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?

[ElCodeMonkey]

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.

I would agree that it is about marrying to avoid fornication. Kinda a dumb reason to marry if that's all it is though! But it does continue to say that they're not allowed to separate and that if they do they must come back together. Somewhere it also mentions that if you divorce someone, you make that person a fornicator if they remarry. I don't have time to find it though. In short, I don't think it can be 100% proven to mean "one partner," as explicitly stated, but I think that's the general understanding that went without saying.

[dianaiad]

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.

Moderator Comment

Please address the topic and the post, not the poster; doing so will help keep you from being uncivil. BTW, it is a good idea to cite your sources and support your arguments. In fact, in here, it's not only important, it's one of the rules.

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. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Angel]

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.

Legalized, no, but taking away the criminal status of it, yes. After the Dec. 13, 2013 ruling, I believe that Utah law enforcement can no longer prosecute polygamists for polygamy. I'm sure they can still crack down on abuses IF they are occurring just as they would in any other family (monogamous, single, etc). And if gay marriage leads to polygamy then my only complaint is that it's not leading to adult-CONSENSUAL-non-religous cult polygamy fast enough.

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

Let me tame down your expectations by saying that God doesn't have to show that polygamy is moral by setting up 1st marriage (Adam's marriage) to have 2 wives and 1 husband. He could show that its moral later on by mentioning it in his rules. Secondly, even Gen. 2:24 does not necessarily mean monogamy because while there's only 2 people in ONE marriage but that doesn't mean that the man can't start a SECOND marriage giving him two marriages at the same time, 1 wife in each. Another reason Genesis 2:24 doesn't necessarily mean monogamy is because that would be dependent on what ADULTERY means. Genesis 2:24 does not define what adultery is. Adultery in the OT was defined to only restrict the wife from having multiple spouses/sex partners. It doesn't make sense for God to say that He wants marriage to be monogamous but then he goes off making rules that allow for the husband to get other woman. This shows that God wanted an OPEN marriage or polygamy.

Also, God describes Himself as being in a polygamous marriage:
Jeremiah 31:31-32
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them [Israel and Judah], says the Lord.

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.

Whether or not a person wants polygamy or Church leadership should be left to individual choice. BTW, those passages also exclude women from Church leadership so it's not just polygamists. And of course, it's not a sin to be a woman, although the more submissive the woman the better.

Why can't women have multiple husbands?

I believe it's for the same reasons that Muslims don't allow polyandry. The culture is patriarchal. The man has to be kept in a head role. Interestingly I was watching a show about lions where it showed even alpha male lions tend to have multiple female mates but not the other way around.

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.

When God allowed polygamy in the Bible that did not lead to pedophilia, bestiality, people marrying objects, incest, etc. The claim that monogamy represents TRADITIONAL marriage is nothing more than ignorance and cultural bias. Allowing polygamy would only mean bringing a historical form of marriage back (although it is practiced in other countries and plenty of men are cheating and carrying on SECRET relationships behind wife's back).

[Angel]

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.

This passage is a SUGGESTION from the author and not a commandment from God. We know it's a suggestion because being single is not a sin. Jesus did not have to marry to avoid fornication nor did the author of the very passage you're quoting according to 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. Besides that, isn't celibacy working well for Catholic priests?

[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?

Here's the OP guys and girls.

Back on track time.

[micatala]

[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?

Moderator Warning


This is personal and inflammatory. Please do not make accusations or speculations about other member's sexual preferences or behavior.



Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[micatala]

Moderator Warning


Locking the thread. Lately we have been getting a lot of personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric. For example:

"Now control?" How pathetically propagandist. How do you control not raping dogs and cats? Are you denying that you have the desire to rape dogs and cats? Are you in denial? When did you stop hating Bible affirming Christians that refuse to live as a pagan or an atheist? Please answer my questions.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[McCulloch]

99percentatheism, thanks for that.

Christians, like those of any other religion, should be free to limit marriage within their own community in any way that makes sense to them. But that is as far as it goes. They should not have the right to assert that a marriage that is in consistent with their teachings is not a marriage. Jesus, for example, taught that remarriage under certain circumstances is adultery. I am fine with that. Those who profess to believe what Jesus taught should avoid remarriage under those circumstances. But they do not have the right to treat those who do not believe Jesus and who are legally remarried as if they were not married. It is none of their business.

If your church declared that couples with the same hair color could not marry, because some interpretation of scripture or some prophetic revelation, it would matter nothing to me. So long as that restriction was limited to members of that church and they did not attempt to make their restriction into the laws of a secular nation.