Author Topic: Giving Polygamy a Chance  (Read 28417 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42246
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #45 on: January 18, 2010, 03:42:40 PM »
Once again, what I don't understand is how the revisionists will throw away Scripture to accommodate the homosexuals
We didn't. That's your first misunderstanding.

Quote
but they draw the line at throwing it away to accommodate the bisexuals, the pedophiles, or any other perverts.
The arbitrary line of being married/committed to one person was drawn long before we started our discussion -- even though arguments for polygamy can be made from scriptures. And this arbitrary line was ignored long before our discussion through divorces and remarriages. Monogamy, that is, "one marriage," is close to being the minority state in the U.S. I see the recommendations as seeking to re-establish the long-standing tradition of being committed to and married to one person for a life-time. And requiring monogamy is drawing an arbitrary line.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10214
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #46 on: January 18, 2010, 08:15:55 PM »
Just to give you a little more to think about, how would you deal pastorally with this three-way-of-a-sort relationship?

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_14200855?source=most_viewed

There is no point in arguing hypotheticals when the Brave New World is already here.  And as a bonus question, how would posters here try to explain this to a Sunday School Class of kids?


Don't know if it's Brave New World.  Reads more like a dystopian cyberpunk sf story.

How would I deal with it pastorally?  Well, my pastoral experience is that my involvement in the dispute -- in the off chance these 4 people have a church relationship -- would have been about the time it hit the paper. 

If the lesbian couple had been parishioners, I likely would have found out about the child when the mother got pregnant.  I can imagine that they might have wanted to talk with their pastor as they discerned whether they should have provided for this child's conception -- but I've never experienced that sort of thing, and my similar experiences are that if medical technology can do something, the couple is going to try it and just assume that their pastor/church would approve since we're not Roman Catholic.  But that's going back in this story nearly 2 years, and this pastor doesn't know how to unwind the clock after a series of actions by this couple that says they clearly never considered the consequences.  But if they'd asked me 2 years ago, I would have told them the Christian thing to do is not conceive a child under such circumstances.

What do they need today?  Confession of sin, repentance, absolution, and lots of it.  I mean, how do you deal pastorally with the betrayal of intimate relationships that never should have been entered into in the first place?  No one here is occupying moral high ground.  And the pastoral thing to do (ala Nathan and King David) is to make that clear.

What is best for the twins is that they are raised by their mother and father in a Christian home conscious of sin, repentance, and absolution.  The mother and sperm donor appear to be making the best of the immoral decisions that brought them to where they are.   The former partner, who has the parental standing of a former child care provider -- none at all -- has to live with the consequences of a string of wrong relationship choices and trusting untrustworthy people.  Which brings us back to confession of sin, repentance, and absolution.

Alas, as an expat Californian, I would not be surprised that the court's ultimate decisions will only make situation this worse for everybody and set the worst possible legal precedent.

Christe eleison, Steven+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 16657
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #47 on: January 18, 2010, 09:47:14 PM »
Once again, what I don't understand is how the revisionists will throw away Scripture to accommodate the homosexuals
We didn't. That's your first misunderstanding.

Quote
but they draw the line at throwing it away to accommodate the bisexuals, the pedophiles, or any other perverts.
The arbitrary line of being married/committed to one person was drawn long before we started our discussion -- even though arguments for polygamy can be made from scriptures. And this arbitrary line was ignored long before our discussion through divorces and remarriages. Monogamy, that is, "one marriage," is close to being the minority state in the U.S. I see the recommendations as seeking to re-establish the long-standing tradition of being committed to and married to one person for a life-time. And requiring monogamy is drawing an arbitrary line.
If by arbitrary you mean divinely established, fine.

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #48 on: January 18, 2010, 10:39:07 PM »
Once again, what I don't understand is how the revisionists will throw away Scripture to accommodate the homosexuals
We didn't. That's your first misunderstanding.


This paragraph, especially the sentence in bold amounts to saying that what Scripture says doesn't matter. It says, "Believe whatever you want, it's all good."

In response, this church draws on the foundational Lutheran understanding that the baptized are called to discern God's love in service to the neighbor. In our Christian freedom, we therefore seek responsible actions that serve others and do so with humility and deep respect for the conscience-bound beliefs of others. We understand that, in this discernment about ethics and church practice, faithful people can and will come to different conclusions about the meaning of Scripture25 and about what constitutes responsible action. We further believe that this church, on the basis of "the bound conscience,"26 will include these different understandings and practices within its life as it seeks to live out its mission and ministry in the world.

I understand that just fine.

northchurch

  • Guest
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #49 on: January 18, 2010, 11:03:16 PM »
The answer makes perfect sense to me. I'm pretty sure that you are living the answer that has been given -- regardless of how many people you might be sexually attracted to, you've limited your sexual behaviors to the one women to whom you are married.

That is the answer that makes no sense. I am not saying it is wrong or that I disagree with it. I am saying that it makes no sense.

So, you are saying that it makes no sense to you to remain faithful to your wife when you are sexually attracted to other people.

That is not what I said. That is not what I implied. That is not what I meant.

That is what the answer I gave -- and others have given -- means. Perhaps now it makes some sense to you when it's put in your own relational context.

No, it still does not make sense.

You revisionists threw God's Law in the trash to accommodate homosexuals' desires to wallow in a life of filth and perversion. It makes no sense to throw away God's law so that homosexuals can lead lives of debauchery and surrender to their lusts and perversions and not to give bisexuals the same free pass on following God's Law. It makes no sense to use the crap about partnered, monogamous and all the other antinomian excuses used to justify making the accommodations for homosexuals and not take it the slight step further to accommodate bisexuals as well.

If you revisionists aren't going to take your repealing of God's Laws you disagree with because they stand in the way of the perversions in the third letter of LGBT, then you could at least be honest enough to drop the "B" from the initials. That would make sense.

Or, you could follow the principle of "in for a penny, in for a pound", and re-write God's Law to include the bisexuals along side the homosexuals. And while you're at it, why not include the pedophiles as well? And don't forget the devotees of bestiality.

I have no idea who are you are  talking about. Your statements don't resemble anything that the "revisionists" I know have done. Your comments just don't make any sense.

Hey, where is that pot calling the kettle black thread? :D

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen Lutheran Church

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42246
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #50 on: January 18, 2010, 11:09:53 PM »
The answer makes perfect sense to me. I'm pretty sure that you are living the answer that has been given -- regardless of how many people you might be sexually attracted to, you've limited your sexual behaviors to the one women to whom you are married.

That is the answer that makes no sense. I am not saying it is wrong or that I disagree with it. I am saying that it makes no sense.

So, you are saying that it makes no sense to you to remain faithful to your wife when you are sexually attracted to other people.

That is not what I said. That is not what I implied. That is not what I meant.

That is what the answer I gave -- and others have given -- means. Perhaps now it makes some sense to you when it's put in your own relational context.

No, it still does not make sense.

You revisionists threw God's Law in the trash to accommodate homosexuals' desires to wallow in a life of filth and perversion. It makes no sense to throw away God's law so that homosexuals can lead lives of debauchery and surrender to their lusts and perversions and not to give bisexuals the same free pass on following God's Law. It makes no sense to use the crap about partnered, monogamous and all the other antinomian excuses used to justify making the accommodations for homosexuals and not take it the slight step further to accommodate bisexuals as well.

If you revisionists aren't going to take your repealing of God's Laws you disagree with because they stand in the way of the perversions in the third letter of LGBT, then you could at least be honest enough to drop the "B" from the initials. That would make sense.

Or, you could follow the principle of "in for a penny, in for a pound", and re-write God's Law to include the bisexuals along side the homosexuals. And while you're at it, why not include the pedophiles as well? And don't forget the devotees of bestiality.

I have no idea who are you are  talking about. Your statements don't resemble anything that the "revisionists" I know have done. Your comments just don't make any sense.

Hey, where is that pot calling the kettle black thread? :D

Sometimes the kettle is black; and what's wrong in saying so?
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

northchurch

  • Guest
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #51 on: January 18, 2010, 11:27:37 PM »
The answer makes perfect sense to me. I'm pretty sure that you are living the answer that has been given -- regardless of how many people you might be sexually attracted to, you've limited your sexual behaviors to the one women to whom you are married.

That is the answer that makes no sense. I am not saying it is wrong or that I disagree with it. I am saying that it makes no sense.

So, you are saying that it makes no sense to you to remain faithful to your wife when you are sexually attracted to other people.

That is not what I said. That is not what I implied. That is not what I meant.

That is what the answer I gave -- and others have given -- means. Perhaps now it makes some sense to you when it's put in your own relational context.

No, it still does not make sense.

You revisionists threw God's Law in the trash to accommodate homosexuals' desires to wallow in a life of filth and perversion. It makes no sense to throw away God's law so that homosexuals can lead lives of debauchery and surrender to their lusts and perversions and not to give bisexuals the same free pass on following God's Law. It makes no sense to use the crap about partnered, monogamous and all the other antinomian excuses used to justify making the accommodations for homosexuals and not take it the slight step further to accommodate bisexuals as well.

If you revisionists aren't going to take your repealing of God's Laws you disagree with because they stand in the way of the perversions in the third letter of LGBT, then you could at least be honest enough to drop the "B" from the initials. That would make sense.

Or, you could follow the principle of "in for a penny, in for a pound", and re-write God's Law to include the bisexuals along side the homosexuals. And while you're at it, why not include the pedophiles as well? And don't forget the devotees of bestiality.

I have no idea who are you are  talking about. Your statements don't resemble anything that the "revisionists" I know have done. Your comments just don't make any sense.

Hey, where is that pot calling the kettle black thread? :D

Sometimes the kettle is black; and what's wrong in saying so?

What I find funny Brian is that you stand in a position where you really have nothing to say. Why? You stand in a church where bound conscience is not bound to Scripture but bound to anything one happens to feel about Scripture or anything else for that matter. Therefore how can you with a straight face speak to any comment anyone makes and say anything definitive. Because of your church's social statements on the matter? Because of your constitution? Because your "scholarly" mind comes up with something and you can find a few other "scholars" who agree with you? Big deal! You have your understanding of things, another has his or hers and you have no ground to speak of right or wrong, good or bad, correct or incorrect, holy or unholy. You are now simply a reed in the wind that bends at any breeze (I am speaking now of your church's ability to speak definitively about anything). So have fun telling others that they don't make sense, or that they are wrong, or anything else. You're a pot that doesn't hold any water because the bottom is out.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen Lutheran Church

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2010, 04:50:01 AM »
Wow. I didn't know that the ELCA, Pastor Stoffregen's exegesis or the views of ELCA theologians or the decisions of our denomination were such a threat to Pastor Buechler's faith or the faith of his congregation! Are these things (or - oh, horrors! - even the theologians or pastors or deacons or lay people themselves) reaching his members, luring them out from under his pastoral care or so clouding their minds that they do not hear his sermons?
Presumably he has inoculated his members against the "sickness" of the ELCA. Does he fear that his medicine is inadequate?

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 16657
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #53 on: January 19, 2010, 08:47:27 AM »
Wow. I didn't know that the ELCA, Pastor Stoffregen's exegesis or the views of ELCA theologians or the decisions of our denomination were such a threat to Pastor Buechler's faith or the faith of his congregation! Are these things (or - oh, horrors! - even the theologians or pastors or deacons or lay people themselves) reaching his members, luring them out from under his pastoral care or so clouding their minds that they do not hear his sermons?
Presumably he has inoculated his members against the "sickness" of the ELCA. Does he fear that his medicine is inadequate?

An example of a post twisting things to be about Pastor Buechler rather than the topic. It would have been really easy, Charles, to state your disagreement without stuff about anyone's fears or feeble faith.

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #54 on: January 19, 2010, 09:17:29 AM »
Sorry, Peter, it just seems to me that when people speak more often and with more vigor about things that they are against, rather than things they are for, I have to wonder whether they are afraid that what they are for cannot stand up to what they are against.
And you know my other position. When you emigrate to another country, you lose your right to meddle in the internal affairs of the country you abandoned.

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6790
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #55 on: January 19, 2010, 09:41:51 AM »
Sorry, Peter, it just seems to me that when people speak more often and with more vigor about things that they are against, rather than things they are for, I have to wonder whether they are afraid that what they are for cannot stand up to what they are against.
And you know my other position. When you emigrate to another country, you lose your right to meddle in the internal affairs of the country you abandoned.

Charles,

Pastor Buechler was, in a polemical way, making a similar argument:

1.  When one has abandoned realism for radical skepticism, one should refrain from telling someone else that they "misunderstand" something.  For a radical skeptic, all perceptions are personal and subjective.  So what right does Brian, have to tell someone he misunderstands.

2.  When one has abandoned any sense of moral truth for relativism, one should refrain from telling another person that they are wrong.  Wrong implies that there is a moral standard against which actions can be measured, but a moral relativist has abandoned this belief.

Again it's a pot and kettle situation.

David
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6790
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #56 on: January 19, 2010, 09:46:34 AM »
And you know my other position. When you emigrate to another country, you lose your right to meddle in the internal affairs of the country you abandoned.

And of course, its corollary of when you are a citizen of that country you are obligated to financially support that country no matter what its evil deeds. You can object to those deeds, but you need to continue financing them.

I am supposing that while Werner Von Braun had every right to object to German aggression since that was an international issue, he lost any right to obect to internal German incarceration and extermination of Jews since he emigrated to the US.

(And yes, I know that the first person who brings up Nazis in an argument automatically loses. So be it. The point remains made.)

Mike

I don't think he emigrated until after the defeat of Nazi Germany.  The victorious Americans wanted his knowledge of rocket propulsion and so brought him to the U.S. 

David
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Kurt Weinelt

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders!
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2010, 10:09:34 AM »
Sorry, Peter, it just seems to me that when people speak more often and with more vigor about things that they are against, rather than things they are for, I have to wonder whether they are afraid that what they are for cannot stand up to what they are against.
And you know my other position. When you emigrate to another country, you lose your right to meddle in the internal affairs of the country you abandoned.

So you are saying we should have ignored Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn and Natan Sharansky once they were free of the Soviet Union?  They had no right to decry the human rights abuses from which they escaped? ::)  Yakov Smirnoff  ;D too?
Kurt
"Learning about history is an antidote to the hubris of the present, the idea that everything in OUR lives is the ultimate." David McCullough

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42246
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #58 on: January 19, 2010, 10:13:56 AM »
What I find funny Brian is that you stand in a position where you really have nothing to say. Why? You stand in a church where bound conscience is not bound to Scripture but bound to anything one happens to feel about Scripture or anything else for that matter.

What I find sad is that you seem incapable of understanding that our bound consciences are bound to Scripture -- but not bound to one interpretation of the text.

Quote
You are now simply a reed in the wind that bends at any breeze (I am speaking now of your church's ability to speak definitively about anything). So have fun telling others that they don't make sense, or that they are wrong, or anything else. You're a pot that doesn't hold any water because the bottom is out.

I have stated from the beginning of the ELCA -- and continue to state most firmly: we stand on the rock of justification by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Those whose Christianity means taking a particular position on moral issues will be disappointed.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42246
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #59 on: January 19, 2010, 10:18:51 AM »
Once again, what I don't understand is how the revisionists will throw away Scripture to accommodate the homosexuals
We didn't. That's your first misunderstanding.

Quote
but they draw the line at throwing it away to accommodate the bisexuals, the pedophiles, or any other perverts.
The arbitrary line of being married/committed to one person was drawn long before we started our discussion -- even though arguments for polygamy can be made from scriptures. And this arbitrary line was ignored long before our discussion through divorces and remarriages. Monogamy, that is, "one marriage," is close to being the minority state in the U.S. I see the recommendations as seeking to re-establish the long-standing tradition of being committed to and married to one person for a life-time. And requiring monogamy is drawing an arbitrary line.
If by arbitrary you mean divinely established, fine.

Can you show me where God intervened and stopped the practice of polygamy (and concubines and slavery and the Levirate law)? It seems to me that your position has little to no backing in Scripture -- even though it is a long-standing opinion among church folks. (It's not a bad opinion, but there are no verses in scriptures that prohibit such sexual relationships -- except for church leaders, who are to be married once -- which is not followed in many denominations.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]