Yep. It'll stop with gay marriage. Honest!

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

I don't agree with the statement that if something is not specifically abrogated by Jesus that it is not so for I believe Jesus abrogated the entire Old Law

So what do you believe Jesus is saying in Matthew 5:17-18?

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

[Paul]

So what do you believe Jesus is saying in Matthew 5:17-18?

You'll have to ask Jesus when you meet him. I do not claim to know everything that Jesus knew whenever He spake! I am not one of those persons who thinks of himself as having the intelligence or the holiness to be able to know everything that Jesus means or everything that scripture means. The depths of the word of God are so deep that no mortal mind could contain them.

But I could give my best guess!

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

It appears to me that Jesus does not mean that the Old Law will remain forever in force in its entirety but rather that the spiritual truths which are highlighted in all of the Law and Prophets -- highlighed even in its most minute details -- will forever remain true and that Jesus is one who will live and breathe these spiritual truths, and live and teach them to the fullest.

So you have to distinguish between the underlying spiritual truths which are the core of any part even the smallest of the Old Law and what the Prophets spake and the particular form that the spiritual truths are encapsulated in by a precept of the Old Law.

I do not see and Jesus did not see the precepts of the Old Law as dry technical precepts devoid of spiritual meaning. They are rich with spiritual meaning and spiritual sometimes symbolic significance. To not require that a truth be expressed by a specific symbolism is not to deny that truth. Thus for example, requiring a certain part of one's goods to be offered to God is a symbolic way of expressing dedication to God. No longer requiring that one's dedication to God be expressed in that specific way does not deny the truth that one ought to be dedicated to God. It simply doesn't specify how one's dedication is to be expressed.

[bandecoot]

Uh, WRONG!

First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands

The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.

Next up, marriage between men and girls, men and boys, and people and animals. Thanks, liberals. You're doing a fantastic job at fragging up the world.

So the Dutch are writing your laws now? How does that work? I don't recall the US being invited to join the EU. This is a piece from Holland, the strangest country in the world. No other country has harsher drug laws and yet allows Canabis to be smoked in cafes in Amsterdam.

What has this to do with the US?

Or could this simply be another Jinx herring flinging festival. If I Recall Correctly, Polygamy is in fact Illegal in the US and no attempt has been made to make it legal, except by a few Mormons and they don't count anyway.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

You'll have to ask Jesus when you meet him. I do not claim to know everything that Jesus knew whenever He spake! I am not one of those persons who thinks of himself as having the intelligence or the holiness to be able to know everything that Jesus means or everything that scripture means. The depths of the word of God are so deep that no mortal mind could contain them.

But I could give my best guess!

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

It appears to me that Jesus does not mean that the Old Law will remain forever in force in its entirety but rather that the spiritual truths which are highlighted in all of the Law and Prophets -- highlighed even in its most minute details -- will forever remain true and that Jesus is one who will live and breathe these spiritual truths, and live and teach them to the fullest.

So you have to distinguish between the underlying spiritual truths which are the core of any part even the smallest of the Old Law and what the Prophets spake and the particular form that the spiritual truths are encapsulated in by a precept of the Old Law.

I do not see and Jesus did not see the precepts of the Old Law as dry technical precepts devoid of spiritual meaning. They are rich with spiritual meaning and spiritual sometimes symbolic significance. To not require that a truth be expressed by a specific symbolism is not to deny that truth. Thus for example, requiring a certain part of one's goods to be offered to God is a symbolic way of expressing dedication to God. No longer requiring that one's dedication to God be expressed in that specific way does not deny the truth that one ought to be dedicated to God. It simply doesn't specify how one's dedication is to be expressed.

I can respect that take on it. I have no idea if you're right or not. Seems as good a take on it as any other, though.

[jason]

So if you get divorced, you should owe the government all the money you saved because you were married.

Hey that is a really good idea. At least in principle.

I'd certianly be up for that. We should penalise those who split up when there are children involved.

But then again this is a large part of the idea of fault being found in a divorce case.

Jason

[technomage]

Links added for clarification:

* You accused me of claiming to know your thoughts and motives. I have made no such claim. [Link]
* When reminded that I had made no such claim, you repeated the accusation. [Link]
* When challenged, you stated you didn't have to prove your accusation, and again repeated it. [Link]

Kewlie, you have lied, for I have not claimed to know your thoughts or your motives. As I have demonstrated, your actions are mendacious. What you were thinking when you changed the goalposts on your question, or why you chose to do so--I have no idea.

And if you don't like what I have to say about you, liar, I suggest you change your ways.

[Conductor42]

In any event, it is forbidden for Christians for Jesus institutes marriage for Christians as going back to an ideal state which involves one man and one woman

Where does Jesus institute going back to the "ideal state"?

Where is this "Ideal State" defined?

[Paul]

Where does Jesus institute going back to the "ideal state"?

Where is this "Ideal State" defined?

Scripture Verse:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" 4He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." 7They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say to you

Here Jesus (Matthew 19) restores marriage to the ideal state it was in "the beginning" and it is a state where the two become one flesh and not one that involves three or four or five or more.

[Blemonds]

Scripture Verse:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" 4He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." 7They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say to you

Here Jesus (Matthew 19) restores marriage to the ideal state it was in "the beginning" and it is a state where the two become one flesh and not one that involves three or four or five or more.

This also suggests that the practice of polygamy in the Old Testament was something done outside of God's approval.

[Busheses]

This also suggests that the practice of polygamy in the Old Testament was something done outside of God's approval.

No, that only states that a man is to marry and leave his parents as well as a prohibition against divorce as it is a union blessed by God and such ties cannot be broken by man which at the same time applies to cases where a man has more than one wife. His union with each one of his wives is blessed by God and cannot be broken by man.

[Blemonds]

No, that only states that a man is to marry and leave his parents as well as a prohibition against divorce as it is a union blessed by God and such ties cannot be broken by man which at the same time applies to cases where a man has more than one wife. His union with each one of his wives is blessed by God and cannot be broken by man.

Yet you still haven't offered an example, either Old or New Testament where God has actually approved of polygamy. This verse which you reference says "and the two shall become one".

[Busheses]

Yet you still haven't offered an example, either Old or New Testament where God has actually approved of polygamy. This verse which you reference says "and the two shall become one".

Since the bible does not offer any examples of anybody being punished for being a poligamist and in fact tells us what to do in instances where an issue arises in a poligamist marriage, I would say that is more than an approval, unless of course, you would like to go against what the Bible/God say.

Also, I am still waiting for an example where God (either through the New or the Old Testament) disapproves of poligamy.

[Champagne]

Deuter. 17:16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray.

2 Sam 12:7 Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.


These passages, particularly the second one, show that God approved of polygamy. In the first passage, he's saying that the king of Israel can't take "many" wives. He doesn't say, he can only take one wife.

The second passage has God saying that he actually gave David's master's wives into his arms. I think he's talking about Saul here- right? God gave Saul's wives to David- as a blessing. And God is mad b/c he gave David so much, and yet David still murdered and committed adultery.

If GOd himself gave David wives (plural) how could God disapprove of it?

[Blemonds]

Since the bible does not offer any examples of anybody being punished for being a poligamist and in fact tells us what to do in instances where an issue arises in a poligamist marriage,

That was an interpretation you seemed to have concocted

I would say that is more than an approval, unless of course, you would like to go against what the Bible/God say.

I haven't said anything about going against the Bible or God, but I would still like to see an example.

Also, I am still waiting for an example where God (either through the New or the Old Testament) disapproves of poligamy.

We know that he disapproves of polygamy as it relates to overseers, other than that, I don't have an example

[Busheses]

That was an interpretation you seemed to have concocted

I haven't said anything about going against the Bible or God, but I would still like to see an example.

We know that he disapproves of polygamy as it relates to overseers, other than that, I don't have an example

Good enough. Now, as Champagne has commented, given that God Himself gave David wives, we should assume he approved of poligamy. Is Champagne a good example or do you need for the Bible to say something like "God approves of poligamy"??