Why is Bigamy wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

He's being called Dog-on-Man-Santorum because of his recent comments.

---

I like Savage's campaign better

http://spreadingsantorum.com/
#1 Google (and Feeling Lucky) result :up:

The joy of possibly millions of clueless republicans googling his name after his quick rise and showing at the Iowa caucus... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Isn't that passage against divorce? And as far as I'm aware divorce is legal.

---

It's a passage regarding no-fault divorce, which is a relatively "new" legal concept in society.

I'd be interested to see how Roman Catholics define "bigamy". Priests and Nuns "marry" (Jesus and/or The Church) and take vows of sexual celibacy. That seems to be the Vatican's argument against clergy having marital spouses, but it didn't seem to matter when priests were sexually molesting children. :confused:

Parishioners can't divorce according to Vatican dogma, but they can "apply for annulment", and re-marry in the church. Even if there are [marital] children involved, essentially making them bastards created outside "holy wedlock"? That's much more confusing than latter day Mormon bigamy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

It's a passage regarding no-fault divorce, which is a relatively "new" legal concept in society.

---

My reading of it goes against divorce for "any reason" - which was the situation for centuries and still is the Catholic law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Uhm, Ziggy, that doesn't actually seem to prove anything about polygamy. AFAIK polygamy was practiced (though not widely) throughout the OT, and it is clearly allowed (subject to some specific limits), and the NT doesn't say anything directly against it, either. I'm not a NT scholar, but that seems to be what google says. There are plenty of people in the Church later on who were deeply opposed to polygamy, and I doubt it ever had much traction in the Roman world, but Lewk seems to be correct about the Bible itself. Neither you nor Khen have provided much proof otherwise, when there's plenty of evidence that it was practiced and not completely prohibited. If you'd like to quote NT verses with only passing relationship to 'proof', why not this gem from Matthew?

---

Widely or not it would be a bit hard to overlook the polygamy in the story of Abraham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Uhm, Ziggy, that doesn't actually seem to prove anything about polygamy. AFAIK polygamy was practiced (though not widely) throughout the OT, and it is clearly allowed (subject to some specific limits), and the NT doesn't say anything directly against it, either. I'm not a NT scholar, but that seems to be what google says. There are plenty of people in the Church later on who were deeply opposed to polygamy, and I doubt it ever had much traction in the Roman world, but Lewk seems to be correct about the Bible itself. Neither you nor Khen have provided much proof otherwise, when there's plenty of evidence that it was practiced and not completely prohibited. If you'd like to quote NT verses with only passing relationship to 'proof', why not this gem from Matthew?

---

Hang on, I'm not out to prove something. Simply googled something like Bible and monogamy. Some biblical site referred to these quotes as the Bible talking about marriage being one man and one woman.

But you have to admit that this
each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband
doesn't speak in plurals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Isn't that passage against divorce? And as far as I'm aware divorce is legal.

---

Yes Rand. But Lewk was looking for Biblical insight.

Exactly. So quoting a passage against divorce doesn't provide that much biblical insight into why society has bigamy wrong and illegal from a biblical perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Widely or not it would be a bit hard to overlook the polygamy in the story of Abraham.

---

Actually, that's a very poor example. It's clear that the patriarchs did not follow biblical law - Jacob, for example, married two sisters (explicitly forbidden in Leviticus). Abraham served meat and milk together to his guests. There's no indication whatsoever that they observed the Sabbath (it seems very clear that the first observed Sabbath happened after the Exodus). Etc, etc. So while one might draw vague moral lessons from the actions of the patriarchs, you have to look later to determine whether or not the Bible advocates for polygamy. That being said, there are plenty of examples throughout the Hebrew Bible of polygamous marriages - Elkana (the father of Samuel) was married to Penina and Chana, for example. Many kings (including David and Solomon) had a number of wives and concubines. Etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Hang on, I'm not out to prove something. Simply googled something like Bible and monogamy. Some biblical site referred to these quotes as the Bible talking about marriage being one man and one woman.

But you have to admit that this
each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband
doesn't speak in plurals

---

I agree it can possibly be read that way, but it's hardly explicit, and given the weight of evidence to the contrary about its wide practice and the much more explicit Parable of 10 Virgins I quoted above, I think we can safely discount that quote as figurative. I also haven't read it in the original language - that might give some insight into the specifics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

My reading of it goes against divorce for "any reason" - which was the situation for centuries and still is the Catholic law.

---

That's what I said. No-fault divorce is a common and often-used modern legal concept. So, if our marital laws aren't based on religious texts, and have been updated over time, people (like Santorum) who oppose same-sex marriage should stop trying to use religious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I agree it can possibly be read that way, but it's hardly explicit, and given the weight of evidence to the contrary about its wide practice and the much more explicit Parable of 10 Virgins I quoted above, I think we can safely discount that quote as figurative. I also haven't read it in the original language - that might give some insight into the specifics.

---

You misunderstood my intent, by the way. I'm not out to prove that poligamy is right or wrong (I actually couldn't care less).

I was talking about the fact that the Bible is NOT specific on this issue and that all we have is conjecture from some passages which can be interpreted either way. This fact stands in stark contrast to Lewk's usual perspective that the Bible has one and only one perspective on certain issues.

Not to mention the idea that a several millenia old book is able to give us true and infallible guidance on how to lead our lives. And his interesting philosophy that whatever his Buddy Jesus himself said can be overridden by some minor prophet or other. Just because it's somewhere in the book. I mean, what good is calling yourself a Christian if what Christ said doesn't have absolute priority?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

I was talking about the fact that the Bible is NOT specific on this issue and that all we have is conjecture from some passages which can be interpreted either way. This fact stands in stark contrast to Lewk's usual perspective that the Bible has one and only one perspective on certain issues.

---

Your logic is incredibly faulty. Just because he believes the Bible has only one perspective on certain issues doesn't mean he should believe it only has one perspective on all issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Exactly.

---

You haven't said much since Christian objections were connected to "those polygamist Mormons" (who were/are often not considered Christians), even though some interpretations of the Bible 'permit' polygamy.

Maybe you're not so interested in questioning society after all, as Rand suggested? Too bad, really, because that's where the heart of the debate starts.

Firstly how to define marriage (civil, legal, religious). Common Law spouses still have some legal recognition when it comes to estates and probate court. Any "union" that results in children (heirs) includes legal legacy rights---whether it's recognized by any church, religious group, or not. Marriages/unions that don't produce children are recognized (honored in court) for heterosexual couples, but not homosexual couples. That seems to be clear discrimination, based on either religious and/or social "norms". Especially since "norms" for heteros can include no marriage, open marriage, arranged marriages, IVF and surrogates for procreating, adoptions....and everything in between.

That leads to definitions of Spouse, Family, and how they're recognized (or ignored) by courts of law. Religion shouldn't matter one iota in these legal contracts. Leona Helmsley left a chunk of her fortune to her dogs for crying out loud. GLBT couples and their families shouldn't have to fight like dogs to be recognized as people with human rights.

/rant

How is that remotely relevant to what's being argued in this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

How is that remotely relevant to what's being argued in this thread?

---

My post was based on Lewk's original question, and his agreement with Rand's reply. See post #31. Entirely relevant.

That doesn't mean others can't continue to discuss theological, biblical, or religious interpretations of marriage, bigamy, polygamy, polyandry...or what's wrong or right within those realms. I happen to think the more important sphere is what's structured legally, based on social norms. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Your logic is incredibly faulty. Just because he believes the Bible has only one perspective on certain issues doesn't mean he should believe it only has one perspective on all issues.

---

Uh, but that's exactly what he's usually spouting when it comes to stuff like the death penalty or homosexuality...

His theme is "But the Bible says so!" when confronted with the clash of his "beliefs" with what his Buddy Jesus actually says. Also: How dense does one have to be to not recognize that when his precious book is not exactly precise on one issue, it might also not be that precise with other issues? It's pick-and-choose Christianism, the worst kind there is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Uh, but that's exactly what he's usually spouting when it comes to stuff like the death penalty or homosexuality...

His theme is "But the Bible says so!" when confronted with the clash of his "beliefs" with what his Buddy Jesus actually says. Also: How dense does one have to be to not recognize that when his precious book is not exactly precise on one issue, it might also not be that precise with other issues? It's pick-and-choose Christianism, the worst kind there is.

---

Again, that's a terrible argument. His argument is that the Bible "says so" on a particular issue. That doesn't imply that the Bible says so on every issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Again, that's a terrible argument. His argument is that the Bible "says so" on a particular issue. That doesn't imply that the Bible says so on every issue.

---

Lewk didn't start this thread with an "argument", he began with a question. Khen also makes a valid point.

Y'know what? I'm starting to wonder why Lewk has been targeted for spouting right v wrong, black v white, liberals v all others....when Loki does the same damn thing, all the damn time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Again, that's a terrible argument. His argument is that the Bible "says so" on a particular issue. That doesn't imply that the Bible says so on every issue.

---

Right. You don't actually read what Lewk says, do you? Besides, you're missing the point completely and totally.

Probably on purpose, knowing you. Nothing new there, Mr. Strawman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Right. You don't actually read what Lewk says, do you? Besides, you're missing the point completely and totally.

Probably on purpose, knowing you. Nothing new there, Mr. Strawman.

---

Considering all the ammunition you have to attack Lewk with, you shouldn't grasp at straws? The fact that GGT thinks you're making a valid point is pretty convincing evidence of this by the way.

You guys are being completely lame and bitter, to even suggest that GGT can't make valid points or hasn't in her life time, or doesn't know more than you on given subject matters is beyond ludicrous. You need to learn to accept your own failures and weaknesses, you're not perfect, the more you think you must always be right, the more idiotic you will be, and the more idiotic you will be percieved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Uh, but that's exactly what he's usually spouting when it comes to stuff like the death penalty or homosexuality...

His theme is "But the Bible says so!" when confronted with the clash of his "beliefs" with what his Buddy Jesus actually says. Also: How dense does one have to be to not recognize that when his precious book is not exactly precise on one issue, it might also not be that precise with other issues? It's pick-and-choose Christianism, the worst kind there is.

---

Actually I dare you to find any threads where Lewk says that. Go on. Lewk isn't shy of his religiosity - nor his strong Texan conservative values but I can't recall him ever saying "Fry 'em because the bible says to".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Lewk, the heart of your conundrum is your faith in the bible. You (seem to) understand it as the consistant inspiration of one god that has been guiding it's human creations over all of history. Having that faith it is difficult to reconcile how a Christian nation and Christian churches can disapprove of polygamy when it is clearly accepted in the OT. If the Christian god inspired the OT, then polygamy must be ok.

But if you understand the bible and Christianity for what it really is, then the inconsistancy is easily explained. And with that comes the understanding that much of morality is not fixed outside a specific cultural context - how a group of people in a given time and place live and interact. Culture evolves over time and within it so does morality, so the context is constantly changing. The Christian belief in one eternal god that never changes, that inspired a book with teachings that never change, set within a culture that does change creates conundrums like this.

---

You know what's funny? When people who've obviously never read the Bible try to talk about what's in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband
doesn't speak in plurals

---

Doesn't exclude the possibility either. As has been mentioned, there's really nothing in the Bible against polygamy (so long as one can afford to feed, clothe and fuck all his spouses), and like much of what social conservatives tend to champion, there's actually very little in the way of support for their positions in the religion they claim to adhere to. Societal standards rather than religious edicts and all that.

I've mostly seen that passage used in attempts to discern what God prefers rather than what he demands and prohibits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Actually I dare you to find any threads where Lewk says that. Go on. Lewk isn't shy of his religiosity - nor his strong Texan conservative values but I can't recall him ever saying "Fry 'em because the bible says to".

---

Maybe you should take a look at his arguments against homosexuality? I distinctly recall him using the Bible pretty liberally in that regard.

But thanks for mentioning his stand on the death penalty and his stance towards punishment - that's interesting as well, since the Bible actually very specifically forbids vengeance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Maybe you should take a look at his arguments against homosexuality? I distinctly recall him using the Bible pretty liberally in that regard.

But thanks for mentioning his stand on the death penalty and his stance towards punishment - that's interesting as well, since the Bible actually very specifically forbids vengeance.

---

Er, no, it doesn't. What do you think cities of refuge were created for?

To give asylum for manslaughter?

I can see where the OT may permit eye-for-an-eye revenge (as opposed to monetary restitution) when it comes to big things like murder, where no atonement is possible.

I get the impression the Bible's stance on theft isn't very much like Lewk's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

To give asylum for manslaughter?

I can see where the OT may permit eye-for-an-eye revenge (as opposed to monetary restitution) when it comes to big things like murder, where no atonement is possible.

I get the impression the Bible's stance on theft isn't very much like Lewk's.

---

And the reason they required asylum was because the family of the victim was permitted to exact vengeance for their loved one.

As far as theft was concerned, I believe the penalty was a minimum of double the value of the stolen item in restitution, and possibly more, depending on the circumstances of the theft and the recovery of the stolen goods.

If a criminal was killed during the commission of a crime, I don't believe the victim would typically be held liable for the death.

At least that seems to be my recollection of Levitical law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Maybe you should take a look at his arguments against homosexuality? I distinctly recall him using the Bible pretty liberally in that regard.

---

I don't, I'd be interested to see some quotes, especially in regards to how he says the law should be. In fact I distinctly recall that his opinion of eg homosexual marriage was that the laws on it should be exactly the same as how he thinks the laws should be for heterosexual marriage. I.e. that the state should have nothing to do with either.

Quote:

---

But thanks for mentioning his stand on the death penalty and his stance towards punishment - that's interesting as well, since the Bible actually very specifically forbids vengeance.

---

What a crock. I could find you plenty of biblical passages both supporting and opposing it so don't talk nonsense claiming its "very specifically" just one. But again, I don't want to speak for Lewk but my understanding is that he supports the death penalty for entirely secular reasons of believing it is the right thing to do.

And what is the Bible's general stance on personal revenge?

While I generally avoid Bible-study sites, it's useful to have a compilation of references and stuff

http://bible.org/seriespage/jesus-an...matthew-538-42

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

And what is the Bible's general stance on personal revenge?

---

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord."

You can't get much clearer than that. Even Leviticus has a similar passage:

"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."

And I'm also highly dubious as to anyone who uses the Old Testament when we're talking about Christianity. Shouldn't the words of Jesus have a slightly higher priority than some prophet's ramblings? Jesus himself said "Don't take revenge, turn the other cheek!" Shouldn't that have some merit in a religion which is actually named after the guy? Or do we now call it "Leviticanism" since you guys seem to be so in love with this old fella?

Uhm... do you think there was a prophet named Leviticus? He wasn't an 'old' fellow'. Leviticus is so named because it begins with a discussion of the laws affecting the tribe of Levi, specifically the service of the priests and Levites in the Temple. It's not seen as a prophetic work except insasmuch as Moses (the purported author) was transcribing the word of God.

(The vengeance story is an interesting one, but somewhat more complex. I would argue that outside of the famous case of cities of refuge, vengeance is frowned upon, but that it is not seen as integral to the death penalty.)

Whatever. The point is: Revenge is specifically forbidden throughout the Bible. Even "Eye for an Eye" is intended to put a stop to taking revenge and instead turning it into justice (even if a harsh version of it).

:(

All the bible quoting is scaring Lewk away. I'm still waiting for him to explain himself on this extremely transparent attempt to justify Santroum's misquoted remark.

Well didn't he say he posted this before Santorum? Could Santorum be a copycat of our Lewk?

except that was a lie, and santorums remarks are years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

You know what's funny? When people who've obviously never read the Bible try to talk about what's in it.

---

I haven't had the experience. Is it something you do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Whatever. The point is: Revenge is specifically forbidden throughout the Bible.

---

No it's not.

See, and this is the exact same thing the fundies do, so congrats on being just like a religious fundie.

"Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord..." is a completely different meaning from "revenge is prohibited," but you don't care so long as you can find some flimsy pretense to justify your personal beliefs with some religious text.

Other than murder and possibly manslaughter, under what circumstances does even the OT permit--let alone encourage--the exacting of personal revenge?

Nowhere and never. Since the Bible is intended as a guiding point and a code of law, it would be highly detrimental to allow personal revenge. Instead the Bible sets guidelines and rules as to how justice in the face of a crime or wrongdoing is to be meted out, so that it does not end in a spiral of increasing violence and blood feuds.