And, there would be no bickering from wives at all if no one ever married. Problem solved. Marriage is sinful because wives bicker?
Honestly, if polygamy wasn't an option... do you think Jacob and Leah would have had a happy marriage if Jacob had worked for 7 years for Leah's hand... and just been given Leah and told to "deal with it?" Honestly, how do you think that marriage would have survived?
Why did Jacob allow it in the first place?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Don't mess with Yoda!
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.""
-C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (emphasis mine)
"You must be imaginative, strong-hearted. You must try things that may not work, and you must not let anyone define your limits because of where you come from. Your only limit is your soul."
-Chef at the beginning of Ratatouille
However, IIRC, such verses were specified to be of the opinion of the author, specifically not a mandate from God.
The writer spoke very highly of men remaining single, however God himself said that it is NOT good for a man to remain alone.
"Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.'" (Matthew 19:11-12)
I don't remember the Hebrews doing blood feuds, but they were pretty stubborn, so perhaps he was trying to avoid problems with him. Pure speculation, though.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Don't mess with Yoda!
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.""
-C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (emphasis mine)
"You must be imaginative, strong-hearted. You must try things that may not work, and you must not let anyone define your limits because of where you come from. Your only limit is your soul."
-Chef at the beginning of Ratatouille
Though not directly related to the Gregorian's original post in this thread, I have always felt that the following quotation is very relevant to discussions of the two terms. The author is Daniel R. Kirk, Jr., who holds copyright. The narrator, whose life and family are modelled closely on Dan's, is in this sequence the gay son of a U.S. Senator, 'outed" by the Senator's opponents for political capital and in consequence being questioned by Barbara Walters as part of a family interview. 'Brian' is the narrator's boyfriend.
“You’re homosexual.” She stated without emotion.
“I’m gay, yes.” I countered and she cocked her head to the side.
“You say that as if there’s a difference.” She replied.
“There is.” I answered as I reached over and took Brian’s hand gently into mine, raising our joined hands to rest on my knee where the camera could see them. I had started my swing, and was going to do my best to hit it over the center field wall and into the upper deck. “The word ‘homosexual’ refers to an act of just sex. It’s used to refer to someone who has sex with a person of the same gender. As such, it does fit as a descriptor, but it’s not who I am, it’s not the center of my being. When I use the word ‘gay’, I use it in a broader context. I use it to mean I am someone who is attracted to a person of the same gender. More importantly, it describes that I choose to acknowledge how God made me and to live my life in a way that I believe he would approve. This man next to me is my partner, Brian. I love him with all my heart, and God willing, I’ll grow old with him and love him more than I do today. Barbara, people who don’t like gays would rather stick to the phrase ‘homosexual’ because that helps them keep the focus on just a sex act, not the complete picture of our lives as gay people.”
Well, metsu, I'm not sure to what you're referring. The concept of homosexuality was really only discussed in the original post, and we fairly immediately got off on the tangent of polygamy... so it seems like you're pointing to me there. In case you're referring to the original post, and therefore me:
First, what side of the argument in the OP are you assuming I was on? I intentionally stated that they were points made in a conversation I was in. Whether they were points I made, or points that were made to me, was left intentionally vague.
Second, the points in the OP were not anti-homosexual. They were pointing out that the "anti-homosexual arguments" commonly used only really target the act of male/male sex. So, the arguments were looking at the other aspects of homosexuality in a positive light. Essentially my original post said the same thing as your quotation Polycarp1.
Thirdly, even assuming homosexuality is a sin across the board, I never implied that "homosexuals" should be hated. We're to hate sin, not the sinner. We all have weaknesses, misunderstandings, and short comings, yet loving our (sinful) neighbor is still the second greatest commandment.
__________________ John 17:1-26
Galations 5:19-25 1 Corinthians 13:1
You pointed to Jacob's problems with Rachel and Leah bickering as an argument against polygamy. I pointed out that, had it not been for polygamy being approved of in those days, he would've never been able to marry his love, Rachel. After working for 7 years, he was given Leah in marriage instead. You asked why he accepted this, I asked for your opinion, and it seems as though you believe it was to avoid a blood fued.
And, that's pretty likely... however, do you think it still would have been a "healthier" or "better" marriage, being with just Leah? Someone who's sister he loved, but would not have been able to have? If he simply rejected Leah, there may have been a fued, like you said. If he accepted the marriage, and was bound to never be with the woman he loved... do you really think they would've been happy together?
Further, without his second wife, Rachel, the entire line of offspring from Rachel would not have been. And the line from Rachel is a fairly important bunch, including Joseph.
However, if he had not also married Leah, there would be no tribe of Judah, which also had very important characters.
__________________ John 17:1-26
Galations 5:19-25 1 Corinthians 13:1
You pointed to Jacob's problems with Rachel and Leah bickering as an argument against polygamy. I pointed out that, had it not been for polygamy being approved of in those days, he would've never been able to marry his love, Rachel. After working for 7 years, he was given Leah in marriage instead. You asked why he accepted this, I asked for your opinion, and it seems as though you believe it was to avoid a blood fued.
And, that's pretty likely... however, do you think it still would have been a "healthier" or "better" marriage, being with just Leah? Someone who's sister he loved, but would not have been able to have? If he simply rejected Leah, there may have been a fued, like you said. If he accepted the marriage, and was bound to never be with the woman he loved... do you really think they would've been happy together?
Further, without his second wife, Rachel, the entire line of offspring from Rachel would not have been. And the line from Rachel is a fairly important bunch, including Joseph.
However, if he had not also married Leah, there would be no tribe of Judah, which also had very important characters.
I'm sure God would have compensated.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Don't mess with Yoda!
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.""
-C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (emphasis mine)
"You must be imaginative, strong-hearted. You must try things that may not work, and you must not let anyone define your limits because of where you come from. Your only limit is your soul."
-Chef at the beginning of Ratatouille
No doubt. And God could have reversed the effects of the Fall. Or allowed Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and then raised up a son for him in some other way. He could have worked the Atonement in some other way than Jesus's Crucifixion.
But He didn't.
The point is, while He set one man and one woman as the standard, default, mode for marriage, it was not the sole form of marriage of which he approved. To enable the growth of His Chosen People from one man to a nation, he allowed Jacob to take two wives and two concubines; Judah to father twins by his son's widow; David to father sons by a number of wives. This is not taken to validate polygamy generally -- but it shows Him accepting them for specific circumstances, and bringing good about through them.
Likewise He brings about good through the lives of gay people, however He may feel about their sexuality. And He commanded us to love our neighbor (i.e., all our fellow men) as ourselves, and do to others as we would be done unto. He condemned the Pharisees for judging the sins of others while claiming to be forgiven of their own sins. There is, I think, a lesson in that for how we should behave.
__________________
"It is written, 'My house shall be a house of prayer,' but you have made it a den of thieves." -Jesus
No doubt. And God could have reversed the effects of the Fall. Or allowed Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and then raised up a son for him in some other way. He could have worked the Atonement in some other way than Jesus's Crucifixion.
But He didn't.
The point is, while He set one man and one woman as the standard, default, mode for marriage, it was not the sole form of marriage of which he approved. To enable the growth of His Chosen People from one man to a nation, he allowed Jacob to take two wives and two concubines; Judah to father twins by his son's widow; David to father sons by a number of wives. This is not taken to validate polygamy generally -- but it shows Him accepting them for specific circumstances, and bringing good about through them.
Likewise He brings about good through the lives of gay people, however He may feel about their sexuality. And He commanded us to love our neighbor (i.e., all our fellow men) as ourselves, and do to others as we would be done unto. He condemned the Pharisees for judging the sins of others while claiming to be forgiven of their own sins. There is, I think, a lesson in that for how we should behave.
Jesus also speaks to how people teaching others to sin is wrong, and Paul talks about judging the actions of those in the church. Are we not to be set apart for God? How does blatantly ignoring God's command show that we are set apart for God? I struggle with homosexual temptations myself, but that doesn't mean I go out and build a gay relationship.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Don't mess with Yoda!
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.""
-C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (emphasis mine)
"You must be imaginative, strong-hearted. You must try things that may not work, and you must not let anyone define your limits because of where you come from. Your only limit is your soul."
-Chef at the beginning of Ratatouille
Linear Mode
