SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 24 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 578
  1. #1
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    elmira, oregon
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Christianity/polygamy/divorce/etc.


    The purpose of this post may be a bit more on the intellectual curiosity side than anything else. However, the biggest changes in "modern" Christianity seems to be the view on human sexuality. The changes seem to be most apparent in regards to:

    1) While divorce is condemned throughout the Bible, now it seems "politically incorrect" to make a big deal out of it -- maybe it's because it might offend some of the congregation; might make a few people who have left a husband or wife (for non scriptural reasons) a bit uncomfortable. However, the Bible couldn't be more clear than what it says in Matthew 19:9.

    Great article about the high divorce rate within the fundamentalist population:

    http://www.family.org/married/engaged/a0011804.cfm

    2) The Bible frequently lists a large family as something to be grateful to God for. Children are listed as precious gifts from God. And the scriptures that say "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" were never revoked -- anytime or anywhere.

    Now while modern theologians and many laypeople in many (not all) Christian denominations can do gymnastic moves around scriptures to justify everything from divorce to childlessness (at least limiting one's family to only one or two kids) and even some say marriage is not necessary (not what the Bible says) then comes along small groups of polygamists who really seem to stir up some fascinating debates. The irony I see is that polygamists:

    1) Really, really, really like the institution of marriage -- to the point of making it more like that described in the Old Testament (all those prophets of God) with more than one wife.

    2) Most of these marriages seem to revolve around giving the opportunity to women to have children. Many seem to really stress how important childbearing is in the Christian ideal.

    http://www.polygamy.net/

    The above website is one that seems more oriented to Protestant polygamy. The one below is of Tom Green's family -- some prosecutor in Utah seems really intent on making an example of this poor fellow.

    http://www.polygamy.com/Donation-Letter.htm

    I just wonder what would people say if a group of people just chose to live together and have sex with each other. They would say nothing -- they might even elect the man to be president. Yet some people want to go after these polygamists with a vengence. Is it hypocritical for people to attack these folks? Perhaps so. These groups are still a pretty small minority, who are they hurting? And could it be that their almost fanatical connection to the Biblical "traditional family model" is what causes some Christians to go ballistic when they hear of these people -- perhaps a subconscious recognition that what they are living is closer to the Biblical standard than what is mainstream and accepted as the norm in America today? And as for liberals? Well, if you say one has a right to "freedom of choice" in regards to reproduction and also to choose whoever you want as a sexual partner then polygamy should be totally acceptable.

    I am not a polygamist, I just want to see what people think about these sites as well as the points I have chosen to bring up. Have a great day.

  2. #2
    will code HTML for food Michel V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Corsica
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Isn't the polygamy flawed as that if you're a man you can have many wives but if you're a woman you can only have one husband ?
    Thus, where's "freedom of choice" ?
    [blogger: zengun] [blogware contributor: wordpress]

  3. #3
    SitePoint Wizard westmich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Muskegon, MI
    Posts
    2,328
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Shin Ma
    Isn't the polygamy flawed as that if you're a man you can have many wives but if you're a woman you can only have one husband ?
    Thus, where's "freedom of choice" ?
    Flaw - I thought that was the point
    Westmich
    Smart Web Solutions for Smart Clients
    http://www.mindscapecreative.com

  4. #4
    SitePoint Wizard dethfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    2,477
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    polygamy is just sick, you can have like 5 wives and a 45 year old can marry a 13 year old girl. Sick, just plain sick.
    Free Science Homework Help
    http://www.physicsforums.com

  5. #5
    SitePoint Wizard TWTCommish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't know about the ages being sick. 30 year old men used to marry 15 year olds. Why? Well, for one, medical science made child-bearing a lot harsher on women, and a woman needed her health and youth to start a family without possibly dying.

    15 year old men used to go to war, and would help farm as soon as they were able. Multiple wives, however, is a bit disturbing. I don't like the idea at all.

  6. #6
    will code HTML for food Michel V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Corsica
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sick is how we see it now, but in the dark times when you raised 10 children and only 2 or 3 of them ever reached 25 years old, you needed a lot of children, and fast.

    But as it is today, polygamy is just an outdated thing. It has lived up its purpose.

    It's just sad to see Christianity is used as a "reason" for this, while there's nothing about polygamy in the New Testament...
    [blogger: zengun] [blogware contributor: wordpress]

  7. #7
    SitePoint Wizard dethfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    2,477
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok, in the old days I do see the uses for it, but not for present time, gimmie a break. So you you wouldn't mind your 13 year old daughter marrying a 40 year?
    Free Science Homework Help
    http://www.physicsforums.com

  8. #8
    SitePoint Wizard TWTCommish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Don't be extreme. No one said it was a good idea. I just think calling it "sick" is being pretty close-minded towards cultures of the past. Ours is better in some ways, and worse in others. Can you set exact numbers for age differences and a minimum age for a girl to be married? Probably not: neither can I, so I'll judge it case by case, and I won't blanket younger women with older men as sick just because it's not done anymore.

  9. #9
    SitePoint Wizard dethfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    2,477
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not being closed minded (maybe []), but polygamy nowadays is just wrong. There is no need for it. I understand why they did it, but not now. I did watch an NBC Dateline special on the subject and interview a 13 year old who married a 40 year old, I know it can happen. Before you tell me I'm closed minded you still need to answer if you'd let your 13 year old daughter marry a forty year old. Think about that really hard.
    Free Science Homework Help
    http://www.physicsforums.com

  10. #10
    SitePoint Wizard TWTCommish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I already answered it -- of course not. I don't have a daughter, but I cannot envision a situation in which I'd be okay with that. I am not arguing with polygamy -- that has NEVER been a good idea...

    ...however, age gaps in marriage, awhile back, were necessary, and I don't think of people back then as being sick. I just think the gun was jumped there. Obviously I don't support this stuff, but I also don't condone it until I hear about specifics. It made sense not too long ago, and so I'd want the specifics of each case -- for all of the "sick" situations, there might be one in a million which is genuine and wholesome -- I just want everyone to remember the past in this case.

  11. #11
    Fluffy Kitten Programmer~ Elledan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Only marriage is unnatural. Polygamy is actually the same thing which occurs in nature between males and females in nearly every species, there are only a few species by which the male and female stay together for a longer time, sometimes for life (but they don't live that long, so it's not longer than a few years).

    If there's anything which will cause Humanity to become extinct (due to genetical defects), it will be marriage (one male, one female), which leads to less variation in the gene pool. Add to that the fact that even people who would have died if they would have been born in 'the wild' are allowed to breed, then you'll see that what we Humans are currently doing is exactly the opposite of what we do to get more healthier cattle.
    With cows, for example, one bull is used to fertilize many females (directly or indirectly). Weaker bulls never get a chance to fertilize, because they will result in weaker offspring.

    We should give up free breeding (and the 'right' to marry any male/female you want) and start a project which will regulate exactly who will breed with which male/female (if they don't object, of course. We didn't give up every shred of freedom) and how much offspring will be produced. Using this method, most of the current genetical defects can become extinct in a matter of a few generations.
    Humanity will then be much healthier than it has ever been.

    Luckily the damage caused by marriages is compensated by the increased number of divorces.
    www.nyanko.ws - My web-, software- and game development company.
    www.mayaposch.com - My personal site and blog.

  12. #12
    SitePoint Enthusiast Chris H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Peasant Town, East of Wales
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One man, one woman was how God ordained it to be in the first place (see Genesis). In the OT polygamy existed, but that doesn't make it right. Under the new covenant there are texts in the NT that once again present 'one man, one woman' as the right way. .(Paul - 1Co7, Jesus - Matt 19:5)
    Christianity does not support polygamy, Just because a few sects misinterpret Scripture to support their own preferences doesn't make it Christian. Funny how selective they are in reviving Old Testament laws and practices.
    Only marriage is unnatural. Polygamy is actually the same thing which occurs in nature between males and females in nearly every species
    That's fine if you're an animal, but I believe we're not, we are made in the image of God, we are intrinsically different from the animals on this planet.
    We should give up free breeding (and the 'right' to marry any male/female you want) and start a project which will regulate exactly who will breed with which male/female (if they don't object, of course. We didn't give up every shred of freedom) and how much offspring will be produced. Using this method, most of the current genetical defects can become extinct in a matter of a few generations.
    Sounds familiar? Someone said something similar a while back, Ad..? Adol..? His name escapes me for the mo'. You are joking aren't you Elledan?
    MSWD for website building

  13. #13
    ********* Callithumpian silver trophy freakysid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    3,798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Elledan, why muck about? That's what genocide is for!

    What about sodomy and homosexuality and the various churches. Most of the Christian churches these days seem to have a don't ask/dont tell attitude toward homosexuality - a bit like the armed forces in some countries. There are some clergy in Australia that "out of the closset" - don't know which denominations though - definitely not Catholic!

    I kind of find the don't ask/don't tell attitude of churches such as the Catholic Church yet another curious example of the subversiveness of piety.

  14. #14
    SitePoint Wizard TWTCommish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sid's right Elledan -- that's awful nazi-like of you to say. Marriage will not bring the human race down, despite what you say. If you want to use that logic, Elledan, Theodore Roosevelt may have never been born, but in the end he forced himself to become physically superior.

    Not only that, but my father was not born into an ideal situation -- should he not have been born at all? What about people who just arn't highly intelligent? Should they not have children?

    It's time like this I thank The Lord that people like yourself are not in power. Whether you want to admit it or not, these ideas are impractical, incorrect, tryannical, and without morals.

  15. #15
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Arg.

    I kind of find the don't ask/don't tell attitude of churches such as the Catholic Church yet another curious example of the subversiveness of piety.
    I know that there are a lot of trolls on this board....career trolls, but for God's sake........subversiveness of piety? What planet did you and elledan beam down from?

    First off, the Catholic church does not have a don't ask/don't tell attitude towards homosexuality. It clearly defines such acts as sinfull and inconsistent with God's plan as we see it.

    What people can't seem to grasp is that we separate the act from the person. Homosexuality is wrong because we believe that the primary purpose of sex is to procreate and solidify the bond between one man and one woman. We believe that men and women bring different strengths to a union, strengths that are vital to the healthy upbringing of children. We further believe that sex outside of this union is wrong. We don't hate those who disagree and choose to do otherwise, we simply define the act as sinfull in our eyes and God's, to be avoided and discouraged at every opportunity. ALL people are God's children, and as such, have intrinsic value and worth. (Born or unborn, by the way.)

    It's also interesting to note that HIV is believed to have originated in primates, spread to the human population, and is absolutely spread mainly by casual sex, both hetero but primarily homosexual. It's also interesting that the Catholic church and other religions that preach monogomy have the only sure fire way to cure AIDs. If everyone on the face of this planet practiced monogomy, HIV and AIDs would disappear within one generation. Think about it before you ridicule it.

  16. #16
    SitePoint Wizard TWTCommish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd just say that, even from a totally non-religious standpoint, homosexuality is still un-natural. It's impossible to procreate, and the mechanics of it are blatantly un-natural. I don't think of homosexuals as bad people -- I think of them as people with a vice. I don't really see how an argument can be made that it's perfectly normal and natural, regardless of where you stand on religion.

  17. #17
    SitePoint Addict z7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Did you know that blokes who "take it" have to use "ladies sanitary products" to "regulate" their bowels? (or so I have heard...)

    You have to look at these things from a spiritual perspective (something us Westerners have a little difficulty with) - when the bible says "two become one flesh" - it means your souls are tied together and if that is an un-Godly soul-tie (sex out of marriage), all sorts of spiritual 'junk' can be passed across...

    People expect happiness from marriage - that is the fundamental problem.
    That gooey-luvy-wuvy feeling doesn't last...

    This book explains it well:
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...865072-9016160
    (it is the 2nd best selling book of all time - after the Bible... )

  18. #18
    SitePoint Wizard TWTCommish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I thought Guinness was #2...

    There is an interesting concept here: people have this notion that you have to be in love to get married. Do you? Perhaps all that's needed is a mutual admiration, respect, and the desire to do things together -- some people might call this love anyway, but I'm not so sure.

    It is an interesting notion, though. If you feel you can benefit from marrying another person, you enjoy spending time with them, and you think you could produce some happy, wonderful children together, love may not be required.

  19. #19
    SitePoint Addict z7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Guinness? (you lost me there...)

    Tis true - but 'love' (or the gooey feelings) is what usually makes people get hitched right?

    I might get married soon - but only if God gives the go ahead...

  20. #20
    ********* Callithumpian silver trophy freakysid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    3,798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    sundown, I am not riduling the Catholic church or any other church. I am saying that, as a Catholic myself (albiet an Agnostic/Gnostic one ) I find it interesting that I have observed homosexual Catholic laity and clergy. So, they exist in the church as they do in the universal population. Let me explain my comments further. I once asked a Catholic homosexual friend of mine why he was such a stronly practicing Christian given that the church unoquivically deems him to be a sinner. The irony was that he and some of his gay friends sang in a church choir (but it was not in a Catholic church but in Anglican High Mass I think - so that's not so bad ).

    Anyway, my question to him was why submit to a belief which damns you as a moral sinner? I do think there is something subversive in that. I wonder whether he didn't take some comfort in submitting to a belief which labels him a sinner. Redemtion through damnation.

    On another note, homosexuality is a common trait amongst primates. Especially amongst juveniles who's hormones are rampant and need to get in a bit of practice before they succeed at overthrowing an older male and taking over his harem. Back to the issue of polygomy.

  21. #21
    SitePoint Addict z7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hate the sin, love the sinner.

    There is medical evidence that anal-sex is very damaging and can cause prolapse of the rectum.

    (eeeeeeeeeeoooouuu )

  22. #22
    SitePoint Wizard TWTCommish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, z7 said what I wanted to say politely with "the mechanics of it are un-natural" I was trying to avoid it, hehe.

    Sid: you may be right, I can't really say. Homosexuality is a sin, the same as being an alcoholic. There is one key difference, however: a homosexual is a homosexual all the time, 24 hours a day. A liar or an alcoholic is not ALWAYS lying or ALWAYS drunk. Can a homosexual still be a Believer? I cannot say. I hope so.

  23. #23
    SitePoint Addict z7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well we might as well be honest!

    I know a homo-sexual who was freed from homo-sexuality - and is now married with kids.
    This 'in the Genes' stuff is garbage.

    IMHO, Homo-sexuality is an affliction of the soul - its spiritual, like so much in life.

    (I am waiting for the on-slaught...)

  24. #24
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I find it interesting that I have observed homosexual Catholic laity and clergy. So, they exist in the church as they do in the universal population.
    Of course they do. Every sin is found in the Catholic (and any other) church. But the important thing is that the person doing the sinning recognizes it and tries to change. I have no problem with people struggling, we ALL have things we struggle with, favorite sins I call them. The problem occurs when you choose to embrace the church but don't embrace it fully. Some folks call them "Cafeteria Catholics". They pick and choose the aspects of church teaching that they agree with and ignore the ones they don't like (usally those are the same ones they are not adhering to).

    I have problems living many of our teachings...and often, I fail. But I acknowledge my failure, ask for forgiveness, and make a committment to do better in the future.

  25. #25
    SitePoint Addict z7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Exactemonde...

    The Church lacks the knowledge to deal with the issue - the church needs to change, and will.

    Intersting times are ahead my friends...


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •