Author Topic: Giving Polygamy a Chance  (Read 29463 times)

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #30 on: January 17, 2010, 07:16:05 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.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42418
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #31 on: January 17, 2010, 10:20:24 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.
"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]

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #32 on: January 17, 2010, 11:34:18 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.

« Last Edit: January 18, 2010, 12:08:53 AM by George Erdner »

G.Edward

  • Guest
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #33 on: January 17, 2010, 11:38:18 PM »
The question remains, and will be sorely pressed in our lifetimes, "Why just two people?"  So, how will we respond?  Does the church offer a distinct vision for God-pleasing relationship, or an ever-growing table of acceptable acronyms to designate the diversity of relationships we will bless?

Given that the Political Correctness Police have replaced the word "homosexual" with "GLBT" in ELCA-speak, how can they possibly expect those in the "B" category to be content with only one partner?
That's been answered numerous times before.



But I was hoping for an answer that made sense.

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.

Just because.  Two, just because.

G.Edward

  • Guest
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #34 on: January 17, 2010, 11:40:14 PM »
That's devotees of zoophilia to you, mister!

MSchimmel

  • Guest
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2010, 11:59:10 PM »
That's devotees of zoophilia to you, mister!

I like to go to the zoo - what's the big deal? ;D

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #36 on: January 18, 2010, 08:53:21 AM »
Gregory Davidson writes:
I like to go to the zoo - what's the big deal?
I comment:
Depends upon what you do there.
But that theme is another ridiculous obfuscation of what we should be talking about. And so is polygamy, although as usual Russ Saltzman's musings are thoughtful. The issue is not polygamy, but the processes by which conclusions are reached.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 16841
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #37 on: January 18, 2010, 09:59:39 AM »
That is what the answer I gave -- and others have given -- means.
Really? The answer itself-- the text, if you will-- has knowable, objective meaning apart from the reader's interpretation? What if what it means to George is something nonsensical?

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42418
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #38 on: January 18, 2010, 10:06:33 AM »
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.
"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: 42418
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #39 on: January 18, 2010, 10:09:03 AM »
That is what the answer I gave -- and others have given -- means.
Really? The answer itself-- the text, if you will-- has knowable, objective meaning apart from the reader's interpretation? What if what it means to George is something nonsensical?
Then either there is a problem with what I wrote or how George (mis)understands it. Since others find what I wrote to be clear and understandable, that leaves the problem centered in George.
"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]

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 16841
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #40 on: January 18, 2010, 10:15:47 AM »
That is what the answer I gave -- and others have given -- means.
Really? The answer itself-- the text, if you will-- has knowable, objective meaning apart from the reader's interpretation? What if what it means to George is something nonsensical?
Then either there is a problem with what I wrote or how George (mis)understands it. Since others find what I wrote to be clear and understandable, that leaves the problem centered in George.
The vast, vast majority of Christians across the globe and through history have agreed concerning what the Scriptures say about sodomy. I guess you're saying that leaves the problem centered in the revisionists.

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #41 on: January 18, 2010, 10:28:10 AM »
That is what the answer I gave -- and others have given -- means.
Really? The answer itself-- the text, if you will-- has knowable, objective meaning apart from the reader's interpretation? What if what it means to George is something nonsensical?
Then either there is a problem with what I wrote or how George (mis)understands it. Since others find what I wrote to be clear and understandable, that leaves the problem centered in George.

There is no misunderstanding. You and the rest of the revisionists have twisted your interpretations of Scripture like a pretzel to deny the reality that God's Law says what it says. We were warned by the Lord about false prophets who would come along after Him. Some of those false prophets have convinced 66.6% of the voters at the CWA to leave God's path.

I do not misunderstand your false, antinomian teachings. I reject them. There's a difference.

Pilgrim

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1634
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #42 on: January 18, 2010, 10:54:36 AM »
Charles Austin wrote: And so is polygamy, although as usual Russ Saltzman's musings are thoughtful. The issue is not polygamy, but the processes by which conclusions are reached.

Pilgrim suggests: I would question whether that the issue is the processes. I would suggest the issue is the foundational assumptions and core values. Russ's musings raise those questions, not process issues.

And the referenced article in California...wow! Am I the only one who finds it utterly astounding the depths and breadths and heights of the evidence of the bondage of the human condition to sin displayed in our age? And in the face of it, we (meaning well-intentioned religious folks) continue advancing the latest "case celebre" that common sense suggests will likely only exacerbate future examples of the same? Pour gas on the fire folks, it's not burning hot enough or fast enough! My goodness, the emperer is walking around in his skivvies right in front of our eyes!
Pr. Tim Christ, STS

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42418
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #43 on: January 18, 2010, 11:00:44 AM »
That is what the answer I gave -- and others have given -- means.
Really? The answer itself-- the text, if you will-- has knowable, objective meaning apart from the reader's interpretation? What if what it means to George is something nonsensical?
Then either there is a problem with what I wrote or how George (mis)understands it. Since others find what I wrote to be clear and understandable, that leaves the problem centered in George.

There is no misunderstanding. You and the rest of the revisionists have twisted your interpretations of Scripture like a pretzel to deny the reality that God's Law says what it says. We were warned by the Lord about false prophets who would come along after Him. Some of those false prophets have convinced 66.6% of the voters at the CWA to leave God's path.

I do not misunderstand your false, antinomian teachings. I reject them. There's a difference.

What you claimed made no sense to you had nothing to do with interpretation of Scriptures, but with the ELCA's position with regards to bisexuals. No one asked you to agree with it -- but you keep claiming that you can't understand it. Many others (even traditionalists) find it understandable -- even though they disagree with it. Thus I continue to maintain that the problem with your understanding is you.
"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]

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Giving Polygamy a Chance
« Reply #44 on: January 18, 2010, 02:30:13 PM »
That is what the answer I gave -- and others have given -- means.
Really? The answer itself-- the text, if you will-- has knowable, objective meaning apart from the reader's interpretation? What if what it means to George is something nonsensical?
Then either there is a problem with what I wrote or how George (mis)understands it. Since others find what I wrote to be clear and understandable, that leaves the problem centered in George.

There is no misunderstanding. You and the rest of the revisionists have twisted your interpretations of Scripture like a pretzel to deny the reality that God's Law says what it says. We were warned by the Lord about false prophets who would come along after Him. Some of those false prophets have convinced 66.6% of the voters at the CWA to leave God's path.

I do not misunderstand your false, antinomian teachings. I reject them. There's a difference.

What you claimed made no sense to you had nothing to do with interpretation of Scriptures, but with the ELCA's position with regards to bisexuals. No one asked you to agree with it -- but you keep claiming that you can't understand it. Many others (even traditionalists) find it understandable -- even though they disagree with it. Thus I continue to maintain that the problem with your understanding is you.

Once again, what I don't understand is how the revisionists will throw away Scripture to accommodate the homosexuals but they draw the line at throwing it away to accommodate the bisexuals, the pedophiles, or any other perverts. I understand that you revisionists decided to draw an arbitrary line that is inconsistent with the Bible and 2000 years of understanding. I do not understand why you chose to draw it where you did. It makes no sense to me to set the ELCA on a path to destruction over one perversion but to not go the rest of the way and include other perversions as well.

I'd use a metaphor to explain it, but then nitpicking the metaphor would take over the discussion and get twisted beyond all recognition.