Giving Polygamy a Chance

[G.Edward]

How about cross cultural reading of scripture as it pertains to homosexuality?  Do you really want to go there?

When the Bible is read cross culturally, it often leads to problems for liberal Christians.  My guess is that outside of North America and Europe most Christians have little problem believing in miracles, the demonic, the power of the Spirit, the existence of God, and a discernable difference between good and evil.  Most of that is way too fundamentalist for liberal Christianity.   In some way you might say they have more in common with Luther than we do. (Think for instance of Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the DDevil.)

Sooner or later they'll understand enough to see things the way they really are...the way we do! 

[Brian Stoffregen]

It seems from what you write (I'm not sure what you sound like) that you need to take a remedial course in reading comprehension.  I was not asking what you would say in a pastoral conversation, I was asking you whether you would also find that statement absurd.

This is what you wrote, with emphasis added: P.S.  What would you say to someone who said, "Those of us Christians[sic] who no longer believe that Jesus is the Christ are willing to accomodate those who do"?

I responded with what I would say "to someone". Perhaps you need a course in remedial writing.

Context is part of reading comprehension.  Of course you know that, but choose to obfuscate.

So, in your context, the words "say to someone" don't really mean "say to someone". Who is obfuscating? I can't read your mind, only the words you type.

[DCharlton]

Really?  Do you mean that?  From what I heard   that is the value you were lifting up as the most important.

The value I have lifted up over and over and over again is: Salvation by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. I have been very consistent in that.

No.  When you criticized traditionalist for not being as accomodating as revisionists had been, you were criticizing us for not being a tolerant and open to diversity as you.  So, at least in that case, which by the way was the one I was responding to, you were lifting up something other than the doctrine of Justification.

Nope, if you are going to use the tolerant and open argument, I showed how it can be turned around and bite you. I didn't say that it was my argument.

But of course, I was not using the "tolerant and open" argument, I was using the "inconsistency" argument.  Revisionists who champion diversity are inconsistent.  That's what I criticized them for.  You can't turn an argument back on me if I have not made that argument.  Again, pay attention to what I wrote.  

[DCharlton]

It seems from what you write (I'm not sure what you sound like) that you need to take a remedial course in reading comprehension.  I was not asking what you would say in a pastoral conversation, I was asking you whether you would also find that statement absurd.

This is what you wrote, with emphasis added: P.S.  What would you say to someone who said, "Those of us Christians[sic] who no longer believe that Jesus is the Christ are willing to accomodate those who do"?

I responded with what I would say "to someone". Perhaps you need a course in remedial writing.

Context is part of reading comprehension.  Of course you know that, but choose to obfuscate.

So, in your context, the words "say to someone" don't really mean "say to someone". Who is obfuscating? I can't read your mind, only the words you type.

In the context of a discussion of diversity, accomodation and tolerance.  Not in the context of a pastoral discussion.

[Brian Stoffregen]

But of course, I was not using the "tolerant and open" argument, I was using the "inconsistency" argument.  Revisionists who champion diversity are inconsistent.  That's what I criticized them for.

Some are, but not all. Some traditionalists are "intolerant and closed," but not all.

[G.Edward]

Monogamy literally means "one reproductive unit" by it's etymology

Nope, etymologically it means "married once". mono = one + gamos = marriage. Literally, anyone has been married more than once is no longer "monogamous". (We've mostly redefined the literally meaning to mean, "married to one person at a time.")

You reveal your short-sightedness and lack of depth so easily!

Origin:  1605–15; < LL monogamia < Gk monogamía. See mono-, -gamy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monogamy


mono-
a combining form meaning "alone," "single," "one" (monogamy); specialized in some scientific terms to denote a monomolecular thickness (monolayer) and adapted in chemistry to apply to compounds containing one atom of a particular element (monohydrate).
Also, especially before a vowel, mon-.

Origin:
< Gk, comb. form of mónos alone

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mono-?db=luna


-gamy
a combining form with the meanings "marriage," "union," "fertilization, pollination," of the kind specified by the initial element: exogamy; plastogamy; allogamy; also forming nouns corresponding to adjectives ending in -gamous: heterogamy.
Origin:
comb. form repr. Gk -gamía act of marrying

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-gamy?db=luna

You are right, Brian, monogamy literally means "once married" from it's Greek roots.  The bigger question is what is the primary purpose of such marrying in God's revealed will?

[G.Edward]

If we were as committed to tolerance, diversity and muti-culturalism as we claim, we would affirm it.  Diversity sounds great when it means relaxing doctrinal standards or overturning centuries of tradition, but when it means accomadating those with more traditional views, it's a problem. Or so it seems.

It seems to me that revisionists have accommodated traditional views for a long time, but now that the traditionalists are asked to accommodate the revisionist's view, many are abandoning the ship.

How do they accommodate an unfounded break with the main interpretation of Christianity over two millennia?  It would be one thing if it could be defended coherently from the preponderance of the biblical text (as can the abolition of slavery and the ordination of women).  But to go where the bible explicitly says "don't" is to engage in the original lie, "did God really say..."

[Steven Tibbetts]

It seems to me that revisionists have accommodated traditional views for a long time, but now that the traditionalists are asked to accommodate the revisionist's view, many are abandoning the ship.

Hedonists never mind puritans quietly doing their thing.

spt+

[Brian Stoffregen]

You are right, Brian, monogamy literally means "once married" from it's Greek roots.  The bigger question is what is the primary purpose of such marrying in God's revealed will?

There is not one primary purpose, but scriptures indicate different purposes -- in a random order as I recall them.

1. To relieve the not goodness of being alone.
2. To achieve an intimacy (one-ness) beyond that of any other relationships.
3. To procreate
4. To be a model of (a) the relationship between Christ and the church, and (b) the unity among the persons of the Trinity
5. To curb promiscuity
6. To give sexual pleasure (see Song of Songs)
7. To bring salvation to the woman through childbearing!! (see 1 Tim. 2:15)

[Brian Stoffregen]

You reveal your short-sightedness and lack of depth so easily!

I'm in good company.

μονόγαμος , ὁ,

A. one who marries but once, Ptol. Tetr.183, Vett.Val. 120.8.

Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

[northchurch]

But of course, I was not using the "tolerant and open" argument, I was using the "inconsistency" argument.  Revisionists who champion diversity are inconsistent.  That's what I criticized them for.

Some are, but not all. Some traditionalists are "intolerant and closed," but not all.

C.S. Lewis reminds us (in his talk with Anglican priests of his day) that they are not called to be "open" or "tolerant" of the day. They are not called to change with the times. Scripture calls them to be intolerant of heresy and closed to any attempt to change what the Lord has handed down through the apostles and saints. So the traditionalists who are intolerant and closed can do so with clear consciences. They stand with the apostles and saints who were also intolerant and closed to whatever wind of doctrine sought to undermine the fabric of the teachings and power of Christ.

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

[Steven Tibbetts]

How do you think that'd go over in our American congregations -- and not just the liberal ones?

Is not the rejection of the Devil in our Baptismal service the remnants of exorcism?

spt+

[Steven Tibbetts]

I would say: "Regardless of what you think, Jesus Christ died for you. God, in Jesus Christ, loves and accepts you."

...The non-negotiable truth is "God so loved the world (which includes every single person) so that he gave his unique Son, so that everyone who trusts him is not destroyed, but might have a never-ending life."

Compare and contrast what you "would say" with your paraphrase of John 3:16.

spt+

[Brian Stoffregen]

I would say: "Regardless of what you think, Jesus Christ died for you. God, in Jesus Christ, loves and accepts you."

...The non-negotiable truth is "God so loved the world (which includes every single person) so that he gave his unique Son, so that everyone who trusts him is not destroyed, but might have a never-ending life."

Compare and contrast what you "would say" with your paraphrase of John 3:16.

There is no contrast. There is an intentional omission. I said nothing about "trust" in my "would say". Whether or not anyone trusts this proclamation, it is still true: God loves the world. God sent Jesus to die for the world. God, in Jesus Christ, loves and accepts every person in the world. Some will trust that the proclamation is true and reap the benefits. Others will call God/the proclaimer a liar and risk forfeiting the benefits God's love and Christ's death have brought to the world.

[DCharlton]

God loves the world. God sent Jesus to die for the world.

God, in Jesus Christ, loves and accepts every person in the world.

Steven can speak for himself, but if you look at the two statements above, I think you would see the same contrast he is talking about.  The first half of each statement is the same: God loves the world.  The second part is not.  God "accepts every person in the world" might mean that God accepts us as we are.  Or it could mean that through the death of Jesus, God makes us acceptable and bestow on us a favor we do not deserve.  Judging from the context, it would assume you mean the latter.