I will reply to him this:
1) Have you considered then the Ideal is actually not getting married at all for God on created Eve because Adam was not capable enough and God himself is single? If this is the case, then those who get married at sinning and not living according to the “ideal” that you said it is? I see you have difficulty coming up with your definition of ideal. Maybe I’ll help you a bit. I see where you are coming from. So would you agree that your definition of the ideal law is only applicable in the context of marriage and all the other moral laws and practices given in the Old Testament are kind of ideal or not ideal? So the ideal is there is no divorce at all. If there is a divorce, even if it’s for sexual immorality, it is still not ideal and therefore a sin? According to your arguments, Jesus ONLY told us God's ideal of marriage? If this is the line of reasoning, would it be possible that everything after the fall is not ideal and that the fact that we are perpetually living on this Earth is committing sins? Isn't God's ideal is that we continue living in the Garden of Eden?
Have you also considered the possibility that it’s a linguistic issue? For example, every relationship is between two people – you have a one-to-one relationship with your son, and another with your daughter for instance. The fact that you have a one-to-one relationship with your son does not prevent you from having further children and also having a personal relationship with them. And the fact that a man has a one-to-one relationship with his wife does not prevent him from obtaining another and having another one-to-one relationship with her also.
2) I think Solomon’s sin was that he had taken foreign wives who corrupted him to worship foreign gods. 1 King 11:9 : “Now the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the Lord had commanded.” God actually stated this explicitly. When you said, “you cannot deny the obvious connection between this and polygamy”, I don’t speculate on what the Lord did not say. Moses, David, Jacob all took at least 2 wives, none of them got such condemnation from God. So, from Solomon’s story, I can only say: don’t take foreign wives and don’t worship foreign gods.
One thing I must condemn is to equate God’s holiness with money. If you cannot put it on paper and properly define it according to God’s words, my perception of God’s holiness, Ps Mike’s perception of God’s holiness and your perception of God’s holiness can be all subjective and different. And all of our subjectivity can be construed into sins causing us to judge others unfairly, in an unrighteous manner.
3. Based on your 3rd point, Roman Catholics love to use this line of reasoning too. They said the same thing too, affirming the position of apostle Peter as the Rock and the first Pope. They are not adding to God’s words but are making God’s glory even more glorious by giving their own interpretations of the Bible. They claimed to derive this authority from Peter who had been described as the Rock. I find it hard to accept because it didn’t say you have the right to expand the definition of sin – what is sin.
1) Have you considered then the Ideal is actually not getting married at all for God on created Eve because Adam was not capable enough and God himself is single? If this is the case, then those who get married at sinning and not living according to the “ideal” that you said it is? I see you have difficulty coming up with your definition of ideal. Maybe I’ll help you a bit. I see where you are coming from. So would you agree that your definition of the ideal law is only applicable in the context of marriage and all the other moral laws and practices given in the Old Testament are kind of ideal or not ideal? So the ideal is there is no divorce at all. If there is a divorce, even if it’s for sexual immorality, it is still not ideal and therefore a sin? According to your arguments, Jesus ONLY told us God's ideal of marriage? If this is the line of reasoning, would it be possible that everything after the fall is not ideal and that the fact that we are perpetually living on this Earth is committing sins? Isn't God's ideal is that we continue living in the Garden of Eden?
Have you also considered the possibility that it’s a linguistic issue? For example, every relationship is between two people – you have a one-to-one relationship with your son, and another with your daughter for instance. The fact that you have a one-to-one relationship with your son does not prevent you from having further children and also having a personal relationship with them. And the fact that a man has a one-to-one relationship with his wife does not prevent him from obtaining another and having another one-to-one relationship with her also.
2) I think Solomon’s sin was that he had taken foreign wives who corrupted him to worship foreign gods. 1 King 11:9 : “Now the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the Lord had commanded.” God actually stated this explicitly. When you said, “you cannot deny the obvious connection between this and polygamy”, I don’t speculate on what the Lord did not say. Moses, David, Jacob all took at least 2 wives, none of them got such condemnation from God. So, from Solomon’s story, I can only say: don’t take foreign wives and don’t worship foreign gods.
One thing I must condemn is to equate God’s holiness with money. If you cannot put it on paper and properly define it according to God’s words, my perception of God’s holiness, Ps Mike’s perception of God’s holiness and your perception of God’s holiness can be all subjective and different. And all of our subjectivity can be construed into sins causing us to judge others unfairly, in an unrighteous manner.
3. Based on your 3rd point, Roman Catholics love to use this line of reasoning too. They said the same thing too, affirming the position of apostle Peter as the Rock and the first Pope. They are not adding to God’s words but are making God’s glory even more glorious by giving their own interpretations of the Bible. They claimed to derive this authority from Peter who had been described as the Rock. I find it hard to accept because it didn’t say you have the right to expand the definition of sin – what is sin.
