23 Jul 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes, the last question answers itself.
Within what laws? Your moral standard ["anything goes between consenting adults"] is at odds with at least some of the law in most cultures. You can't just kow-tow to the law now without a serious re-write of your own moral proposition.
What if someone is permanently paralyzed from the waist down [instead of dying]? Is it still morally acceptable?
Your last question answers itself.
You cannot kill, or permanently harm another beings for pleasure, even if he/she agrees to it. The law says so.
I forgot that some countries has laws against homosexuality. I was more thinking about laws in the western countries. There are exceptions, of course, that I don't know about.
There were a case in Germany, if I reall right, that gave consents to a guy, killing him and eating him. I think they ate the penis together of one of them. Does anyone remember? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3286721.stm
23 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI don't agree with the interpretation here. God isn't just acting permissively; he says "I gave you your master's wives" and not "I allowed you to have your master's wives". Furthermore, if polygamy was not a Godly ideal, then God would not have said "if that had been too little, I would have given you much more!"
The act of God giving David the wives of the dead king Saul represents the permissive will of God in context of the ancient Near East Customs of political alliances among kings.
It should be remembered that the prophet Samuel had warned Israel that if they wanted a king like the nations around them, he would tend to act like the customs of kings was to o fit in with the customs of the ancient Near East kings surrounding Israel.
Further, polygamy was hardly confined to just the Kings of Israel. Israel and his ancestors were polygamists. Abraham had multiple wives and had children by each of them. Jacob/Israel had two wives that feuded by trying to out-breed each other. David, before he was King, was already taking multiple wives [see the early quoted story about David/Nabal/Abigail].
24 Jul 08
5 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes God does say "I gave you". Much in the same way that Moses gave the wife greedy Pharisees a certificate of divorce (Matt. 19:7,8) according to God's permissive will.
I don't agree with the interpretation here. God isn't just acting permissively; he says "I [b]gave you your master's wives" and not "I allowed you to have your master's wives". Furthermore, if polygamy was not a Godly ideal, then God would not have said "if that had been too little, I would have given you much more!"
Further, polygamy was hardly c ...[text shortened]... already taking multiple wives [see the early quoted story about David/Nabal/Abigail].[/b]
God also does indicate that He was generous. I agree. The fact of the matter is that He is often generous in what He permits us. Otherwise we could not stand to live in such surroundings.
However, David was greedy. And his greed eventually caught up with him and got exposed. That is what finally became a downfall to him. We get hints of it. But finally it is fully manifested with the incident with Bethsheba.
At any rate multiple wives does NOT seem to be the perfect will of God. In Genesis it makes particluar mention that "Lamech took two wives for himself" (Gen.4:19) And a murder is mentioned in connection with Lamech. The tone of the record is that this was a step downward in the degradation of man.
Otherwise I do not see why special mention should be made of Lamech's two wives in Genesis if God was happy with it.
Of course when you get to the New Testament, Christ makes the sin of the endulgence of unbridled lust even more penetrating.
Now even to look at a woman to lust after her is the commiting of adultery in the heart.
You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say unto you that everyone who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already commited adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:28)
As men we're all indicted. And the need for forgiveness and the indwelling power from the Holy Spirit to excercise self control is seen as crucial.
Trying to pin sexual sins on God is futile false accusation.
From Genesis the perfect will of God seems for a man to leave his father and mother and be joined to his (singular) wife. It could have said (plural) wives. It did not. It also says "and they TWO shall become one flesh."
Two is one man and one woman.
(Genesis 2:32; Matthew 19:5)
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by jaywillIt boils down to what you want in a moral standard bearer. Personally, I would hope to do better than someone who opposes polygamy in principle, yet makes exceptions for his cronies [actively provides them with women even]. Hypocrisy is not an attractive quality in a morally perfect being.
Yes God does say "I gave you". Much in the same way that Moses gave the wife greedy Pharisees a certificate of divorce [b](Matt. 19:7,8) according to God's permissive will.
God also does indicate that He was generous. I agree. The fact of the matter is that He is often generous in what He permits us. Otherwise we could not stand to live in such surr ...[text shortened]... lesh."[/b]
Two is one man and one woman.
(Genesis 2:32; Matthew 19:5)[/b]
26 Jul 08
Just because God "gave" David the two wives of the former household doesn't necessarily mean that they were to be used for any romantic purpose. The mansion was an estate for a king, and as such the wives of the former king may have been given to David for the purpose of housekeeping, the rearing of any children that the former king may have had, etc. Of course, it's also entirely possible that God did in fact give the wives to David for romantic purposes, but we can't just assume that was the case.
26 Jul 08
Originally posted by gaychessplayerThat's sooo plausible! He had wives, but they didn't function as wives. We can't assume that
Just because God "gave" David the two wives of the former household doesn't necessarily mean that they were to be used for any romantic purpose. The mansion was an estate for a king, and as such the wives of the former king may have been given to David for the purpose of housekeeping, the rearing of any children that the former king may have had, etc ...[text shortened]... give the wives to David for romantic purposes, but we can't just assume that was the case.
David was actually sexually active with them because it doesn't say.
Talk about stretching the realm of reason!
Nemesio
26 Jul 08
Originally posted by jaywillWhat a pile of garbage. With all your in depth study you clearly do not know the Bible. You twist the Bible to suit your beliefs.
...... At any rate multiple wives does NOT seem to be the perfect will of God. In Genesis it makes particluar mention that [b]"Lamech took two wives for himself" (Gen.4:19) And a murder is mentioned in connection with Lamech. The tone of the record is that this was a step downward in the degradation of man..[/b]
Do you know that God was angry with Aaron and his sister Miriam because they felt that Moses should not have taken a second wife ? He was not just angry He stuck Miriam with leprosy.
Polygamy was normal.
28 Jul 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999I didn't twist anything.
What a pile of garbage. With all your in depth study you clearly do not know the Bible. You twist the Bible to suit your beliefs.
Do you know that God was angry with Aaron and his sister Miriam because they felt that Moses should not have taken a second wife ? He was not just angry He stuck Miriam with leprosy.
Polygamy was normal.
Jesus refering to Genesis, on marriage, said "the TWO shall be one flesh".
He said that Moses allowed divorce because of their hardness of heart. You can read all about this in Matthew 19:4-6.
Marriam was disciplined for failure to realize that though she was a prophetess she was not of the same status as Moses her younger brother. The same went for Aaron. They were prophets. But they were not invested with as much authority as Moses.
I think the wife matter was secondary to this.
Polygamy is average or popular. So is divorce. The point is that what is popular or what is average was not necessarily what was normal in terms of God's ordination from the beginning.
28 Jul 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo need to call names just because you disagree. If your argument is not strong, name calling won't help it.
Even polygamists marry their wives one at a time, idiot.
Divorcees also marry " thier wives one at a time."
Had multiple simultaneous partners been originally intended then I think we should have read "shall be joined to his [WIVES]". But it didn't say that.
You're welcomed to have another view of the matter. That's how I see it.