Why is there such a quarrel with Christianity today?

[Vol8188]

For today's dispensation polygamy is not supported. The bible has different rules for different peoples at different times and places, however, monogamous marriage exclusively between a man and women is supported throughout scripture.

It is also important to understand that everything recorded in the bible is not endorsed or presceibed by the bible.

I've seen no scripture condemning polygamy. I've only seen scripture saying church leaders shouldn't take part in it

 

[ClearwaterVol]

It doesn't say a husband can legally rape his wife.

She does owe hiim wifely duties though, right?

Doesn't the bible also speak to the place of women in the family and in relation to men?

 

[Roustabout]

Widely accepted interpretations of the bible have changed as opinions of the masses have evolved. With each shift the new interpretation is promoted as always having been the true interpretation. The previously correct interpretation is disavowed and the scholars act as if it never existed. The church has not historically been a beacon of enlightenment.

Which is why I'm a classical theologian. The overwhelming number of essential doctrines have remained unchanged.

There are plenty of secondary doctrines where I think we do have liberty (to a degree). I think your characterization is just an attempt to poison the well.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

The consistency of the bible is monogamous marriage with husbands honoring their wives (as Christ loved the church). So, yes any husband that forcibly rapes his wife is a breaking those rules. Period. Saying that there is no right interpretation because people have different interpretations is also fallacious.

"Many" Christians do lots of stuff contrary to the truth. If my compass says North is this way and I ignore it's guidance, it doesn't change whether or not magnetic north exists.

What do you mean by monogamous?

 

[SuperDave]

Are you saying the bible opposes polygamy?

It opposes polygamy but not polygyny. Polygamy is just a broader form of polygyny.

Polygamy-having more than one spouse.

Polygyny-one man with multiple wives.

 

[volprof]

In re: to the bolded above...... WTF is this all about?

Is this seriously a Christian thing?? If so, you guys really need to re-evaluate.......

I had a student this past fall that was from Sub-Saharan Africa. Although I'm not completely positive, I'm fairly certain he was also a Christian, judging from some of the things he said to me and wrote in his papers during the semester.

Long story short, there was a class in which we were all discussing gender issues. Somehow or another, the class eventually got on to the subject of rape. For another reason or another, I brought up the notion that it used to be legal (and still is in certain places) to rape your spouse.

The student in question came to me after class, in complete disbelief. He said without any hint of irony that it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife. He wasn't upset, but he was shocked that I had said that. I, in turn, didn't really even know how to respond to his comments, because they were so absurd. My reaction is kind of a blur now, but I think I just kind of laughed a bit and said something incoherent about how everyone has the right to their own body. It was the best I could muster given the shock of a young person in the year 2015 saying such a preposterous thing.

 

[SuperDave]

The Torah explaining a couple laws dealing with polygyny.

“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.”
—Exodus 21:10

“If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn.”
—Deuteronomy 21:15-16

 

[volprof]

Widely accepted interpretations of the bible have changed as opinions of the masses have evolved. With each shift the new interpretation is promoted as always having been the true interpretation. The previously correct interpretation is disavowed and the scholars act as if it never existed. The church has not historically been a beacon of enlightenment.

It's almost as if the values espoused in the texts are specific to those of the cultures that compose them.

 

[Roustabout]

Notice the condition, "if."

The Torah dealt with an existing customs. It's not easy for us to look at the ANE and lay aside our 21st century lens.

 

[SuperDave]

Notice the condition, "if."

The Torah dealt with an existing customs. It's not easy for us to look at the ANE and lay aside our 21st century lens.

yeah.. IF.. like.. you can IF you want.. so IF they do.. this is the law for it from god himself. but hey.. what can I say.. I'm just a classical theologian.

 

[Roustabout]

yeah.. IF.. like.. you can IF you want.. so IF they do.. this is the law for it from god himself. but hey.. what can I say.. I'm just a classical theologian.

So what you are saying is if a parent says to their teen, "If you drink, dont drive a car,' it is actually an endorsement, or perhaps even a mandate for their teen to drink?

I would strongly suggest that you invest some study in the ANE cultures. Paul Copan has an excellent book that covers a lot of these issues. It's very helpful in understanding what and how God was dealing with this particular people group.
In Exodus 21 there is a statement of distinction in verse 1 that these judgments are different from the sacred law laid down in the previous chapter. Here we are dealing with civil laws for governing an ANE people, and not only that, but one that has been infiltrated by various customs during their captivity in a pagan nation.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Roust, doesn't the bible provide guidance on the role of women in the family and within the marital relationship? How do you define the views espoused in the bible?

Edit to fix auto correct

 

[Roustabout]

Roust, doesn't the bible provide guidance on the role of women in the family and within the marital relationship? How do you define the views espoused in the bible?

Edit to fix auto correct

Yes. The views, for the time they were written, were revolutionary. Women, for much of history were viewed as little more than property and 2nd class citizens. Jesus had women in his inner circle. He set a hign bar in terms of fidelity for husbands. In Ephesians Paul lays out a beautiful, complimentary and mutually submissive relationship.

Our customs today are radically different regarding how we marry and why we marry.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

So what you are saying is if a parent says to their teen, "If you drink, dont drive a car,' is actually a endorsement, or perhaps even a mandate for their teen to drink?

I would strongly suggest that you invest some study in the ANE cultures. Paul Copan has an excellent book that covers a lot of these issues. It's very helpful in understanding what and how God was dealing with this particular people group.
In Exodus 21 there is a statement of distinction in verse 1, that these judgments are different from the sacred law laid down in the previous chapter. Here we are dealing with civil laws that for governing an ANE people, and not only that, but one that has been infiltrated by various customs during their captivity in a pagan nation.

Wait, the God that told them what to wear, what days to work, what to and not to eat can't tell them outright not to marry multiple women and have concubines because of existing customs?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Yes. The views, for the time they were written, were revolutionary. Women, for much of history were viewed as little more than property and 2nd class citizens. Jesus had women in his inner circle. He set a hign bar in terms of fidelity for husbands. In Ephesians Paul lays out a beautiful, complimentary and mutually submissive relationship.

Our customs today are radically different regarding how we marry and why we marry.

I was speaking to the role the bible seems to say should be had by women. ..

the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

 

[volprof]

I was speaking to the role the bible seems to say should be had by women. ..

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

1 Timothy 2:11-15

Speaking of the role of women in strict religious cultures, if anyone hasn't seen it yet, you should go to theaters and watch "The Witch."

If you do so, do not go, however, with your normal assumptions about a horror film or what it is that a horror film should do. That's all I'll say about that.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Roust, doesn't the bible provide guidance on the role of women in the family and within the marital relationship? How do you define the views espoused in the bible?

Edit to fix auto correct

I was speaking to the role the bible seems to say should be had by women. ..

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

1 Timothy 2:11-15

I think you quoted the wrong scriptures. Those had little do with the role of women in the home/family.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I think you quoted the wrong scriptures. Those had little do with the role of women in the home/family.

They seemed to indicate that women are required to take a subservient role to their husbands or other male family members. Will you provide clarification?

 

[volprof]

I think you quoted the wrong scriptures. Those had little do with the role of women in the home/family.

But isn't that kind of the point though?

 

[apevol]

Slice needs to get back here.

 

[Orange_Crush]

They seemed to indicate that women are required to take a subservient role to their husbands or other male family members. Will you provide clarification?

Those were instructions for public worship, as the first quote clearly stated. Paul was saying that women couldn't be Bible teachers or hold offices of authority in church.

Since Paul talks elsewhere about women prophesying in church, most don't take him literally concerning the admonition that women remain quiet in church. Due to context about asking questions at home, some believe there were problems at some churches with some women interrupting service and blurting out questions, so Paul was telling them to stop interrupting and ask their husbands when they get home.

"Subservient" and "submissive" are two different things.

 

[Orange_Crush]

But isn't that kind of the point though?

If that was his point, then that point is what he should have written. It's not what he wrote.

 

[volprof]

If that was his point, then that point is what he should have written. It's not what he wrote.

I won't speak for clearwater, but what I meant to suggest was the fact that it giving strict commandments for how women should behave in the public setting of the Church (the man's domain) as opposed to the "softer" (in roustabout's assessment) set of familial obligations it assigns them only serves to confirm the notion that a woman's place is in the home and not in politics or authority.

Perhaps that is a woman's place, but it's not a woman's place in my assessment.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I won't speak for clearwater, but what I meant to suggest was the fact that it giving strict commandments for how women should behave in the public setting of the Church (the man's domain) as opposed to the "softer" (in roustabout's assessment) set of familial obligations it assigns them only serves to confirm the notion that a woman's place is in the home and not in politics or authority.

Perhaps that is a woman's place, but it's not a woman's place in my assessment.

I don't see a disparity between the 'softer' Biblical description that Roust gave for women in the home, and the mandates that Paul gave for the church.

I'm not sure what Paul's mandates per the church and spiritual leadership has to do with politics.

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

It's not a moot point. It's the point when it comes to recognized ssm.
Love? Where does the govt legislate love? I was never required to be in love to get a marriage license.

Government recognized marriage doesn't forbid or promote love.

Re Solomon l, rhen your aren't reading the rest of the story. That's called selective reading or eisegesis. Which means you don't really care about truth, just what you can proof text to support what you've already concluded. It's intellectually dishonest.

You're really nitpicking this. Take love out of it then. Why should the government forbid two consenting adults from getting married.