Hmmm... Seems to me that the definition of marriage has continually changed throughout history, depending upon the time frame and culture being discussed. In some places a woman is simply a piece of property owned by her father; marriage in this case means being sold to another man (the fellow willing to pay the most gets the girl), with the expectation that the woman will turn out as many babies as possible afterwards.

In other cases, "marriage" means one fellow taking as many wives as he pleases, (simultaneously)---no big deal.

In either of the above scenarios, "marriage" means something completely different than the modern American ideal, which has to do with romantic love and the wish to find a compatible companion to whom you wish to remain faithful, and with whom you wish to live for the rest of your life.

And now I have a very sincere question, because I do not know the answer. Men did seem to have a good many wives in the Old Testament; quite the fashion, apparently. Did God anywhere, at any time, say "Hey, this isn't acceptable---one wife only, if you please."

quote:

Originally posted by theoctobercountry:

And now I have a very sincere question, because I do not know the answer. Men did seem to have a good many wives in the Old Testament; quite the fashion, apparently. Did God anywhere, at any time, say "Hey, this isn't acceptable---one wife only, if you please."

I believe the custom of taking one wife within Christianity arose because of a later period of Roman rule, during which a one-wife policy was instituted for lower-class peoples: the idea being that a poor person would not be able to support many wives and children. As you know, many impoverished people belonged to the early Christian movement. I assume it was picked up as an "unwritten rule" after being in place for so long, and simply continued on as a custom.

But this is just hearsay, I'm not sure if it was the case or not.

I'd have to look for it, but Jesus was very strong on one man and one woman in marriage, and not multiple wives. I never did figure out why King David could get away with 800 wives and likely more than that in concubines, (but, then, maybe he never did)...and he had to steal another man's wife, and then have him killed. I'll have to get into the study of that someday.

My driving interesting in most of my life has been 'how do you get into heaven?' The passages of the Marriage Feast, where it is likened to the reality of heaven, used to give me a lot of sleepless nights. In that passage, there is a part that discusses where people were taken off the streets and put at the Wedding tables for feasting, only to be questioned as to why they were not wearing a garment suitable for a wedding. Then they were tossed on their ear into the outer darkness. Took me a long while before I understood that one.

But as to the gay rights thing about marriage, this may help some from a religious perspective, and not a secular one. This particular discussion, in this website, is accepted by The Roman Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox Church, and most mainline Protestant Churches, such as Evangelical, Baptist, Plymouth Brethern, etc.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WX06E13

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
I'd have to look for it, but Jesus was very strong on one man and one woman in marriage, and not multiple wives.

He was very strongly against adultery; but did he ever speak out against polygamy? I can't think of an instance.

When Jesus repeated the Genesis "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." I suppose that could be construed as an endorsement of monogamy, but not necessarily a condemnation of polygamy.

Sorry, Nard, I simply don't think the arguments against same-sex relationships, as presented in that article, are true---and in some cases are illogical.

Sooo... if God permitted polygamy in the Old Testament, why did he change the definition of marriage as it applies in the modern western world?

quote:

Originally posted by theoctobercountry:
...if God permitted polygamy in the Old Testament, why did he change the definition of marriage as it applies in the modern western world?

God doesn't change - humankind changes their beliefs about God and God's rules.

We create God in our image (and thus God's rules), and to suit our purpose, and God sits there (wherever) and has a chuckle at us: "humans - what are you gonna do with 'em?"

Interesting questions. While you could argue that God sometimes endorsed (or at least accepted) some instances of polygamy, I don't see any biblical passages where he accepts homosexual (or adulterous) behaviour. If he does not accept homosexual behavior, how could he accept homosexual marriage? How could that concept have any meaning--unless they are homosexual in orientation, but celibate in practice?

Right on, Mr. Dark.

theoctobercountry, well if you disagree with that article, you disagree with most mainline churches thruout history, especially the Roman Catholic Church. Interestingly upcoming is the Catholic Bishops confronting Obama on the abortion issue (one issue amongst many upcoming for confrontation sure):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_re_us/rel_catholic_bishops

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
Interesting questions. While you could argue that God sometimes endorsed (or at least accepted) some instances of polygamy, I don't see any biblical passages where he accepts homosexual (or adulterous) behaviour. If he does not accept homosexual behavior, how could he accept homosexual marriage? How could that concept have any meaning--unless they are homosexual in orientation, but celibate in practice?

Well, this goes back to the content of that article Doug posted earlier, to which Nard took umbrage. There are, what---half a dozen New Testament verses that refer to homosexuality? The question being, what exactly do these verses say, when you take into account the precise translation of the words, exactly who was being addressed in the verses, and to what specific incident or situation the verses are referring (as portions of the NT are in fact letters that were addressing concerns of the church at the time. Pity we don't have complete correspondence in these cases, with a back-and-forth dialogue).

The article put forth the idea that specific types of homosexual behaviour are being condemned in those passages (just as the Bible time and time again cautions against certain types of heterosexual behaviour)---and that monogamous and loving same-sex pairings are not being addressed here. Yep, I know---that interpretation is against everything some people believe. It all comes down to a very academic discussion, a sort of "my scholars say" versus "your scholars say" sort of debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:

theoctobercountry, well if you disagree with that article, you disagree with most mainline churches thruout history, especially the Roman Catholic Church.

Well, I have no problem in disagreeing with what the Roman Catholic church has to say; I simply don't believe in many of their particular teachings. (All the same, I still consider them to be a legitimate part of the Christian family; unlike the most conservative Protestant branches of the Christian family, who seem to think that the RC church is the devil incarnate right here on earth.)

Just because a thing has been widely accepted or believed throughout history does not make it so. Heck, look at the concept of slavery. I don't believe the Bible has anything to say against the practise, but I certainly do not think it is correct. In my opinion, it simply IS NOT RIGHT for one human to be able to own another, and yet it was perfectly legal and accepted for thousands of years---heck, this was so in parts of the US as recently as 150 years ago. And all along some churches used passages from the Bible to support slavery. So, no, I have no problem in going against the mainline teachings of some churches. Heck, you cannot be a Christian without doing so. Christianity is so fragmented, with so many different interpretations of precisely what the Bible has to say on any given topic, that a Christian is bound to disagree with other Christians about some things...

But let me try to wrest this discussion back on topic; a lot of what we've been writing belongs on the religion thread, not the political one...

The heart of proposition 8 in California was not necessarily to "defend" the sanctity of marriage. It was to marginalise gay people, denying them legal rights that are available to the rest of the population. Logically speaking, if the defence of marriage was all that was in question, the groups who supported 8 should be focusing on having adultery or divorce made illegal. (For goodness sake, Jesus Himself---the go-to guy in the Christian religion---spoke out against divorce, and yet never said a single word about homosexuality.)

There was a deliberate campaign of misinformation waged to support 8; for instance, with some adverts claiming that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages. Nothing could be further from the truth---this was purely a state matter, and had nothing to do with what goes on in churches at all. No church was being told what to teach or what to do within their own walls.

(And if I may speak frankly, the heavily-financed pro-8 campaign put forth by the Mormons struck me as being particularly ludicrous. I cannot think of another group that has done so much to ALTER the definition of marriage, throughout their history. Not only with their practice of polygamy in the early years of the religion, but with the entire concept of “celestial marriage.” Which, far as I understand, includes the concept that marriage lasts past the grave and right into eternity. Indeed, a Mormon man may have many wives in the afterlife---though I think women are out of luck, and are not able to have many husbands in return. No Christian group gives the least bit of credence to these Mormon beliefs, and yet here the Mormons are presenting themselves as standard-bearers for the upholding of traditional marriage.)

So, my position is very, very simple. Believe whatever you wish, for whatever religious reasons you can come up with, about gay people. But do not expect your particular mind-set to be set in stone as the law of the land in America, where we have a distinct separation of church and state. I dare say anyone reading this would not be happy at all if you were expected to observe the specific religious beliefs of another faith. So why would you expect other people, who do not agree with your particular beliefs, to behave differently?

All right, I know---enough of this! I said my piece, but don't expect many here to agree. Ah well, that's life. But now I absolutely have to get to work; break is over!

octobercountry!
Holy Scripture and the Laws of the land nowadays are in many ways completely opposed. There is absolutely no connecting Godly behavior thru the Holy Spirit, (not thru human behavior), but thru the Holy Spirit, with what some of the human laws of our government would demand. Jesus Christ was asked in scripture, "Who does one adhere to in terms of their allegiance? God or Country?" And Jesus, if you recall the passage, picked up a Roman coin and asked the fellow asking the question, "Who's face is on this coin?" "Caesar," was the answer. So Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar, and to God the things that are God."

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
Interestingly upcoming is the Catholic Bishops confronting Obama on the abortion issue.

I don't blame them - I would confront him too.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Doug Spaulding,

quote:

Originally posted by theoctobercountry:
Well, this goes back to the content of that article Doug posted earlier, to which Nard took umbrage. There are, what---half a dozen New Testament verses that refer to homosexuality? The question being, what exactly do these verses say, when you take into account the precise translation of the words, exactly who was being addressed in the verses, and to what specific incident or situation the verses are referring (as portions of the NT are in fact letters that were addressing concerns of the church at the time. Pity we don't have complete correspondence in these cases, with a back-and-forth dialogue).

Exactly so.

You would make a fine Bible scholar.

Umbrage is a good word.

quote:

Just because a thing has been widely accepted or believed throughout history does not make it so. Heck, look at the concept of slavery. I don't believe the Bible has anything to say against the practise, but I certainly do not think it is correct. In my opinion, it simply IS NOT RIGHT for one human to be able to own another, and yet it was perfectly legal and accepted for thousands of years---heck, this was so in parts of the US as recently as 150 years ago. And all along some churches used passages from the Bible to support slavery. So, no, I have no problem in going against the mainline teachings of some churches. Heck, you cannot be a Christian without doing so. Christianity is so fragmented, with so many different interpretations of precisely what the Bible has to say on any given topic, that a Christian is bound to disagree with other Christians about some things...

Your point about slavery is a good one. I think we have enough context to make good judgments about fundamental doctrinal and moral issues. The question is two fold: (1) Are we looking, in good faith, to find meaning, rather than to rationalize our own, and (2) Are we listening and letting God speak to us through the spirit? Without these two elements, no exegesis will get us to the truth.