Traditional Marriage

[S.O.J.I.A.]

The article is saying the definition of marriage today is different from what God gave us, therefore, gay marriage isn't an issue. What would your response be?

http://www.creationliberty.com/images/gaymarriage04.jpg

it's called rebellion..

 

[Dave Ellis]

it's called rebellion..

Do you support polygamy?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Do you support polygamy?

nope, and neither does scripture(1 timothy 3)

 

[Dave Ellis]

nope, and neither does scripture(1 timothy 3)

That talks about someone wanting to be a bishop or deacon. Not every person.

Polygamy is rather common in the Old Testament, and god apparently had no problem with it. Would that not also count as traditional marriage?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

That talks about someone wanting to be a bishop or deacon. Not every person.

elders and deacons are to be examples for the church to follow. that chapter lists many qualities that all followers of Christ are to strive for, including having one wife. these qualities are especially to be exemplified in those who would seek to be leaders of Christ's flock.

seeing as people like david and Solomon who were leaders of israel in the old testament narrative had many wives(which turned out to be a negative for them in that it lead them to idolatry) and God saw fit to see that leaders in the new testament church were to have only one wife, God never approved of polygamy. similar to how he never approved of divorce even though God allowed it because of our sinfulness(matthew 19:7-8, malachi 2:14-16).

couple that with the fact the Jesus only has one wife which is the church as all true followers of Christ are part of the body of Christ(ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 12:12-14, revelation 19:7-9).

 

[Dave Ellis]

elders and deacons are to be examples for the church to follow. that chapter lists many qualities that all followers of Christ are to strive for, including having one wife. these qualities are especially to be exemplified in those who would seek to be leaders of Christ's flock.

seeing as people like david and Solomon who were leaders of israel in the old testament narrative had many wives(which turned out to be a negative for them in that it lead them to idolatry) and God saw fit to see that leaders in the new testament church were to have only one wife, God never approved of polygamy. similar to how he never approved of divorce even though God allowed it because of our sinfulness(matthew 19:7-8, malachi 2:14-16).

couple that with the fact the Jesus only has one wife which is the church as all true followers of Christ are part of the body of Christ(ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 12:12-14, revelation 19:7-9).

2 Samuel 12:7-8 says that God gave multiple wives to David.

Why would God give multiple wives to anyone when he doesn't approve of polygamy? That's not only god endorsed polygamy, that's god directly and purposefully causing polygamy.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

2 Samuel 12:7-8 says that God gave multiple wives to David.

Rather he took the wives of his fallen master saul under his care after achieving his thrown. it was more an exchange of property than anything else.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

even if we granted that God approved of polygamy at the time it wouldn't be relevant in light of progressive revelation in the new testament about leaders of the church of God only having one wife as an example for the church to follow.

similar to how debra being a leader of Israel in the book of judges doesn't nullify the clear prohibition of women not being allowed to positions of leadership in the new testament church( 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 timothy 2:11-12).

 

[Dave Ellis]

Rather he took the wives of his fallen master saul under his care after achieving his thrown. it was more an exchange of property than anything else.

Ah, so traditional marriage means women are property?

 

[Dave Ellis]

even if we granted that God approved of polygamy at the time it wouldn't be relevant in light of progressive revelation in the new testament about leaders of the church of God only having one wife as an example for the church to follow.

similar to how debra being a leader of Israel in the book of judges doesn't nullify the clear prohibition of women not being allowed to positions of leadership in the new testament church( 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 timothy 2:11-12).

I was under the impression god was unchanging though? If he approved of polygamy then, he would have had to change his opinion on the matter to be against it now.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Ah, so traditional marriage means women are property?

a less cruder way of putting it was that david inherited the possessions of saul when he took his thrown when he died. this included his wives.

a similar example would be boaz getting ruth from her former husband when he died in the book of ruth.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I was under the impression god was unchanging though?

God being unchanging has to do with the promises he made to His people Israel(malachi 3:1-7). His love toward His people is not altered, even though they rebelled against His law. the LORD has always had plans to redeem His people.

 

[Dave Ellis]

a less cruder way of putting it was that david inherited the possessions of saul when he took his thrown when he died. this included his wives.

a similar example would be boaz getting ruth from her former husband when he died in the book of ruth.

Saying women are possessions that can be passed on to relatives isn't any cruder than saying they are property. Just an FYI.

Since that's the basis of traditional marriage, should we also not go back to believing wives are the property (possessions?) of the man as well? That is how it was traditionally done after all?

 

[Dave Ellis]

God being unchanging has to do with the promises he made to His people Israel(malachi 3:1-7). His love toward His people is not altered, even though they rebelled against His law. the LORD has always had plans to redeem His people.

So how did he change if he's unchanging?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Saying women are possessions that can be passed on to relatives isn't any cruder than saying they are property. Just an FYI

both would also be inaccurate and dishonest descriptions of how the bible views marriage.

genesis 2:14 and ephesians 5:22-33 would be the basis of biblical(traditional?) marriage. also song of Solomon and 1 Corinthians 7.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

So how did he change if he's unchanging?

He didn't, His promises to and love for His people have not been revoked, which is what that phrase refers to.

 

[Dave Ellis]

both would also be inaccurate and dishonest descriptions of how the bible views marriage.

genesis 2:14 and ephesians 5:22-33 would be the basis of biblical(traditional?) marriage. also song of Solomon and 1 Corinthians 7.

Genesis 2:14 has nothing to do with marriage at all. That talks about Mesopotamian rivers...

Ephesians 5:22-33 says that men are the head of the wife, and wives should subject themselves to the men. Do you agree with these ideas? The fact love is involved is fairly trivial when one person is automatically subservient to the other based on gender. 1 Corinthians 7 says similar things, the wife doesn't have power over her own body, the husband has that power.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Genesis 2:14 has nothing to do with marriage at all. That talks about Mesopotamian rivers...

Ephesians 5:22-33 says that men are the head of the wife, and wives should subject themselves to the men. Do you agree with these ideas? The fact love is involved is fairly trivial when one person is automatically subservient to the other based on gender. 1 Corinthians 7 says similar things, the wife doesn't have power over her own body, the husband has that power.

my bad, I meant genesis 2:24. my mistake.

looks like you're participating in selective reading. ephesians 5 22-33 also notes that the husband is to lay down his very life for his wife. 1 Corinthians 7 also says the husband's body is under the authority of his wife. it calls for mutual sexual benevolence.

 

[Dave Ellis]

my bad, I meant genesis 2:24. my mistake.

looks like you're participating in selective reading. ephesians 5 22-33 also notes that the husband is to lay down his very life for his wife. 1 Corinthians 7 also says the husband's body is under the authority of his wife. it calls for mutual sexual benevolence.

Well yes, I am picking out the objectionable parts because it doesn't make sense to argue against the stuff which isn't that bad.

The point still stands though that the man is the head of the woman and she is subject to him. Do you not consider that morally problematic?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Well yes, I am picking out the objectionable parts because it doesn't make sense to argue against the stuff which isn't that bad.

The point still stands though that the man is the head of the woman and she is subject to him. Do you not consider that morally problematic?

no, why should I?

so a man dying for his wife and putting his body under the authority of his wife in conjugal matters is ok but a man being the head of a wife and putting her body under the authority of her husband in conjugal matters is a moral breech?

under what authority do you make this claim?