It's good to see you using words you're sure of and that people have heard before. The next time "for all intensive purposes" comes up somewhere, people should pay you royalty fees!
Hey, I agree that, with today's mores, anything goes. My personal values are my own. I do not apply them to anyone else. But, if you are going to quote scripture, reread the passages regarding Sodom and Gomorrah.
In effect, God told David he didn't need any extra wives, but that's just my interpretation. Hey, I agree that, with today's mores, anything goes. My personal values are my own. I do not force them on anyone else. But, if you are going to quote scripture, re-read the passages regarding Sodom and Gomorrah. They might prove interesting regarding "anything goes" unions, but that was 3,000 years or so ago. The world has changed, and, IMO, Jesus changed it. Oops, don't know what happened. I guess I hit enter during my reply.
Your interpretation would be incorrect. God is telling David if he needed more wives, he would have been given more than Saul's 700 (as documented elsewhere in scripture).
So then, is it fair to say they aren't Christian values? Can you provide scriptural references that specifically denounce polygamy? Which passages are you speaking of?
Your density amazes me. As I have said, while I hold to Christian values for myself, I do not impose them on others. I believe God gives each person the choice of how he or she wants to pursue life. You probably are very young since you are too lazy to do research for yourself. Do a search on Sodom and Gomorra, read the text and come to your own conclusions. You might learn something while exercising the extraordinary gift of thinking for yourself.
So then, you cannot point me to scriptural condemnation of polygamy? Or you won't? Is it one of your Christian values that allows you to call me dense when I'm asking for support of your position?
I think that was a bit out of line. He made his views perfectly clear. While I'm not a believer myself (although the Monkees had a cool song about it!), I had no trouble understanding thumbs. We're all different. If not, it would be a boring world indeed.
Actually, if you'd take a moment to read his statements again, you'd see where his initial claim was to have Christian values. When presented with scripture that contradicts his stated values, he says his values are his own and he doesn't apply them to others. It sounded to me like he was backing off his Christian values. Thus, my question. Moreover, I don't know too many Christian folks that call someone dense when all they've done is ask questions for more detail regarding "Christians values". I wonder if Jesus would insult seekers of information. Even non-Christians know the answer to that. Oh, it was also assumed I'm a lazy kid, which well, doesn't fit into anything discussed here. I'm turning the other cheek on that one (i.e. a demonstrated Christian value)
I think this is where it gets muddled. Everyone who says they have "Christian Values" sees those Christian Values from their own perspective, and get sensitive when those personal values are questioned. It's kind of a Catch 22. thumbs isn't backing away from his Christian values (he certainly can correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll take no offense) by saying his values are his own. He's saying those values are based (in this case) on how he interprets those scriptures, and the rest of his religious beliefs. You appear to want him to engage in Christian Values Nitpicking. I'm not surprised that he doesn't want to do that. Such an exercise would imply that there is room to question his religious beliefs. That's a non-starter for a lot of folks and something I'm glad I don't have to worry about. Of course, I probably have it all wrong!
Thanks for the support (I was busy watching Texas getting nicked by Duke). Actually, I may have been a bit testy, but you are dead on with your conclusion regarding the Christian values nitpicking. I have tried to explain that everyone must come to his or her own conclusions regarding religion and lifestyle. I suggested what Republic could/should read and interpret for himself/herself. That's all I can do or should do (in this forum). I'm not as perfect as Jesus nor as zealous as Paul. Ultimately, I will answer to God for that, but these are a small fraction of my shortcomings.
Just like our constitution, there are so many different ways to interpret the scripture. I mean we use right to privacy to justify and constitutionally protect abortion in Roe v. Wade. The same can be applied to the scripture, it's his interpretation of the Bible that shapes his Christian values, don't really see a need to pigeon hole on that particular argument. It'd be much more constructive instead to argue about why, in to today's world and moral standards, polygamy being illegal is illogical.
The logic or illogic of the legality of polygamy (and all other forms of union heretofore described) also needs to be debated in the subtext of tax and other consequences. I assert -- for debate -- that unions of all kinds should not be rewarded or punished for the results of those unions, i.e. tax advantages for children by the various heterosexual unions or the public costs of diseases contracted and spread by all types of unions. That is something that each person must accept as a consequence of his or her choice of union style.
Actually, it wasn't nitpicking at all. I realize people must come to their own conclusions. I'm asking why YOU came to yours. What scripture can you cite that specifically condemns polygamy? I understand people must come to their own conclusions regarding religion, lifestyle, and all the rest but how did you come to yours? Certainly as a Christian, you don't mind witnessing..do you? And for the record, don't assume anything about people who read/respond to your/other posts in here. It is simply idiotic (at best) to assume I'm a lazy, non-Christian kid. I realize the victim role is convenient when asked to be accountable, but you've made some claims in here that I feel need a little support. Nothing wrong with that. If you can't handle the questions, don't offer up the information in the first place.
That's hardly the issue. I'm asking him to provide any scripture that condems polygamy, or even scripture he "thinks" condemns it. I'm looking for a starting point to understand his position. As of yet, I haven't gotten one, other than a blanket statement about S&G. It's kind of hard to have a constructive discussion when people take haven in generic statements that reveal nothing. If you're going to come in here and make statements and can't handle being asked to support those statements with something other than a broad generic statement, I really don't think that's debate or discussion really. It's blowing hot air. I (for one) don't have enough information to make determinations about almost anyone's faith in here. I'm not sure how some of you do. Christians question Christians all the time. It's part of witnessing, sharing, and faith-based discussions. Sometimes, those discussions can lead to strengthening of values, etc. It seems the contrary is taking place in here. That is, someone makes a statement, someone asks them a question, someone takes the easy way out, the herd tries to protect the weak, and general confusion is all that remains. Bah. Whatever.
How pompous and presumptuous to believe that I am obligated to explain my beliefs to you, my young puppy. I have not asked you to defend your faith or lack of faith, Christianity or non-Christianity. I suggested what you should read for yourself and interpret for yourself. And, for the record, I find it laughable that anyone would consider me as a "victim." BTW, at first I couldn't figure out your reference to S&G. Then it flashed on me "Sodom and Gomorrah" rather than "Simon and Garfunkel" who were a great duo long before your time.
Huh? Disease spread by all types of unions? If by all types of unions, you mean all types of unions, didn't you just cover almost every disease on the planet? I guess these are more costly than the disease carried by single people? /major headscratch
What's it like to not be able to back up your own claims? Most Christians I know are tougher than that. You have been measured and found lacking. Put this human clay back in the kiln. He isn't finished. You can continue your elitist attitude with me all you want, it only confirms my point(s). The Puppy
Asexual unions cannot transmit disease to other people except offspring, which the biological (reproductive) level of homo sapiens pretty much makes impossible. Single people mating automatically bumps the union to another type.
