pressure to match it. and also premarital sex is wrong becuase it cause a lack of moral value, the more promiscious a women is the less moral she is. and the kids will do the same, and so cause disruption in later generations. all the laws is suposed to do is make peace between two people. is the negative higher than the positive. what is the long term effect and not instant gradification. will you harm anything or anybody else, rather than pleasing yourself, that is what all the law is about. now if something only effects yourself, thats up to you.

User avatar
Slopeshoulder
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post #48

Post by Slopeshoulder »

dude, use caps and paragraphs, K?

Angel

Post #49

Post by Angel »

socialisview wrote:god let the isrealites marry more than one women becuase they were under stress with the law wich causes reppression. like the question why did god let adam eat the fruit if he is all knowing. adam would have already eaten it sooner or later becuase of want of freedom which is the god nature of us.
I understand what you mean and maybe Moses allowed people to divorce because of that pressure under the law, as well. The only problem here is that your whole point assumes that polygamy is wrong when you mention the word "allow".

Why couldn't God have made polygamy (a form of marriage) for the same reason that he made monogamy (a form of marriage) - that is, just so people can engage in a committed relationship to have sex and raise a family? You'll need prove that polygamy is wrong in the first place, and also show that God wanted it STOPPED at some point. For now, I see a lack of sciptural mention or backing on both of those fronts. If you can't prove those premises then your explanations or conclusions from there are just assumptions.

EDIT to include new point..
Come to think of it if polygamy was wrong to God's standards, then it would be adultery. God has never 'allowed' adultery and to the contrary calls it wrong and punishable by death. So besides lack of proof, your explanation also would conflict with God's laws of NOT wanting adultery (if poly is wrong, that is).
socialisview wrote: but since we are free now without all the repression of the law, one women is the proper choice, becuase more would cause gluttony since we dont have all the pressure to match it.
You also mention that polygamy would lead to gluttony. I'm sure there is a such thing as having an 'excessive' amount of wives but the thing is that doesn't necessarily mean that the number is anything over 1 wife (2 wives is all that's needed for polygamy, at the least). Some poly advocates have used Exodus 21:9-11 to help define how many wives a man can have at most and it's not based on a number but it's based on how much money and other resources the man has available to provide for each wife. Other than that, the number of wives a man can have is a social standard and not explicitly (in terms of an exact number) found in the Bible. ANd I'd argue that the number of spouses a man or woman can handle would be different from person to person and it all depends on all of what people are looking for in a relationship.

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #50

Post by Confused »

therolanpen wrote:
You try to make a distinction between the Mosaic Law and Jesus' 'way' but there is no difference when it comes to morality, esp. on sexual behavior.
Moses taught you to divorce your wife Deut. 24:1. Jesus taught you not to divorce your wife. These two moral doctrines are polar opposites. How can you call them the same? They are the difference between Saudi Arabia and America. Saudi keeps the law of Moses. It is the law of Hamas and Allah, the law of the violent who destroy the earth.

Moderator Comment
This post has been reported as offensive and possibly hate speech. Please note that we have received the report but this moderator isn't quite sure it meets the actual criteria for being "hate speech". For that reason alone, I will be posting it in the moderators section and should it be ruled a violation by the majority, then it will be readdressed.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

Post Reply