Even an Honest Liberal Can Sometimes See the Truth

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Every now and then you'll run across an honest liberal who reads the Bible in its natural sense. This lady, apparently a Catholic, sees that if you read the Bible in its plain and straight forward meaning you'll have nothing in it to argue against polygyny. She even says it will be a new trend among the sola scriptura (Scripture alone) Evangelical Christians.

http://www.elizabethesther.com/2011/04/ ... tians.html

 

[Scarecrow]

A very good article...and the typical ignorance of the "Christians" following in the comments. Not only is polygamy "trending", but Christians that actually study the scriptures are learning that some of what the person on stage has been telling them every Sunday for all these years is a lie. They really do need to gather under the banner "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts." Soon they will have to face the fact that there will be denominations that change their view on polygamy once it is decriminalized. What I don't like is how they compare it to gay marriage. Fact of the matter is that polygamy has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage...yet they bring it up all the time as if the two were inseparable.

 

[Isabella]

Soon they will have to face the fact that there will be denominations that change their view on polygamy once it is decriminalized.

But that is what she was saying, she said the Bible on its own allows for too many subversive elements (like Polygamy) and once people start to realise it they will return to the one true Church.

What I don't like is how they compare it to gay marriage. Fact of the matter is that polygamy has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage...yet they bring it up all the time as if the two were inseparable.

It is part of their 'Woe is me, it is a slippery slope, we can't control people any more' cry, they have been doing that for a while. Some vile woman said the other day that if marriage wasn't restricted to one man one woman than people will start to marry Goats or some such nonsense....It really begs the response of 'Well if it is only the LAW that is stopping you lady then...... :shock: '

Bels

 

[sweetlissa]

I just think that government should be out of the marriage business completely. If there is no "legal" marriage then the gays will not be able to fight for that status. Marriage should be a religious function, not governmental. If glbt churches want to call people married it is on them and should have nothing to do with us whatsoever.

SweetLissa

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Marriage should be a religious function

It would really need to be a "natural contractual" arrangement given to the people for them to decide whatever they so choose to term it. Some religions will call it one thing, others might call it another, and the non-religious might call it something else. But all could agree that it is a type of associations where a set of people come together.

This approach could end the bitter war between the various religions, sects, and groups that currently exist. Your idea to privatize it though is certainly the best route, and those who are arguing for an active legalization are probably asking for more than they realize. Handing the legal status over to people to be able to form their own contracts is a safer, more feasible, and less risky move for everyone, including those in political offices as they can even sidestep the issue and not offend the various groups that exist within their own districts they represent.

 

[CecilW]

It is part of their 'Woe is me, it is a slippery slope, we can't control people any more' cry, they have been doing that for a while. Some vile woman said the other day that if marriage wasn't restricted to one man one woman than people will start to marry Goats or some such nonsense....It really begs the response of 'Well if it is only the LAW that is stopping you lady then...... :shock: '

Unh-huh! Robertson's famous Sex with Ducks remark. For a good laugh check out the YouTube video of a great satire song by that name.

Hysterical Silliness masquerading as righteousness! But the mask is slipping ...

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

SweelLissa said:

I just think that government should be out of the marriage business completely. If there is no "legal" marriage then the gays will not be able to fight for that status. Marriage should be a religious function, not governmental. If glbt churches want to call people married it is on them and should have nothing to do with us whatsoever.

I agree. But...

...dismantling the marriage laws in America will be a long, involved process, since it affects everything from taxes to the responsibility for making medical decisions when one's spouse is incapable of doing so. The false monogamy-only doctrine is so interwoven into the fabric of American law that no politician in his right mind (if there is such a thing :lol: ) will tackle it. It will take a true statesman who puts the good of the country above his own selfish interests.

Maybe it's time for a revolution at the ballot box. While I disagree with former Gov. Jesse Ventura's politics in many areas, he has one thing right: vote for ANYONE other than a Democrat or Republican. But I would modify that slightly: don't just vote for change (look what that got us! and no, I was not on the "vote for change" bandwagon, but I and all other freedom-loving Americans are being victimized by the resulting change) but rather, vote for POSITIVE change. That means take time to be informed.

Freedom is not free. It requires sacrifice on the part of a majority of society, and too many in America are not willing to pay that price. It has been my observation that nearly all who participate in the BF forum are willing to do so, and in fact, many of us already have.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

In the blog article referred to by Dr. Allen, the author, Elizabeth, said:

And yet, most Christians would resoundingly disagree. The ban on polygamy has always been a non-negotiable part of Christian thought and practice–even when Christianity was surrounded by dominantly polygamous cultures.

But she is wrong. More correctly, she should have said something like this:

• And yet, most Christians would resoundingly disagree. The ban on polygyny has been a non-negotiable part of Christian thought and practice since the Roman Catholic Church adopted pagan Greco-Roman marriage traditions sometime between AD 1000 and AD 1150–even when Christianity was surrounded by dominantly polygamous cultures.

She also said:

In other words, long before the Protestant split from Catholicism–and its subsequent subdivisions and never-ending sub-sub-divisions–the teaching of the apostles and the practice of early Christians definitively eschewed the practice of polygamy.

Again, not true. Paul, if his words are properly interpreted into modern English, actually promoted polygyny. Study 1 Corinthians chapter 7 and other passages. Really study them for yourself; don't take some pulpit-pounder's interpretation of the Bible as being "gospel truth." As Dr. Allen said:

But even there one does not per se have to be a Greek scholar so long as he or she can use solid resources, grammar coding charts, and exercise some due diligence with those resources as well as receiving some aid from some mature Bible teachers. [http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2583#p25928]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 NKJV (15) Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

The "word or our epistle" that Paul is referring to were those words and epistles which were said or written by the original Apostles, NOT by Peter's supposed successor, the Pope. They most certainly do NOT include the pagan Greco-Roman and Gnostic traditions that the RCC adopted and called "christian."

The problem with RCC thought and doctrine is that Church Magisterium (RCC traditions) and what the Pope says when speaking Ex Cathedra have authority equal to (in theory) or greater than (in actual practice) the Bible. So Elizabeth is wrong when she says that following Sola Scriptura will lead one back to the RCC.

 

[cnystrom]

I liked Heather's comments, but how about the comment by JamesBrett at the end? Beautiful and powerful refutation that did not even need to rely on doctrine per se. It was like a breath of fresh air and reason.