Pondering The Return of Polygamy [Archive]

Swordman

July 26th 2003, 01:58 PM

Greetings.

It is my thinking that Biblical marriage will never be threatened by any allowance of homosexuals to "legally" marry. Now, before all the knee-jerk reactionism takes hold, allow me to explain:

What REALLY is the definition of marriage in relation to how God defined it? Is that worthless piece of paper from City Hall the defining force of marriage? No, it is not. Are those "vows" the defining force of a marriage? No, they are not. They have their emotional appeal and they also are a binding force from our words, but they do not at all define marriage.

These "conservatives" (whatever that means) as they are called, are not always in line with the ONE authority that defines the TRUE, HISTORICAL Christian faith we all read about within the pages of scripture. In other words, those "conservatives" are just as prone to being in error as anyone else.....even in a corporate sense.

So, God had the "audacity" to define marriage in such a way that He left out our licenses, vows, ceremonies, acknowledgments, exchanges, and every other traditional element mankind has ever thought up as a substitute for God's definition for marriage. Gloryoski! How could God DO such a thing? Was He not in tune with all those things that have such a strong emotional appeal to so many? My, but what an insensitive God we love.....

Nope. I do not buy that for a minute.

Our Lord defined marriage in seemingly simplistic and seemingly felshly terms. In Genesis He said that a man will leave his mother and father and "cleave" to his wife. The Hebrew word "cleave" was translated from speaks of "commitment," not a romanticized, emotional love, but rather a love based upon COMMITMENT. He also mentioned that they will become "one flesh." That speaks of the sexual act, which stems from a much deeper commitment of giving to another that which is not given to everyone else. That is what makes it so special.

So, it looks like the doors are going to be opened to homosexuals being allowed to "legally marry." That means they will receive the same social security benefits as surviving spouses of heterosexual couples, and that the divorce courts will then also have gained authority over homosexual "marriages" that it exercises over heterosexual marriages now. When did God EVER relinquish any measure of His authority over marriage, and its definition, to mankind?

So now, homosexuals will be brought under the same ungodly system of authority over their "marriages" as heterosexual couples have suffered under for many decades in this country. So what? Where did the Lord ever give a government the right to govern marriage in His place? What I mean by all this is that HOMOSEXUALS WILL NEVER GAIN TRUE MARITAL STATUS IN REALTION TO THE ONE TRUE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ESTABLISHED BY GOD WAY BACK IN GENESIS.

Now, if you want to defend our "legal" system of marriage against homosexuals gaining access to it, that is nothing but trying to treat yet another of many SYMPTOMS. What I find to be astounding is that so many people are up in arms over queers getting legal "marriage" status, but most people seem to have forgotten that the 30+ million number of unborn children killed in this country is still on the increasing. Fighting all these legal battles does nothing but keep us from focusing upon the root cause of ALL THESE PROBLEMS. That problem (the DISEASE) is EVIL (SIN). All these other things are nothing but SYMPTOMS. They are NOT the disease itself. There is evil in our land, and all we are doing it fighting petty battles on more fronts than we can possibly handle. I for one choose not to battle against symptoms. I prefer battling evil itself, one person at a time.

You know, I hear famous "preachers" always talking about how we must "support your local church." How can anyone support what does not exist as a unified body in each locale? Every "local church" is fragmented into all these little schisms most call "churches." The ONLY unity they exercise is to confess that Jesus is Lord.....and even some of THEM deny THAT. Although it is true, confession of Jesus' Lordship is not intended to be a unifying force. The proof of this is in the fact that almost ALL of us have confessed it, and yet evil still exists in our cities. Evil has infiltrated every level of our government, all the way from city, to county, to state, to the federal government itself. If the "local church" in every city and town were TRULY unified, we would THEN be a force to contend with. Think about it. Why did Nero try to wipe out Christianity in Rome and its surrounding provinces? Was it because those believers were a bunch of "radical, political activists"? NO! It was because they were UNIFIED, and within that unity they were growing in "alarming" numbers with "alarming" speed because of the love they had for one another in Christ Jesus, therefore becoming a non-violent, non-political force that had to be stopped before those evil men and women within the government were ultimately thrown out and replaced.

We are kept virtually powerless by remaining seperated within the four walls of all our petty fragments most call a "church." The "local church" is controllable so long as it remains fragmented. We are not a big threat to all those homosexuals, pedophiles, abortionists and ever other imaginable evil this country is quickly being overrun by. All we do is sit within our man-made organizations and talk about how terrible things are rather than to BECOME what we were MEANT TO BE!

Complaining will never force change, but love conquers all.

Your brother in Chrit Jesus

Dr. Don Dean (Th.D.)

Hitch

July 26th 2003, 02:11 PM

1-800-WAHH

The notion that God has no interest in the laws we adopt is ridiculous and I for one am surprized that anyone of your educational level could spout such nonsense.

Hitch

Red Rooster

July 26th 2003, 05:09 PM

Good Saturday Gentleman,

Good comments from those who have posted here so far. But I was specifically interested in what some of you think the LDS will do if same-sex marriages lead to legal challenges against poligamy laws based on the same "right to privacy" precedent. That is the thrust of this thread. I am thinking in terms of how a new "revelation" to restore the doctrine of plural marriage will impact Mormon families who by in large are decent, moral people. I see a real conflict here. Could the Mormon church implode and destroy itself over this as its own break ranks before submitting to polygamy?

The next five years will be interesting as the homosexual lobby presses full speed ahead for legal, same-sex marriage and sets up our legal system for the slippery slope that will follow.

Red Rooster

John Powell

July 26th 2003, 08:27 PM

POWELL:
This is a tough thing to predict. My record as a prophet has much to be desired.

I would never have predicted we would have passed 1984 without living something much closer to it.

I would never have predicted that people would pay a dollar for a plastic bottle of water.

I would never have predicted that the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union would both fall "bloodlessly" during my lifetime.

I would never have predicted that terrorists educated enough to fly airplanes would be willing and able to destroy the World Trade Towers by flying planes into them.

However, I do expect that homosexual and polygamous marriages will be legal in the US within 25 years.

I'm not sure how the LDS church will respond. It might cause a serious split between those who want to embrace the opportunity and those who don't.

To reduce the numbers who might leave the church over the issue, I predict that the church will announce that polygamous marriages are not recommended but will be allowed in the temples, but only upon the approval of the Bishop and Stake President based on interviews of all those in the marriage contract. Rather than merely a confirming prayer that this policy is approved by God, I predict that there will be a prophecy claimed in support of it.

John Powell

Swordman

July 27th 2003, 09:48 AM

Hitch said:

1-800-WAHH

The notion that God has no interest in the laws we adopt is ridiculous and I for one am surprized that anyone of your educational level could spout such nonsense.

Hitch

Well, how juvenile. :poke::saywhat:

Your misrepresentation of what I said, by assuming into my words what I did not mean or say, is nothing but a straw man attack. I never said that God was not interested in the laws that we adopt. I specifically mentioned the fact that God defined marriage once and for all without relinquishing His authority over marriage and its definition to any government. How is that a statement that God does not care about our laws? You really need to get a grip on your reading comprehension skills. Also, I am the one who said "So what?". I qualified that question by saying that queer marriage will never be able to violate the definition of TRUE marriage because God authoritatively defined marraige no matter what man's laws may say. That is not a statement that God is unconcerned about our laws. I was simply addressing which definition is TRULY authoritative. :no:

Besides, the number you were blundering around to convey is actually 1-800-CRY-BABY. :teeth:

Dr. Don Dean

Thomas2003

July 27th 2003, 10:02 PM

Dear Dr. Dean,

I understand your position, however, it is truncated and incorrect.

The family is the center of God's government, it is built upon the marriage covenant. The family does not exist in a vaccuum but is a social unit that has Covenantal basis in both the Church for its spiritual guidance and worship of God and the State for its protection from lawlessness.

While I would certainly agree that the state does not have authority to "license" marriages it does have an interest in maintaining social order, thus punishment of violations of the contract are within its jurisdiction.

Your claim that marriage is some autonomous institution is unbiblical, God's law says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." God delegates punishment of crimes to the civil magistrate and spiritual guidance to the Church. The great statement of this fact is in Ephesians 5:21-23 wherein marriage and the Church are shown to be related in Christ's Covenant. This submission to one another is "in the fear of God" not some autonomous relationship or island of matrimony.

When we marry we do not strand ourselves but build up a community of faith based in the lawful and solemn obligation and duty of social covenanting. While marriage is temporal and does not survive our natural lives the fruit of that marriage, our children, is eternal. Thus, there are eternal consequences for our temporal behavior and the curses and blessings parents bestow upon their children.

All things are under the Triune God and the governance of His law-word, man is a subject of the King of the Universe and cannot be considered a social creature unless considered a subject. Marriage is grounded, not merely in mutual interdependence, but as Christ's Covenant in a theocentric faith, not because our needs require it. The interdependence of the marraige covenant exists, as we find in Genesis 2, because of the prior dependence on God requires the unity of His creation under His law. It was Eve's addition to God's law that is the foundation of sin - they were not united and legislated contrary to the word of God contrary to their Covenantal purpose.

Without Biblical faith, without the Covenantal status of God's intentions of the family under His Law, the only sustaining factor in marriage becomes a fragile bond of emotion - of feeling.

For the state to step outside the bounds of God's covenantal order - including unlawful divorces and failure to punish violations of the marriage Covenant brings God's judgement upon us - as we see in homosexual dominance.

Cordially,

Thomas

John Powell

July 27th 2003, 10:34 PM

POWELL:
I would really like to engage Dr. Dean from my current atheist point of view, but this is the wrong section of TWEB for that, so I will do it from the point of view of a supporter of gay / lesbian rights. I will tag my comments as John Supporter.

SWORDMAN:
Re: Pondering The Return of Polygamy

Greetings.

It is my thinking that Biblical marriage will never be threatened by any allowance of homosexuals to "legally" marry. Now, before all the knee-jerk reactionism takes hold, allow me to explain:

What REALLY is the definition of marriage in relation to how God defined it? Is that worthless piece of paper from City Hall the defining force of marriage? No, it is not. Are those "vows" the defining force of a marriage? No, they are not. They have their emotional appeal and they also are a binding force from our words, but they do not at all define marriage.

These "conservatives" (whatever that means) as they are called, are not always in line with the ONE authority that defines the TRUE, HISTORICAL Christian faith we all read about within the pages of scripture. In other words, those "conservatives" are just as prone to being in error as anyone else.....even in a corporate sense.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
What makes you impervious to also being in error, Dr. Dean? They're reading essentially the same Bible that you are, aren't they? Why is it that YOUR interpretation of God's will is the right one?

SWORDMAN:
So, God had the "audacity" to define marriage in such a way that He left out our licenses, vows, ceremonies, acknowledgments, exchanges, and every other traditional element mankind has ever thought up as a substitute for God's definition for marriage. Gloryoski! How could God DO such a thing? Was He not in tune with all those things that have such a strong emotional appeal to so many? My, but what an insensitive God we love.....

Nope. I do not buy that for a minute.

Our Lord defined marriage in seemingly simplistic and seemingly felshly [fleshly?] terms. In Genesis He said that a man will leave his mother and father and "cleave" to his wife. The Hebrew word "cleave" was translated from speaks of "commitment," not a romanticized, emotional love, but rather a love based upon COMMITMENT.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
How do you know that God was not speaking to only heterosexual men in this verse, Dr. Dean?

SWORDMAN:
He also mentioned that they will become "one flesh." That speaks of the sexual act, which stems from a much deeper commitment of giving to another that which is not given to everyone [anyone?] else. That is what makes it so special.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Well, no one gives it to "everyone else," Dr. Dean. If you meant "anyone else" then that was violated by men who had multiple wives like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Of course you are aware that gay and lesbian "spouses" engage in sex, Dr. Dean.

Perhaps you're thinking gay / lesbian sex is wrong because it's not procreative. If procreative sex is an essential part of marriage, Dr. Dean, then why are women and men who are unable to do this allowed to get or remain married?

SWORDMAN:
So, it looks like the doors are going to be opened to homosexuals being allowed to "legally marry." That means they will receive the same social security benefits as surviving spouses of heterosexual couples, and that the divorce courts will then also have gained authority over homosexual "marriages" that it exercises over heterosexual marriages now. When did God EVER relinquish any measure of His authority over marriage, and its definition, to mankind?

So now, homosexuals will be brought under the same ungodly system of authority over their "marriages" as heterosexual couples have suffered under for many decades in this country. So what? Where did the Lord ever give a government the right to govern marriage in His place? What I mean by all this is that HOMOSEXUALS WILL NEVER GAIN TRUE MARITAL STATUS IN REALTION TO THE ONE TRUE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ESTABLISHED BY GOD WAY BACK IN GENESIS.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
What if God wants gays and lesbians to marry, Dr. Dean, who are you to contradict the will of God?

SWORDMAN:
Now, if you want to defend our "legal" system of marriage against homosexuals gaining access to it, that is nothing but trying to treat yet another of many SYMPTOMS. What I find to be astounding is that so many people are up in arms over queers getting legal "marriage" status, but most people seem to have forgotten that the 30+ million number of unborn children killed in this country is still on the increasing.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Is it on the increase "per capita" or just in total numbers? Are fetus and infant mortality rates higher or lower than during Biblical times, Dr. Dean?

Besides, Dr. Dean, were you aware of the population problems that would result if every fetus that could be born on this planet was born?

SWORDMAN:
Fighting all these legal battles does nothing but keep us from focusing upon the root cause of ALL THESE PROBLEMS. That problem (the DISEASE) is EVIL (SIN).

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Of course, you realize that what you consider to be evil or sin is not necessarily what God considers to be evil or sin.

SWORDMAN:
All these other things are nothing but SYMPTOMS. They are NOT the disease itself. There is evil in our land, and all we are doing it fighting petty battles on more fronts than we can possibly handle. I for one choose not to battle against symptoms. I prefer battling evil itself, one person at a time.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
This does not appear to be as meaningful as you seem to think, Dr. Dean. Even when you're fighting a battle against an army, you're probably only fighting one person or a small group of people at a time unless you're dropping / firing large bombs.

SWORDMAN:
You know, I hear famous "preachers" always talking about how we must "support your local church." How can anyone support what does not exist as a unified body in each locale?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
By supporting what is less than a perfectly unified body, don't you think?

SWORDMAN:
Every "local church" is fragmented into all these little schisms most call "churches." The ONLY unity they exercise is to confess that Jesus is Lord.....and even some of THEM deny THAT. Although it is true, confession of Jesus' Lordship is not intended to be a unifying force. The proof of this is in the fact that almost ALL of us have confessed it, and yet evil still exists in our cities.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Your argument does not follow, Dr. Dean. I believe that you're arguing that the PROOF that confessing Jesus is Lord is not intended to be a unifying force is the fact that there is still evil in our cities. Are you of the opinion that confessing Jesus is Lord automatically makes you morally perfect or something like that? Perhaps God meant for this confessional to be a unifying force to help imperfect mortals to better resist evil, not be immune to its allure.

SWORDMAN:
Evil has infiltrated every level of our government, all the way from city, to county, to state, to the federal government itself. If the "local church" in every city and town were TRULY unified, we would THEN be a force to contend with.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Well sure, but then it would not be a typical democracy now would it?

SWORDMAN:
Think about it. Why did Nero try to wipe out Christianity in Rome and its surrounding provinces? Was it because those believers were a bunch of "radical, political activists"? NO! It was because they were UNIFIED, and within that unity they were growing in "alarming" numbers with "alarming" speed because of the love they had for one another in Christ Jesus, therefore becoming a non-violent, non-political force that had to be stopped before those evil men and women within the government were ultimately thrown out and replaced.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
It was my understanding that Nero used the Christians as a scapegoat, not because he was fearful of their power.

SWORDMAN:
We are kept virtually powerless by remaining seperated [separated] within the four walls of all our petty fragments most call a "church." The "local church" is controllable so long as it remains fragmented.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Are you interested in taking control of the local churches from those currently in power, Dr. Dean?

SWORDMAN:
We are not a big threat to all those homosexuals, pedophiles, abortionists and ever [every] other imaginable evil this country is quickly being overrun by. All we do is sit within our man-made organizations and talk about how terrible things are rather than to BECOME what we were MEANT TO BE!

JOHN SUPPORTER:
And what were Christians like you meant to be, Dr. Dean, the rulers of the world?

SWORDMAN:
Complaining will never force change, but love conquers all.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Is love controlling, Dr. Dean?

Your brother in Chrit [Christ] Jesus

Dr. Don Dean (Th.D.)

JOHN SUPPORTER:
It appears to me like Dr. Dean wants the Christian churches to politically unite together and take over by nonviolent means the current constitutionally based government in the U.S. When the current executive, legislative, and judicial federal leaders are tossed out, like the ancient Christians should have done to Nero, Dr. Dean probably plans to claim it's done out of love of Christ Jesus.

Is this anywhere close to what you're feeling, Dr. Dean?

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.

Swordman

July 28th 2003, 10:53 AM

Yesterday @ 09:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160722#post160722)
Thomas2003:

The family is the center of God's government, it is built upon the marriage covenant.

Can you show me where God ever indicated in His definition of marriage in Genesis that marriage is a type of "covenant"? I have heard this many times, but never really pursued it. Perhaps you can save me the time by qualifying your statement. It appears to me that the use of the word "covenant" in relation to marriage is more of an emotional term than a legitimate one. Now, if you point to the vows as that which "establishes" the covenant, then we are left with nothing but a social custom rather than a bond that carries with it the strength of a divine covenant such as was established between God and Abraham.

The family does not exist in a vaccuum but is a social unit that has Covenantal basis in both the Church for its spiritual guidance and worship of God and the State for its protection from lawlessness.

This is a straw man argument with copious amounts of emotional wording. I did not relegate marriage into the realm of a mere social maneuver (or vacuum as you called it). It is a reality that rests upon a solid foundation of divine definition, sanction, and governance. Its relation to the Church, spirituality and man's laws is completely secondary. Protection from lawlessness within any culture is a given, but that is not a legitimate reson to subjugate marriage itself to an entirely new system of definition and authority.

While I would certainly agree that the state does not have authority to "license" marriages it does have an interest in maintaining social order, thus punishment of violations of the contract are within its jurisdiction.

I agree that the state must maintain order and to protect individuals against lawlessness. That is a given with which I was never taking issue. However, the state inevitably intrudes into areas where it clearly does not belong. Unbelievers and their marriages SHOULD be subject to the state's definition and authority since their very lives and beliefs reject God and His definition of marriage, but when the state intrudes into the godly marriages of professing believers by telling them that they can, for instance, divorce for ungodly reasons, then you are left with defending an ideal that, although has historical precedent, is still at variance to the authority of the Lord Himself over marriage. I am dealing also with the emphasis, not just the reality of how things should be. History itself proves that the state at all being allowed to meddle with marriage leads professing believers into doing that which is opposed to the word of God. Why you would ever try to defend this by lending ANY degree of legitimacy to state involvement in marriage itself is quite beyond me. Social order is an aside to the real issue at hand here.

Your claim that marriage is some autonomous institution is unbiblical, God's law says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." God delegates punishment of crimes to the civil magistrate and spiritual guidance to the Church.

Who is fooling who, here? Do you see the state punishing adulterers? I do not see one person thrown into jail for adultery anywhere in this country. Pointing at the Puritans and their doing so is nothing but pointing at antiquity. God already gave the authority to divorce for adultery. We do not need the state to uphold what the Lord has laready allowed.

If there was any credability to your idea that civil authorities have the right to exercise oversight in marriage, then who governs the civil authorities? Our civil authorities are out of control to say to a couple that they can "divorce" for reasons of "incompatability," which is a divorce for any and all reasoning. God knew that civil authorities can and do get out of line. I believe that is the reason He defined marriage once and for all, in order to place it beyond the reach of corruption. When we allow the state to gain authority over our marriage, we have then placed it right back into the hands of the state. If you stop and think about it, this is perhaps the one reason why the divorce rate among professing Christians has at times soared higher than that of the unbelieving world around us. People have taken their eyes off God's definition and authority over their marriage, and have set their eyes upon the state and its ungodly allownaces to justify this phenomenon. If you can sit there and justify state involvement in a marriage beyond mere social order, then I really must question your understanding of the deeper issues.

The great statement of this fact is in Ephesians 5:21-23 wherein marriage and the Church are shown to be related in Christ's Covenant. This submission to one another is "in the fear of God" not some autonomous relationship or island of matrimony.

Again, more emotional argumentation that still fails to deal with the harsh realities of what we see going on all around us on a daily basis.

When we marry we do not strand ourselves but build up a community of faith based in the lawful and solemn obligation and duty of social covenanting.

Ok. Where is the "local church" in all of this? What I see is a huge number of independent fragments scattered all over the place. Where is this community? There is NO community, except perhaps in an idealistic sense, but the reality simply is not there. All thes schisms that most call "churches" are not a comunity at all. They have little to no interaction at all. If there were such a thing as a "local church" in every town and city, then the evil in our government would either be about the business of trying to wipe us out as Nero had attemtped to do, or evil would not have the strangle-hold upon our government that it has right now.

While marriage is temporal and does not survive our natural lives the fruit of that marriage, our children, is eternal.

Temporal, but governed by divine definition and divine governance. Any time mankind adds to or takes away from that, you end up with an institution defined by all the flowery imagry you painted earlier that allows all the ungodly nonsense that has been going on for FAR too long already. If our schismatic "churches" are so great, then why are they not dealing with all the ungodly divorce going on right under their very noses? I can tell you why, but that is another discussion entirely.

Sorry, Thomas, but your institutionalized approach to this fails to deal with the overarching realities of not only the Bible, but also the harsh realities all around us that simply have proven the results of the type of philosophy you appear to espouse.

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean

John Powell

July 29th 2003, 01:18 AM

POWELL:
I will respond to this mostly from my former Mormon beliefs with the tag "JOHN MORMON." The few times I respond from my current atheism, I'll tag that as "POWELL".

Thomas2003:
The family is the center of God's government, it is built upon the marriage covenant.

JOHN MORMON:
I think Mormons agree with that.

SWORDMAN (to THOMAS2003):
Can you show me where God ever indicated in His definition of marriage in Genesis that marriage is a type of "covenant"?

JOHN MORMON:
When God married Adam and Eve and gave commandments to them with associated blessings if they were to obey then this was a covenant between God and them. God would keep His promises if Adam and Eve would keep theirs.

SWORDMAN:
I have heard this many times, but never really pursued it. Perhaps you can save me the time by qualifying your statement. It appears to me that the use of the word "covenant" in relation to marriage is more of an emotional term than a legitimate one. Now, if you point to the vows as that which "establishes" the covenant, then we are left with nothing but a social custom rather than a bond that carries with it the strength of a divine covenant such as was established between God and Abraham.

JOHN MORMON:
When a man promises God to be a good husband to his wife then that's a divine covenant. Do you disagree, Dr. Dean?

THOMAS2003:
The family does not exist in a vaccuum but is a social unit that has Covenantal basis in both the Church for its spiritual guidance and worship of God and the State for its protection from lawlessness.

JOHN MORMON:
I think Mormons agree here too.

SWORDMAN:
This is a straw man argument with copious amounts of emotional wording. I did not relegate marriage into the realm of a mere social maneuver (or vacuum as you called it).

JOHN MORMON:
I doubt that Thomas meant "vacuum" in the way you seem to think, Dr. Dean. He probably meant that the family does not exist independently from society.

SWORDMAN:
It is a reality that rests upon a solid foundation of divine definition, sanction, and governance. Its relation to the Church, spirituality and man's laws is completely secondary.

JOHN MORMON:
Its relation to man's law is secondary, yes, but the church's attitude about marriage should be as close as possible to God's attitude or do you disagree, Dr. Dean?

SWORDMAN:
Protection from lawlessness within any culture is a given, but that is not a legitimate reson [reason] to subjugate marriage itself to an entirely new system of definition and authority.

JOHN MORMON:
You don't seem to realize that just because man's laws allows for divorce, does not mean God allows for it. The laws are designed to serve those who believe in divorce and those who don't. We live in a pluralistic society. Those who don't believe in divorce can choose to refuse to divorce.

THOMAS2003:
While I would certainly agree that the state does not have authority to "license" marriages it does have an interest in maintaining social order, thus punishment of violations of the contract are within its jurisdiction.

JOHN MORMON:
I'm not sure how to respond. Marriages based upon secular law are recognized by the secular authority. If God authorizes a man to have two wives, but the secular law does not, then according to God the man is married to both women, but according to the secular law he is not.

SWORDMAN:
I agree that the state must maintain order and to protect individuals against lawlessness. That is a given with which I was never taking issue. However, the state inevitably intrudes into areas where it clearly does not belong.

JOHN MORMON:
If men are not fulfilling their social obligations as husbands and fathers then why shouldn't the state get involved? God can judge the man in the spiritual realm, but the state has power over the temporal.

SWORDMAN:
Unbelievers and their marriages SHOULD be subject to the state's definition and authority since their very lives and beliefs reject God and His definition of marriage, but when the state intrudes into the godly marriages of professing believers by telling them that they can, for instance, divorce for ungodly reasons, then you are left with defending an ideal that, although has historical precedent, is still at variance to the authority of the Lord Himself over marriage.

JOHN MORMON:
In other words, nonChristian marriages should be legislated, but Christian marriages should be left alone, is that it? What if a Christian man is not fulfilling his social responsibilities as a husband and father, should the state keep out?

The state rarely orders a couple to divorce when neither want to. It's usually in response to a case brought to court by either the husband or the wife. If the Christian couple don't believe in divorce then they shouldn't file the papers with the court. It's as easy as that.

SWORDMAN:
I am dealing also with the emphasis, not just the reality of how things should be. History itself proves that the state at all being allowed to meddle with marriage leads professing believers into doing that which is opposed to the word of God. Why you would ever try to defend this by lending ANY degree of legitimacy to state involvement in marriage itself is quite beyond me. Social order is an aside to the real issue at hand here.

JOHN MORMON:
If the state did not get involved with family issues then a lot of injustice would go unremedied.

THOMAS2003:
Your claim that marriage is some autonomous institution is unbiblical, God's law says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." God delegates punishment of crimes to the civil magistrate and spiritual guidance to the Church.

SWORDMAN:
Who is fooling who, here? Do you see the state punishing adulterers? I do not see one person thrown into jail for adultery anywhere in this country. Pointing at the Puritans and their doing so is nothing but pointing at antiquity.

JOHN MORMON:
The state does not punish people for changing religious views either. Do you think they should, Dr. Dean?

POWELL (atheist):
Perhaps enough liberal theists and free thinkers have come to realize that adultery is not the capital crime that ancient people thought it was. It's a violation of trust between two people. It's failing to keep promises. The state is less inclined to interfere in such civil matters than to interfere in criminal cases of robbery or assault. Do you think all promise breakers should be stoned, Dr. Dean?

SWORDMAN:
God already gave the authority to divorce for adultery. We do not need the state to uphold what the Lord has laready [already] allowed.

JOHN MORMON:
This confuses me. Dr. Dean, are you saying the state need not allow what God allows?

SWORDMAN:
If there was any credability [credibility] to your idea that civil authorities have the right to exercise oversight in marriage, then who governs the civil authorities?

JOHN MORMON:
Change "marriage" to something else that you think the government has the right to exercise oversight over and perhaps you'd have your answer, Dr. Dean.

Perhaps it would be other civil authorities or the voting public.

SWORDMAN:
Our civil authorities are out of control to say to a couple that they can "divorce" for reasons of "incompatability," which is a divorce for any and all reasoning.

JOHN MORMON:
If the couple do not believe this is a justified reason to divorce then they should refuse to submit the divorce papers to the court. It's as easy as that, Dr. Dean. The secular law allows such divorces, but does not obligate them. Whether God counts these as divorces is a separate issue.

SWORDMAN:
God knew that civil authorities can and do get out of line. I believe that is the reason He defined marriage once and for all, in order to place it beyond the reach of corruption.

POWELL:
Did it work, Dr. Dean? Is marriage beyond the reach of corruption or is it in a currently corrupt state in your opinion?

SWORDMAN:
When we allow the state to gain authority over our marriage, we have then placed it right back into the hands of the state. If you stop and think about it, this is perhaps the one reason why the divorce rate among professing Christians has at times soared higher than that of the unbelieving world around us. People have taken their eyes off God's definition and authority over their marriage, and have set their eyes upon the state and its ungodly allownaces [allowances] to justify this phenomenon. If you can sit there and justify state involvement in a marriage beyond mere social order, then I really must question your understanding of the deeper issues.

POWELL:
I must question your understanding too, Dr. Dean. It is my belief that the divorce rate is so high because women, even Christian women, have become empowered to divorce the loser husbands they had. In the old days Christian women were pressured by society (including their religion) to remain unhappily married. I see the high divorce rate today as a GOOD SIGN. It's a message to the men that they had better treat their sweetheart like they did when they courted her, not take her for granted like they so often do after they think she's religiously and economically bound to his will.

If the divorce rate is significantly higher among Christians than other social groups then I suspect the reason would be that Christian men are behaving worse as husbands than other men.

As just one example, how many Christian husbands take their wife on a one-on-one date at least every week like they did when they were courting? Very few. Men know they need to financially support their families, but they don't seem to realize that they need to continue to court their wife. As divorce becomes more of a glaring reality to men they will gradually realize that they need to treat their wife better than husbands have in the past or she will likely become someone else's wife.

The husband should court his wife or risk seeing her in court.

THOMAS2003:
The great statement of this fact is in Ephesians 5:21-23 wherein marriage and the Church are shown to be related in Christ's Covenant. This submission to one another is "in the fear of God" not some autonomous relationship or island of matrimony.

SWORDMAN:
Again, more emotional argumentation that still fails to deal with the harsh realities of what we see going on all around us on a daily basis.

POWELL:
Like the harsh reality that men, more often than women, are failing to meet the expectations of their spouse.

THOMAS2003:
When we marry we do not strand ourselves but build up a community of faith based in the lawful and solemn obligation and duty of social covenanting.

SWORDMAN:
Ok. Where is the "local church" in all of this? What I see is a huge number of independent fragments scattered all over the place. Where is this community? There is NO community, except perhaps in an idealistic sense, but the reality simply is not there. All thes schisms that most call "churches" are not a comunity at all. They have little to no interaction at all.

JOHN MORMON:
Are you suggesting that Christians in the area should meet together regularly to discuss political issues? What you would find would be sometimes widely varying opinions. Of course, you could pressure the minorities to stop coming to the meetings so only the majority opinion gets your attention.

Christians meet regularly to do what they agree about, namely religion. Perhaps they've come to realize that if their meetings were to focus on politics it would lead to unpleasant divisiveness.

SWORDMAN:
If there were such a thing as a "local church" in every town and city, then the evil in our government would either be about the business of trying to wipe us out as Nero had attemtped [attempted] to do, or evil would not have the strangle-hold upon our government that it has right now.

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons once had communities similar to this.

POWELL:
If your one-belief communities existed they would probably not be very American in their treatment of nonbelievers who passed through or who wanted to live there.

What would probably happen is the government would force those people to let outsiders buy homes and set up businesses in their special community despite their resistance to that evil.

THOMAS2003:
While marriage is temporal and does not survive our natural lives the fruit of that marriage, our children, is eternal.

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons believe that marriages and families can be forever.

SWORDMAN:
Temporal, but governed by divine definition and divine governance. Any time mankind adds to or takes away from that, you end up with an institution defined by all the flowery imagry [imagery] you painted earlier that allows all the ungodly nonsense that has been going on for FAR too long already. If our schismatic "churches" are so great, then why are they not dealing with all the ungodly divorce going on right under their very noses? I can tell you why, but that is another discussion entirely.

POWELL:
Maybe it's because so many of them are liberal enough to believe that each couple should decide for themselves whether to remain married rather than it being something for the church to decide for them.

You seem to think that the Christian churches should be unified in their political views.

THOMAS2003:
Sorry, Thomas, but your institutionalized approach to this fails to deal with the overarching realities of not only the Bible, but also the harsh realities all around us that simply have proven the results of the type of philosophy you appear to espouse.

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean

JOHN MORMON:
I found a lot to agree with Thomas about and not very much to agree with Dr. Dean about.

John Powell

docbates7

July 29th 2003, 01:24 AM

Greetings everybody,

new to the board here so i just wanted to say hi. and now that that's outta the way here goes.

I think the major difference lies in the civil definition of marriage. It's just the combination of two people into one identity in the law-tis all. this is, of course, speaking in terms of secular society, which is what we all live in and the government and judicial bodies are suppose to try to govern around. along these lines, there is no problem with same-sex marriage. you'll also see many companies that already offer same-sex/life-partner benefits to couples w/o them having to be married. which is great, i for one will be happy when we finally get around to allowing same-sex marriages in this country. It's almost hypocritical to think of how we apply the law in certain cases and not in others: and i am not a big fan of hypocracy.

and in terms of religious/theological views on same-sex marriages i can only really think of one concrete example that sums up how i feel. When i was at school we had this famous but i forget his name biblical research/pastor come and talk. he was at a preysbetyrian voting session or something, im catholic we don't do those things :), and they were discussing whether or not to let gay men and women become pastors. now a lot of people citing the Bible as to why we should not allow gay men and women to become pastors/even exist at all. so this guy decided to do some research on the matter.

well, what he found was that the few places in the Bible, in greek, that do mention what people later translated to be homosexuality was actually a combination of two words, the word for male child prositute and sex. which, in ancient greece there were different levels of male-male interaction with this one particular word, pederasty i think, was a specific case. he concluded that the Bible in greek simply ment that you cannot have sex with male child prosititues.

kinda makes you wonder what other stuff got lost in translation eh?

themuzicman

July 29th 2003, 09:19 AM

Isn't it odd how the destruction of Christian morals in our society has gradually led to the subjugation of women, to the point that they are virtually reduced to slaves and sex objects, and now their last bastion of committment is on the precipice of destruction, as women will be opening their homes and beds for other women to share with their husbands.

I'm sure Betty Friedan and baby boomers everywhere are overjoyed. :whack: :poke: :bonk:

:Muz:

Thomas2003

July 29th 2003, 04:29 PM

Can you show me where God ever indicated in His definition of marriage in Genesis that marriage is a type of "covenant"? I have heard this many times, but never really pursued it. Perhaps you can save me the time by qualifying your statement. It appears to me that the use of the word "covenant" in relation to marriage is more of an emotional term than a legitimate one. Now, if you point to the vows as that which "establishes" the covenant, then we are left with nothing but a social custom rather than a bond that carries with it the strength of a divine covenant such as was established between God and Abraham.

Dear Swordman,

God doesn't work outside of His Covenant, never has - never will, God swore with an oath, by Himself, that He would carry out His purpose in Jesus Christ. He then manifested that with Abraham as the progeniture of the promised seed. (Genesis 3:15)

Ephesians 5:22-33 explains as plain as day that the relationship of man to God's Covenant is identical in stature to the marriage covenant.

A marriage vow is in God's oath and His purposed plan for creation, it has little to do with emotion, other than mutual consent, and everything to do with the Covenant.

For the promise is unto us and our children.

This is a straw man argument with copious amounts of emotional wording. I did not relegate marriage into the realm of a mere social maneuver (or vacuum as you called it). It is a reality that rests upon a solid foundation of divine definition, sanction, and governance. Its relation to the Church, spirituality and man's laws is completely secondary. Protection from lawlessness within any culture is a given, but that is not a legitimate reson to subjugate marriage itself to an entirely new system of definition and authority.

It's not a new definition of authority - society is made up of families, it doesn't exist outside of that. You have a disparate view, apparently, of a lawful social order.

However, the state inevitably intrudes into areas where it clearly does not belong. Unbelievers and their marriages SHOULD be subject to the state's definition and authority since their very lives and beliefs reject God and His definition of marriage, but when the state intrudes into the godly marriages of professing believers by telling them that they can, for instance, divorce for ungodly reasons, then you are left with defending an ideal that, although has historical precedent, is still at variance to the authority of the Lord Himself over marriage.

Here is where we both agree and disagree. I agree with you that the state doesn't have legitimate authority to license marriage, but it does have legitimate authority to punish crimes.

Unbelievers should not be able to engage in a marriage - at all. This is an institution reserved for God's covenant people and them only.

The problem we are experiencing is living in a foundational Christian social order that has rejected Christ - yet it wishes to maintain the order and benefits of the Covenant. That doesn't work - but this is a different argument.

What you were saying is let them continue the Covenantal basis of marriage - but they don't have a "real' marriage. But we live in this social order, so that means, ultimately, that we don't have "real" marriage either and are reduced to their level by allowing them to exercise our Covenantal authority.

That is what we cannot do - period.

Why you would ever try to defend this by lending ANY degree of legitimacy to state involvement in marriage itself is quite beyond me. Social order is an aside to the real issue at hand here

Actually, I'm not defending it.

Again, more emotional argumentation that still fails to deal with the harsh realities of what we see going on all around us on a daily basis.

No. It will deal with the harsh realities when men submit to God's authority, but God's authority is not subjective to our experience.

Just because we are experiencing a rebellion doesn't mean we can rebel as well.

Ok. Where is the "local church" in all of this? What I see is a huge number of independent fragments scattered all over the place. Where is this community? There is NO community, except perhaps in an idealistic sense, but the reality simply is not there. All thes schisms that most call "churches" are not a comunity at all. They have little to no interaction at all. If there were such a thing as a "local church" in every town and city, then the evil in our government would either be about the business of trying to wipe us out as Nero had attemtped to do, or evil would not have the strangle-hold upon our government that it has right now.

I have a local church and we are in communion with other local churches in a presbytery, which is in communion with other presbyteries. We really don't have very many schisms. It's really a very strong upright Church, it's called the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. If you can tell me where you are I can refer you to a local congregation.

Evil has a "strangle hold" in our government because the people have corrupted themselves and elected non-believers to the seats of Justice. There is another thread here on electing an atheist to public office, I think I'm the only Christian that held a Biblical view. I think I'm the only one who quoted the Bible in regards to lawful political elections. The rest had unbiblical concepts or platonic concepts.

The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. 2 Samuel 23:3

Judgement begins at our own houses. I'm repenting of many of my sins and trying to submit to God's authority, our Church is growing and doing the same. Not only family in my church sends their children to government school - I know lots and lots of churches like this.

The days of evil are numbered, they murder their children, we have as many as we can. I was doing some figuring last night of my 4 closest friends - between us we have 27 children. If we continue this rate of 5.4 children each, in another 30 years our number will be about 787. 30 years after that it is 4200, and 30 years after that its 22,600. In less than 100 years me and four other Christian families will produce a lot of God's work.

Abortion is disinherting spiritual Egypt in our land and its doing a very effective job. You couple that with the Christians that are returning to God and repenting - it's just a matter of time before we purge our land. God is also raising up diseases like aids to kill off the sodomites, I saw a report yesterday that HIV is growing among homosexuals, according to this news report it has grown 17% since 1999. The internet is helping spread this disease because it allows them more ways to meet, a report today said that 39% of homosexuals that meet online admit to having unprotected anal sex with someone they had met on the internet in the previous 2 months.

Sorry, Thomas, but your institutionalized approach to this fails to deal with the overarching realities of not only the Bible, but also the harsh realities all around us that simply have proven the results of the type of philosophy you appear to espouse.

It's not an institutionalized approach at all. I'm just not running away from the authority of God's laws. It is not permissable that homosexuals marry, it is not permissable that the Supreme Court holds we cannot govern ourselves and criminalize this behavior. And I agree with you that it is not permissable that Christians license their marriages and without penalty blaspheme God.

It's time for civil disobedience on these issues. The Court must be disobeyed, the lawful process is governmental interposition - local ordinances criminalizing homosexual behavior and prosecutions of the same.

I would advise you to read Lex Rex and Vindicae Contra Tyrannos, it oulines the means by which lawful men oppose tyranny in civil government. Running away from it is no the answer.

Cordially,

Thomas

Swordman

July 30th 2003, 07:38 AM

Yesterday @ 08:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=161907#post161907)
themuzicman:

Isn't it odd how the destruction of Christian morals in our society has gradually led to the subjugation of women, to the point that they are virtually reduced to slaves and sex objects, and now their last bastion of committment is on the precipice of destruction, as women will be opening their homes and beds for other women to share with their husbands.

I'm sure Betty Friedan and baby boomers everywhere are overjoyed. :whack: :poke: :bonk:

:Muz:

As a matter of fact, I saw a chain-gang of women walking down the street just this morning to go out into the countryside to pick up trash along the highways. When I asked them why they were being treated like this, they said, "Because we are women. The men in our culture have subjected us to being nothing but 'slaves' and "sex objects.'"

I suspect that you are a member of N.O.W. (National Organization of SOME Women.) They tend to play the "martyr" tune much louder than most. Of course, if you were talking about Arab countries, then I would somewhat agree with you. I would say that Christians in general within Arab countries are suffering FAR worse than most anything you could point your fingers at in this country.

I observed that most people here are ignoring you, but I could not resist.

Don

Swordman

July 30th 2003, 08:33 AM

07-27-2003 @ 09:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160736#post160736)
John Powell:

JOHN SUPPORTER:
What makes you impervious to also being in error, Dr. Dean? They're reading essentially the same Bible that you are, aren't they? Why is it that YOUR interpretation of God's will is the right one?

I will have to keep my answers as short as possible since this message is so long, and my typing time is limited. This is an interesting question from someone who claims to be an athiest. Why would you even care that anyone disagrees about the Bible?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
How do you know that God was not speaking to only heterosexual men in this verse, Dr. Dean?

This engages an entirely different subject that is off-topic in this thread.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Well, no one gives it to "everyone else," Dr. Dean. If you meant "anyone else" then that was violated by men who had multiple wives like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Nice try, but I specifically said "everyone" in order to keep from falling into the type of trap that you are now trying to spring upon me. Very slick indeed.

Of course you are aware that gay and lesbian "spouses" engage in sex, Dr. Dean.

What was at issue in my statements is God's definition of marriage. The eventual "corruption" of "legal" marriage does not at all affect God's definition of marriage, nor does it intrude upon God's definition of marriage.

Perhaps you're thinking gay / lesbian sex is wrong because it's not procreative. If procreative sex is an essential part of marriage, Dr. Dean, then why are women and men who are unable to do this allowed to get or remain married?

That all depends upon which definition of marriage you are addressing.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
What if God wants gays and lesbians to marry, Dr. Dean, who are you to contradict the will of God?

Why would it concern you what I believe about God if you claim to not even believe in Him? Your question is hypothetical, therefore outside the realm of reality and possibility based upon the fact that God's word clearly disallows such marriage. This all is nothing but straw man arguments.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Is it on the increase "per capita" or just in total numbers? Are fetus and infant mortality rates higher or lower than during Biblical times, Dr. Dean?

Abortion numbers are like the deficit, they increase daily to the total. As for infant mortality, that is known to have decreased with medical technology. Any knowledgeable high schooler could have told you that.

Besides, Dr. Dean, were you aware of the population problems that would result if every fetus that could be born on this planet was born?

Were you aware that what you are suggesting is nothing but pure speculation? By whose standards are you measuring world population in order to assume that no abortion would have caused any such problem? The "tree huggers?" Are they now authorities on just exactly how many people would actually topple the balance of survivability in this world? I will have to remember this the next time I drive past a 150 foot pile of grain sitting on the ground because there simply is nowhere to put it all. Again, your argument is based purely upon assumption, not any serious facts, and it is again off topic in this thread to discuss it in depth.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Of course, you realize that what you consider to be evil or sin is not necessarily what God considers to be evil or sin.

So, what is your point? I have not attempted to create a new definition for "sin" or "evil."

JOHN SUPPORTER:
This does not appear to be as meaningful as you seem to think, Dr. Dean. Even when you're fighting a battle against an army, you're probably only fighting one person or a small group of people at a time unless you're dropping / firing large bombs.

Again, what is your point? I can guess, but I prefer not to engage in guessing.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Your argument does not follow, Dr. Dean. I believe that you're arguing that the PROOF that confessing Jesus is Lord is not intended to be a unifying force is the fact that there is still evil in our cities. Are you of the opinion that confessing Jesus is Lord automatically makes you morally perfect or something like that? Perhaps God meant for this confessional to be a unifying force to help imperfect mortals to better resist evil, not be immune to its allure.

My fast typing may have gotten the best of me on this one. What I was saying is that confessing Christ as Lord does not magically create a unity in any local church. If there is no understanding nor desire to be united into a local church under the Headship of Christ Jesus, then the intellectual acknowledgment will not magically create that which is not desired and lived out.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Well sure, but then it would not be a typical democracy now would it?

Anyone familiar with the writings of the founding fathers of this country knows that this was never meant to be a "typical democracy." Democracy apart from law is nothing but mob rule. This country was meant to be a republic governed by law, not a mob rule style of democracy.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
It was my understanding that Nero used the Christians as a scapegoat, not because he was fearful of their power.

Then you need to re-read your history books. Do you also doubt that the holocaust actually happened?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Are you interested in taking control of the local churches from those currently in power, Dr. Dean?

Not at all. TRUE leadership within the Church is ONLY found within those who are the greatest servants. I desire to take nothing, and I desire to lead nothing.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
And what were Christians like you meant to be, Dr. Dean, the rulers of the world?

Ruling something was not at all the subject of my comments. Being a unified body in Christ Jesus does not at all mean that we take control by force. Taking anything is not what I am talking about. The early Roman emperors did not seek to destroy Christnedom because it was a violent force, although there have been various incidents perpetrated in the name of Christ, which does not at all mean that Christ was ever behind those crusades.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Is love controlling, Dr. Dean?

Only within the confines of each individual's life.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
It appears to me like Dr. Dean wants the Christian churches to politically unite together and take over by nonviolent means the current constitutionally based government in the U.S. When the current executive, legislative, and judicial federal leaders are tossed out, like the ancient Christians should have done to Nero, Dr. Dean probably plans to claim it's done out of love of Christ Jesus.

Is this anywhere close to what you're feeling, Dr. Dean?

Not close at all. If you want to engage in a lengthy discussion of our government and the evil within it, then it will have to take place elsewhere. Toppling a government is not the thrust of my comments. I clearly stated that the evil elements within our governemtn would react to a unified force rising up as a threat to their power within every level of government. Unity is what I am after. Any scholar who has studied history knows that the ancient of all strategies is to "divide and conquer." Every local church is divided into its petty little schisms, which keeps them from being a force against the loud minority turning our country upside down. Atheists fear that they will lose their right to exist in this country if the Church once again becomes a force within this country. That is not true at all. Even when 97% of this country was professing Christians, atheists lived a peacful and fulfilled life as a citizen, without any threat to their freedoms. History proves this out.

Now, what are your objections to the existence of a unified, local church?

Dr. Don Dean

themuzicman

July 30th 2003, 09:05 AM

Today @ 07:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162612#post162612)
Swordman:

As a matter of fact, I saw a chain-gang of women walking down the street just this morning to go out into the countryside to pick up trash along the highways. When I asked them why they were being treated like this, they said, "Because we are women. The men in our culture have subjected us to being nothing but 'slaves' and "sex objects.'"

I suspect that you are a member of N.O.W. (National Organization of SOME Women.) They tend to play the "martyr" tune much louder than most. Of course, if you were talking about Arab countries, then I would somewhat agree with you. I would say that Christians in general within Arab countries are suffering FAR worse than most anything you could point your fingers at in this country.

I observed that most people here are ignoring you, but I could not resist.

Don

Obivously, it is not as bad as arab countries.

But if you look at the plight of women today, you find that they are under a lot of pressure to "put out" in many ways, and a lot more than they were 40 years ago.

Michael

John Powell

July 30th 2003, 03:30 PM

JOHN SUPPORTER:
What makes you impervious to also being in error, Dr. Dean? They're reading essentially the same Bible that you are, aren't they? Why is it that YOUR interpretation of God's will is the right one? ”

SWORDMAN:
I will have to keep my answers as short as possible since this message is so long, and my typing time is limited. This is an interesting question from someone who claims to be an athiest. Why would you even care that anyone disagrees about the Bible?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I noticed you didn't answer my question. For the moment I'll take your answer to be "I'm fallible too."

I care about the Bible because of how much people like you care about the Bible. I share this world with Christians, so I'm trying to help them learn to be more logical and scientific in their approach to the problems that beset us all.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
How do you know that God was not speaking to only heterosexual men in this verse, Dr. Dean?

SWORDMAN:
This engages an entirely different subject that is off-topic in this thread.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Then for the moment I'll take your answer to be "I don't know."

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Well, no one gives it to "everyone else," Dr. Dean. If you meant "anyone else" then that was violated by men who had multiple wives like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. ”

SWORDMAN:
Nice try, but I specifically said "everyone" in order to keep from falling into the type of trap that you are now trying to spring upon me. Very slick indeed.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Did you avoid the trap? You now have the problem of defending your unwise use of "everyone else."

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Perhaps you're thinking gay / lesbian sex is wrong because it's not procreative. If procreative sex is an essential part of marriage, Dr. Dean, then why are women and men who are unable to do this allowed to get or remain married? ”

SWORDMAN:
That all depends upon which definition of marriage you are addressing.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
How about the definition of marriage you claim is God's, is that necessarily procreative in nature?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
What if God wants gays and lesbians to marry, Dr. Dean, who are you to contradict the will of God?

SWORDMAN:
Why would it concern you what I believe about God if you claim to not even believe in Him?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I noticed you didn't answer my question. For the moment, I'll take your answer to be "Whatever God wants is ok with me."

It should concern you if your beliefs on this issue of marriage are based on poor reasoning.

SWORDMAN:
Your question is hypothetical, therefore outside the realm of reality and possibility based upon the fact that God's word clearly disallows such marriage. This all is nothing but straw man arguments.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
You seem to use the "straw man" defense too much. I don't think it means what you think it means.

One of the reasons humans are the dominant species on this planet is due to our ability to consider hypothetical situations. You do this frequently, so it would be wrong to discredit it overmuch.

Where does God's word clearly disallow homosexual marriages, Dr. Dean?

While we're at it, Dr. Dean, where does God's word clearly disallow polygamous marriages or marriages to children brides?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Is it on the increase "per capita" or just in total numbers? Are fetus and infant mortality rates higher or lower than during Biblical times, Dr. Dean?

SWORDMAN:
Abortion numbers are like the deficit, they increase daily to the total. As for infant mortality, that is known to have decreased with medical technology. Any knowledgeable high schooler could have told you that.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
The point of my question is that if the modern fetus death rates are lower per capita then that's not necessarily as bad as you portrayed it to be.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Besides, Dr. Dean, were you aware of the population problems that would result if every fetus that could be born on this planet was born?

SWORDMAN:
Were you aware that what you are suggesting is nothing but pure speculation? By whose standards are you measuring world population in order to assume that no abortion would have caused any such problem? The "tree huggers?" Are they now authorities on just exactly how many people would actually topple the balance of survivability in this world? I will have to remember this the next time I drive past a 150 foot pile of grain sitting on the ground because there simply is nowhere to put it all. Again, your argument is based purely upon assumption, not any serious facts, and it is again off topic in this thread to discuss it in depth.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I was not aware of that and still am not aware. I'm basing it on the standards of the study / science of population growth. The number of people we could support at our present food production technological ability may not be known to better than maybe a few billions. However, surely you realize that we could not support 1 trillion people, right?

Even many cases of wasted food would not be enough to supply the world's current population if every human fetus that died in the past had actually been born and lived to maturity. Do you disagree?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Of course, you realize that what you consider to be evil or sin is not necessarily what God considers to be evil or sin.

SWORDMAN:
So, what is your point? I have not attempted to create a new definition for "sin" or "evil."

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I'm trying to persuade you to be more tolerant of others.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
This does not appear to be as meaningful as you seem to think, Dr. Dean. Even when you're fighting a battle against an army, you're probably only fighting one person or a small group of people at a time unless you're dropping / firing large bombs.

SWORDMAN:
Again, what is your point? I can guess, but I prefer not to engage in guessing.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I'm trying to persuade you to see that you too often write things that are illogical.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Your argument does not follow, Dr. Dean. I believe that you're arguing that the PROOF that confessing Jesus is Lord is not intended to be a unifying force is the fact that there is still evil in our cities. Are you of the opinion that confessing Jesus is Lord automatically makes you morally perfect or something like that? Perhaps God meant for this confessional to be a unifying force to help imperfect mortals to better resist evil, not be immune to its allure.

SWORDMAN:
My fast typing may have gotten the best of me on this one. What I was saying is that confessing Christ as Lord does not magically create a unity in any local church. If there is no understanding nor desire to be united into a local church under the Headship of Christ Jesus, then the intellectual acknowledgment will not magically create that which is not desired and lived out.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I think I understand your point here better now. Thanks for clarifying.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Well sure, but then it would not be a typical democracy now would it?

SWORDMAN:
Anyone familiar with the writings of the founding fathers of this country knows that this was never meant to be a "typical democracy." Democracy apart from law is nothing but mob rule. This country was meant to be a republic governed by law, not a mob rule style of democracy.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
My mistake for not clarifying. I meant "democracy" in the way it usually means today, not what it meant to ancient people.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
It was my understanding that Nero used the Christians as a scapegoat, not because he was fearful of their power.

SWORDMAN:
Then you need to re-read your history books. Do you also doubt that the holocaust actually happened?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Perhaps I should. I have no serious doubts that millions were exterminated by the Nazis in their concentration camps.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Is this anywhere close to what you're feeling, Dr. Dean? ”

SWORDMAN:
Not close at all. If you want to engage in a lengthy discussion of our government and the evil within it, then it will have to take place elsewhere. Toppling a government is not the thrust of my comments. I clearly stated that the evil elements within our governemtn would react to a unified force rising up as a threat to their power within every level of government. Unity is what I am after. Any scholar who has studied history knows that the ancient of all strategies is to "divide and conquer." Every local church is divided into its petty little schisms, which keeps them from being a force against the loud minority turning our country upside down. Atheists fear that they will lose their right to exist in this country if the Church once again becomes a force within this country. That is not true at all. Even when 97% of this country was professing Christians, atheists lived a peacful and fulfilled life as a citizen, without any threat to their freedoms. History proves this out.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
That sounds better, but I still have my doubts about what you would do if your Christian group had the political power you seem to want them to have.

SWORDMAN:
Now, what are your objections to the existence of a unified, local church?

Dr. Don Dean

JOHN SUPPORTER:
None really provided it was not compulsory.

I did this reply very quickly, so I hope I didn't say too many stupid things.

John Powell

John Powell

July 30th 2003, 09:01 PM

POWELL:
I found a few things I thought to comment on.

THOMAS2003:
Here is where we both agree and disagree. I agree with you that the state doesn't have legitimate authority to license marriage, but it does have legitimate authority to punish crimes.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Do you think the government has legitimate authority to license other things like health care providers, day care centers, automobile drivers, etc.? One does not have to have a marriage license to be legally married, but it's convenient. It's sort of like having a state-issued photo ID. Life is easier for those who have one.

THOMAS2003:
Unbelievers should not be able to engage in a marriage - at all. This is an institution reserved for God's covenant people and them only.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
This is perhaps the worst thing you've said, Thomas. Are you trying to keep your religious opponents from having children so they die out in this generation?

Perhaps if you would distinguish between your kind of Christian marriage and what the others are allowed to do, I would be in agreement. "Non Presbyterians can legally marry, but their marriages are not the same as those that God has provided for His people" is a more acceptable, but still controversial, position.

For example, Nonbelievers are prohibited from being sealed for eternity in the Mormon temples, but that does not mean they are prohibited from being married in their own way. If it were legal for gays and lesbians to be married that would not force the Mormon church to let them into their temples to have their marriages sealed for eternity. Your religion has similar rights.

THOMAS2003:
What you were saying is let them continue the Covenantal basis of marriage - but they don't have a "real' marriage. But we live in this social order, so that means, ultimately, that we don't have "real" marriage either and are reduced to their level by allowing them to exercise our Covenantal authority.

That is what we cannot do - period.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
To what lengths are you willing to prevent this unacceptable situation, Thomas?

THOMAS2003:
Evil has a "strangle hold" in our government because the people have corrupted themselves and elected non-believers to the seats of Justice. There is another thread here on electing an atheist to public office, I think I'm the only Christian that held a Biblical view. I think I'm the only one who quoted the Bible in regards to lawful political elections. The rest had unbiblical concepts or platonic concepts.

The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. 2 Samuel 23:3

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Would you have voted for our Founding Fathers who were deist "non-believers"?

THOMAS2003:
Judgement begins at our own houses. I'm repenting of many of my sins and trying to submit to God's authority, our Church is growing and doing the same. Not only family in my church sends their children to government school - I know lots and lots of churches like this.

The days of evil are numbered, they murder their children, we have as many as we can. I was doing some figuring last night of my 4 closest friends - between us we have 27 children. If we continue this rate of 5.4 children each, in another 30 years our number will be about 787. 30 years after that it is 4200, and 30 years after that its 22,600. In less than 100 years me and four other Christian families will produce a lot of God's work.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Mormons seem to have a similar attitude. Many non-believers think it's wise to have fewer children.

When do you think the days of this evil situation will stop being numbered, Thomas? When is this evil going to end? Will it continue beyond your death, beyond the death of your children and grandchildren? If it will continue for thousands of years, what does it mean to say the days are "numbered"?

THOMAs2003:
Abortion is disinherting spiritual Egypt in our land and its doing a very effective job. You couple that with the Christians that are returning to God and repenting - it's just a matter of time before we purge our land.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Can you give a firm estimate on when that time will be? Will it be within the next 100 years, the next 1000 years?

THOMAS2003:
God is also raising up diseases like aids to kill off the sodomites, I saw a report yesterday that HIV is growing among homosexuals, according to this news report it has grown 17% since 1999. The internet is helping spread this disease because it allows them more ways to meet, a report today said that 39% of homosexuals that meet online admit to having unprotected anal sex with someone they had met on the internet in the previous 2 months.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Did God also intend AIDS to kill off hemophiliacs, Thomas?

THOMAS2003:
It's not an institutionalized approach at all. I'm just not running away from the authority of God's laws. It is not permissable that homosexuals marry, it is not permissable that the Supreme Court holds we cannot govern ourselves and criminalize this behavior. And I agree with you that it is not permissable that Christians license their marriages and without penalty blaspheme God.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Why is it not permissible for homosexuals to marry, Thomas? What are the logical, biological, psychological, social, and Biblical reasons you use to support this conclusion?

I might be able to accept that your church won't marry them, like Mormons currently won't, but why do you think the state should not recognize their marriages like any heterosexual marriage?

THOMAS2003:
It's time for civil disobedience on these issues. The Court must be disobeyed, the lawful process is governmental interposition - local ordinances criminalizing homosexual behavior and prosecutions of the same.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
How do you intend to do this, Thomas? It's the homosexuals who are in the more logical position to disobey the law by getting married anyway.

John Powell

Red Rooster

July 30th 2003, 10:46 PM

A few questions (and remarks) for Thomas:

THOMAs2003:
Abortion is disinherting spiritual Egypt in our land and its doing a very effective job. You couple that with the Christians that are returning to God and repenting - it's just a matter of time before we purge our land.

Did you mean to say "disinheriting"? Are you saying God is using abortion to rid the land of sinners? I'll wait for your response before I comment.

THOMAS2003:
God is also raising up diseases like aids to kill off the sodomites, I saw a report yesterday that HIV is growing among homosexuals, according to this news report it has grown 17% since 1999. The internet is helping spread this disease because it allows them more ways to meet, a report today said that 39% of homosexuals that meet online admit to having unprotected anal sex with someone they had met on the internet in the previous 2 months.

Thomas, you Sir do not know God if you want to stand by this statement. Is God also "raising up" liver disease" to kill off the alcoholics? How about cervical cancer to kill off the sexually promiscuous teenager? I thought Jesus came to seek and save those who were lost Thomas, not kill them off. When was the last time you loved someone trapped in their sin with the love of Christ sir? It seems you would rather just have all the really wicked people die off so you don't have to step into their lives with love and compassion, and yes truth, to try to bring them to the Lord.

So tell me Thomas, how do you rate your sins? Do you suppose they are not nearly as grievous as sodomy? What kind of really viscous crap lurks in your thoughts? It sounds as if some of what is there is oozing out. Folks like you go out into the public, some well known ones make public statements similar to what you have written here, and we wonder why Christians are viewed as hateful, intolerent and ignorant. We can't understand why folks don't want anything to do with this Christian Christ.

Don't do the work you do in the name of Christ. Call yourself something other than Christian so the rest of us don't have to answer for your poison.

Red Rooster

Thomas2003

July 31st 2003, 03:13 AM

Abortion is disinherting spiritual Egypt in our land and its doing a very effective job. You couple that with the Christians that are returning to God and repenting - it's just a matter of time before we purge our land.

Did you mean to say "disinheriting"? Are you saying God is using abortion to rid the land of sinners? I'll wait for your response before I comment.

I think I meant to say disinheriting, meaning, "Depriving of an hereditary estate or right." That is to say that God allows the wicked to fill up their legal limit of sin. Murdering children has been a pagan practice since the beginning, they always offer their seed up to their god or try to kill God's seed, as in Cain and Abel. God disinherits wickedness in the death of their children, they magnify their sins and fill up their measure to the uttermost.

Psalms 94 speaks to how wickedness works when it sets itself up in law and the way it condemns innocent blood - that is to say inverts justice. Evil becomes good, good becomes evil, justice becomes injustice and injustice becomes justice.

Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. Psalms 94:20-21

Thomas, you Sir do not know God if you want to stand by this statement. Is God also "raising up" liver disease" to kill off the alcoholics? How about cervical cancer to kill off the sexually promiscuous teenager? I thought Jesus came to seek and save those who were lost Thomas, not kill them off. When was the last time you loved someone trapped in their sin with the love of Christ sir? It seems you would rather just have all the really wicked people die off so you don't have to step into their lives with love and compassion, and yes truth, to try to bring them to the Lord.

Have you not read that what we bind on earth Christ binds in heaven and what we loose on earth Christ looses in heaven? Have you not read that Christ has the keys of hell and of death?

Hell enlarges herself and the Lord of hosts will be exalted in judgment. I believe God judges nations in the present, since they are not eternal. Sir, we've had close to 100 years to repent of our national sins and get back into Covenant with God, it is readily apparent that God is now moving to judge our nation. While I certainly would like to see a national repentance and revival, historically, when a people becomes as wicked as we are - they do not repent and a calamity befalls them.

Disease, according to Scripture, is one of the means by which God pours out His wrath upon national sins:

And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee. Deuteronomy 7:15

Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; Psalm 103:3

One of the foundations of Christ's ministries was to heal all manner of diseases, one of the benefits of Christian advancement is science and understanding our world. These are great and wonderful tools that can and do wonderful things. However, this tool is being used more and more to perform wickedness with. What ever one magnifies sin with is generally inverted as a tool of judgment, when a people corporately reject God, as we have repeatedly done in America, it invites God's wrath and the proliferation of disease is one of those judgments, and it does befall many who may be indirectly innocent. It's warfare, when a people engage in a corporate warfare against God, then they suffer corporately.

So tell me Thomas, how do you rate your sins? Do you suppose they are not nearly as grievous as sodomy? What kind of really viscous crap lurks in your thoughts? It sounds as if some of what is there is oozing out. Folks like you go out into the public, some well known ones make public statements similar to what you have written here, and we wonder why Christians are viewed as hateful, intolerent and ignorant. We can't understand why folks don't want anything to do with this Christian Christ.

I have plenty of sins many are terrible, however, I am repentant. I don't organize groups and powers to change the laws and work mischief and enthrone my sin. I don't endeavor to magnify my sin, I don't get proud and form a parade or a television show to magnify my sin. I'm ashamed of them and want to turn away from them and be cleansed.

Psalms 52 speaks to this:

"Why boastest thou thyself in mischief, O mighty man? the goodness of God endureth continually._The tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully. Thou lovest evil more than good; and lying rather than to speak righteousness. Selah. Thou lovest all devouring words, O thou deceitful tongue. God shall likewise destroy thee for ever, he shall take thee away, and pluck thee out of thy dwelling place, and root thee out of the land of the living. Selah. The righteous also shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him: Lo, this is the man that made not God his strength; but trusted in the abundance of his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness. But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God: I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever. I will praise thee for ever, because thou hast done it: and I will wait on thy name; for it is good before thy saints.

As Christians I believe we are in a perious condition in our country for several reasons. A big one is we've perverted the Church beyond measure, a big aspect is we've denies Christ through contracts with the government and robbed God of His tithes and offerings. Malachi 3:8-10 explains that this causes a national cursing. But, we've also, in this same process and legal structure blasphemed God and our Christian Covenantal foundation our forefathers made. The Ten Commandments are openly reviled and rejected as our Law; in place we get exaltation of sodomy.

I believe those that hate God and and His laws, the many who work with intent of heart to remove God's Laws from our public life are hateful, intolerant and ignorant. Indeed, Scripture says all who hate God love death.

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Psalms 8:35-36

To explain this out a bit further for your edification, I believe our national organic foundation in such covenants as the Declaration of Independence is founded in the Solemn League and Covenant of Great Britian. When the Mayflower landed here no one got of the boat until the Compact was made. The first union of the Colonies was an extension of this:

“Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace…” (The United Colonies of New England, 1643)

This Covenant the English people made with God has remained in full force and effect ever since, we descend in our national heritage from this social covenant that united the Kingdoms. Our Declaration of Independence, which opens in a proclamation of God's laws and divine providence doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is derived from this Solemn League and Covenant and derives its authority under that. Just as the Treaty of Paris of 1787 is an extension of the Treaty of 1763, which is an extension of the Solemn League and Covenant which is simply the civil part of the Westminster Confession. There is covenantal continuity wherein we have received God's blessings, and when we reject our covenantal continuity then we receive that which we deserve from our sins.

We have existed as a nation for what, some 400 years in our original foundation, and the last 50 is when we've rejected the divine protection God has always bestowed upon us and we are reaping what we are sowing.

All we did at our founding was eject a tyrant from the executive charters of the colonies - the authority of the English Common Law is from where they derived their authority to organize Constitutions and then the federal compact. The English common law and Christian principles were established in our constitutions. When the English subjects ceased being subjects they became American citizens and secured those covenantal blessings to their posterity.

When we as a nation war against our Covenantal foundation, then we resist the ordination of God, as it is written in Romans 13:2

"Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

I don't wonder why the majority doesn't want anything to do with Jesus Christ, they love their sin, they wish to magnify it and force it upon everyone. They organize laws to overthow the common law and erect heinous murders in it's place, they overthow just and moral laws to embrace, enthrone and protect wickedness.

They don't want anything to do with Christ because they hate God and love death.

Cordially,

Thomas

Swordman

July 31st 2003, 07:35 AM

Yesterday @ 08:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162658#post162658)
themuzicman:

Obivously, it is not as bad as arab countries.

But if you look at the plight of women today, you find that they are under a lot of pressure to "put out" in many ways, and a lot more than they were 40 years ago.

Michael

You certainly are good at making blanket statements. It is a given that malcontents will always "feel" that they are under foot of others. Women have far more than they ever had before in this country. How much is enough to you? What do you want? Should women have ALL the jobs so that the men are on the street, or staying at home? What are you saying here that is obviously off-topic in this thread, but please do let us know how you are going to qualify your statements. We live in an increasingly pagan culture that relegates to women what God never intended. Are you a higher authority than God, or are you addressing those things outside Christendom?

Dr. Don Dean

Swordman

July 31st 2003, 08:24 AM

Yesterday @ 02:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162950#post162950)
John Powell:

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I noticed you didn't answer my question. For the moment I'll take your answer to be "I'm fallible too."

Absolutely. That is a given for us all, so I really did not see any reason to dwell upon the obvious.

I care about the Bible because of how much people like you care about the Bible. I share this world with Christians, so I'm trying to help them learn to be more logical and scientific in their approach to the problems that beset us all.

Well, this sounds very noble. Thank you.....if what you say is genuine. As for one's approach to problems, well, we as Christians take not only a logical approach to the Bible, but also a spiritual one. Within the mere words of the Bible are many deeper, spiritual dynamics that you have chosen to walk away from in your own life.....if the identity you have taken upon yourself is indicative of your true stance.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Then for the moment I'll take your answer to be "I don't know."

This system does not provide my quoted statement so that I can see what this addresses.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Did you avoid the trap? You now have the problem of defending your unwise use of "everyone else."

Elicit sex is what I was addressing. Loose sex is what I was addressing. Look, this is a dead end since I have not had the time to go back and refresh my memory of exactly what I said. I wish this system would give me all the message when I hit the quote button on a post.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
How about the definition of marriage you claim is God's, is that necessarily procreative in nature?

That depends upon how you define "procreative." (Also, no, I am not trying to be like Clinton.) A couple is not required to be able to have children to fall within God's definition of marriage. However, if they are not able to engage in the sex act, then they are not able to become one flesh, which is the second half of Hid definition of marriage. Perhaps there are those who would see this as being a great injustice, but then I am not the one who wrote Genesis. Are you going to measure the word of God against what you see to be just and right? If so, then you are measuring that which is divinely inspired against that which is subject to many fallable, human factors.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I noticed you didn't answer my question. For the moment, I'll take your answer to be "Whatever God wants is ok with me."

It should concern you if your beliefs on this issue of marriage are based on poor reasoning.

I agree that it should concern me. This also shows that we will never really come to any agreement on this because you reject the authority of scripture, right? Reason is also subject to rules external to itself. The word of God is not. We have rules of exegesis, for instance, in order to draw out the meaning of what is written, but we do not subject what is written to an external authority because that would inevitably corrupt the original meaning. This is all very elementry.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Where does God's word clearly disallow homosexual marriages, Dr. Dean?

I already told you that I will not engage in that here. It is pointless to argue this with one who does not believe in the source to begin with. You can be concerned all you want, but that concern will not ever mean that you utilize the balanced reason that you may like to think that you are capable of utilizing in all facets of your belief system.

While we're at it, Dr. Dean, where does God's word clearly disallow polygamous marriages or marriages to children brides?

The human conscience, as corrupt as it may get at times, provides the answer to that. The Bible does not cover every possible avenue of depravity. If it did, then we would never be able to carry it about as we do today. If your conscience does not give you pause to ask such a question, then I will answer only that parental authority over their children is what has kept this from being a widespread problem. The Bible also does not say that it is wrong for a man to attempt having sex with the knot hole in a board. God gave to us conscience, reason and responsibility. There are those who desire to have sex with a child, which speaks of a grave problem. You may defend that perversion by asking about its prohibition within the Bible, but then you are having to ignore the obvious to do so. I am not aware of any such prohibition, but to argue that a child can fully comprehend the full extent of what is involved in marriage and sex is to argue from silence. Forcing one into that which they are not yet able to fully comprehend is a basic violation of our God-given conscience, just as a man who has any measure of moral stature will not go out and kill just because someone got in his way.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I was not aware of that and still am not aware. I'm basing it on the standards of the study / science of population growth. The number of people we could support at our present food production technological ability may not be known to better than maybe a few billions. However, surely you realize that we could not support 1 trillion people, right?

Food production is actually quite low right now because our tax dollars are going to farmers to keep them from planting all their land. We could almost produce double right now. I know this because I come from a farming family in Kansas. There are other implications of this topic that I could go into, but we are REALLY violating thist thread with this myriad of questions that are WAY off topic.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I'm trying to persuade you to be more tolerant of others.

My battle is not with "others". My battle is with that which stands against righteousness. My battle is with the unseen. Again, this is wasted typing since you have chosen to disbelieve what I know to be true. That means that we are at an empass. We will never agree. This is futile. We have no common ground. The cliche' you are utilizing of "tolerance" is really a form of "intelerance." You are "intolerant" of my views that disagree with things that you personally have chosen to embrace as being somehow "equal" with all other ideas. There is no such thing as equality of ideas. If you were truly intellectual, you would know that already.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
My mistake for not clarifying. I meant "democracy" in the way it usually means today, not what it meant to ancient people.

Thank you.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
That sounds better, but I still have my doubts about what you would do if your Christian group had the political power you seem to want them to have.

Well, I guess you will simply have to take my word for it that political power simply is not the thrust of what I was addressing. That does not mean that moral people will not enter politics and influence it for good, but political power is not at all the emphasis of the word of God. Each individual's life and the life of the corporate whole is the main emphasis. Being a family in Christ is the emphasis.

Well, my time is up. I must run. Have a great day.

Dr. Don Dean

themuzicman

July 31st 2003, 09:01 AM

Today @ 07:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=163476#post163476)
Swordman:

You certainly are good at making blanket statements. It is a given that malcontents will always "feel" that they are under foot of others. Women have far more than they ever had before in this country. How much is enough to you? What do you want? Should women have ALL the jobs so that the men are on the street, or staying at home? What are you saying here that is obviously off-topic in this thread, but please do let us know how you are going to qualify your statements. We live in an increasingly pagan culture that relegates to women what God never intended. Are you a higher authority than God, or are you addressing those things outside Christendom?

Dr. Don Dean

I was referring to the cultural subjugation, where women are expected to engage in "Free" sex, and have an abortion if they get pregnant. WHere women are married at 20, and then discarded at 40 to take care of 3 kids on a minimum wage because dad decided he wanted a younger wife. And, should polygamy happen, where women will be expected to share their husbands with another woman and compete for his affection.

Sure, women may have made advances economically, and these are good things. However, there is another side to the story.

:Muz:

Thomas2003

July 31st 2003, 01:41 PM

Dear John,

I'm commenting on your many questions, but I don't which you this really is. So, I'm not intending to open a dialogue with you.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Do you think the government has legitimate authority to license other things like health care providers, day care centers, automobile drivers, etc.? One does not have to have a marriage license to be legally married, but it's convenient. It's sort of like having a state-issued photo ID. Life is easier for those who have one.

In fact I don't - I believe the civil magistrate is a very limited area of Christ's government. I would say no, on all three of your questions - I believe "licensing" is a sinful concept and practice and militates against God's ordination.

I also would not agree that it is convenient.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
This is perhaps the worst thing you've said, Thomas. Are you trying to keep your religious opponents from having children so they die out in this generation?

The lack of a marriage hasn't ever stopped copulation.

Perhaps if you would distinguish between your kind of Christian marriage and what the others are allowed to do, I would be in agreement. "Non Presbyterians can legally marry, but their marriages are not the same as those that God has provided for His people" is a more acceptable, but still controversial, position.

Marriage is a covenantal institution - the Church cannot lawfully administer a covenantal oath to a non-believer. It's not different than not baptising a non-believer or prohibiting them from the Lord's Supper, for example.

As a non-believe why do you want to engage in our religious activities?

For example, Nonbelievers are prohibited from being sealed for eternity in the Mormon temples, but that does not mean they are prohibited from being married in their own way. If it were legal for gays and lesbians to be married that would not force the Mormon church to let them into their temples to have their marriages sealed for eternity. Your religion has similar rights.

You can go to your code of law then, if you wish, and form whatever contracts you like. Your right to contract is viritually unlimited.

I beleive coming into our churches and making covenantal oaths before God and licensing that under civil law to blaspheme the oath is wrong. It wrongs both the religion and the state and the people who in their original character were grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of forming their governments.

Although, you are incorrect regarding a religions rights. The uniform marriage act didn't come into existence until 1878 - prior to that no such thing as a "marriage license" existed.

It was brought into existence to license the violation of the Common Law regarding miscegenation - it ordered a minister to perform a marriage ceremony in violation of the common law or suffer criminal contempt charges. The same will be true for the homosexuals.

In America religious practices are not protected under the First Amendment, only beliefs.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
To what lengths are you willing to prevent this unacceptable situation, Thomas?

I believe Christians must refuse, such as Churches and ministers, to marry homosexuals. They should resist and suffer the criminal prosecutions if necessary.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Would you have voted for our Founding Fathers who were deist "non-believers"?

No, but there weren't very many of them.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Mormons seem to have a similar attitude. Many non-believers think it's wise to have fewer children.

When do you think the days of this evil situation will stop being numbered, Thomas? When is this evil going to end? Will it continue beyond your death, beyond the death of your children and grandchildren? If it will continue for thousands of years, what does it mean to say the days are "numbered"?

I explained my views of covenantalism in another post, it addresses several of yoru following questions, I'll just defer to that.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Why is it not permissible for homosexuals to marry, Thomas? What are the logical, biological, psychological, social, and Biblical reasons you use to support this conclusion?

I might be able to accept that your church won't marry them, like Mormons currently won't, but why do you think the state should not recognize their marriages like any heterosexual marriage?

Marriage is a religious institution - the licensing of this activity violates the separation of church and state.

I would hold the state doesn't have authority to license any marriage - not just homosexuals, hetersexuals as well.

The civil magistrate would have jurisdiction to adjudicate terms of a contract, as it always has - but not the licensing of that contract.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
How do you intend to do this, Thomas? It's the homosexuals who are in the more logical position to disobey the law by getting married anyway.

What is to prohibit a civil contract under whatever pretenses anyone wants to engage in one?

Why do homosexuals demand the state support them in the right to stand before our God in a Christian Church and blaspheme Him and our beliefs and practices?

For example, I'm not a Mormon, I don't think Mormon's are Christians - but I certainly don't want to go before a Mormon church and partake of their religious oaths and practices. I would never go to the law and demand that this occur.

Cordially,

Thomas

Swordman

August 1st 2003, 07:54 AM

Yesterday @ 08:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=163517#post163517)
themuzicman:

I was referring to the cultural subjugation, where women are expected to engage in "Free" sex, and have an abortion if they get pregnant. WHere women are married at 20, and then discarded at 40 to take care of 3 kids on a minimum wage because dad decided he wanted a younger wife. And, should polygamy happen, where women will be expected to share their husbands with another woman and compete for his affection.

Sure, women may have made advances economically, and these are good things. However, there is another side to the story.

:Muz:

Alright, let us get a little better perspective here: All those women who married at 20, who pointed a gun to their head to forced them into marriage? Who told them they had to go ahead and marry those crumbs who eventually divorced and left them with children? Who told them they were not allowed to exercise their own better judgment by going ahead and marrying that guy? Are you going to say that our culture ALLOWS this? Come on. Just how far are do you want our laws to go in taking away people's rights? Are we to completely remove all those women's responsibility and the ensuing consequences for making bad choices ON THEIR OWN? Sure, those men should pay child support. Injustice is all around us on a daily basis. We already have laws to deal with dead-beat dads. Sure, the enforcement is not what it should be, but then we could say the same thing about any law that exists. No amount of law enforcement could possibly 100% enforce all the laws on the books. YOU would be broke right now and in prison from all the fines of every petty law on the books that you have broken on a DAILY BASIS. Anytime you deal with a culture of people who have walked away from self-governance, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, it is over for that nation.

Look, you are going after a mere symptom, not the disease itself. Your whole philosophy is self-defeating. You do not go to the doctor to have him treat the symptoms, but rather the disease itself that CAUSED the many symptoms you are suffering from. Injustice against women is but only ONE of MANY symptoms that point to a deeper problem within our culture. We have activists running out our ears who are trying to fight on every battle front against the plethora of symptoms, but few are going after the root cause. Discover the disease itself, and THEN you can engage the root cause, and therefore solve FAR more of the symptoms than you could ever possibly battle in your whole life.

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean

themuzicman

August 1st 2003, 08:57 AM

07-29-2003 @ 01:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=161735#post161735)
docbates7:

Greetings everybody,

new to the board here so i just wanted to say hi. and now that that's outta the way here goes.

I think the major difference lies in the civil definition of marriage. It's just the combination of two people into one identity in the law-tis all. this is, of course, speaking in terms of secular society, which is what we all live in and the government and judicial bodies are suppose to try to govern around. along these lines, there is no problem with same-sex marriage. you'll also see many companies that already offer same-sex/life-partner benefits to couples w/o them having to be married. which is great, i for one will be happy when we finally get around to allowing same-sex marriages in this country. It's almost hypocritical to think of how we apply the law in certain cases and not in others: and i am not a big fan of hypocracy.

Wrong. In a secular and society sense, marriage is not about the combination of two people into one identity.

For a society, marriage is about raising children, and about the sustaining of that society. Otherwise, there would be no point to offering benefits and priviledges to married people.

And only marriage, not homosexual unions, can fulfill the duties of passing on the societal roles of mom/wife and dad/husband on to the kids.

Secularly, socially, and legally, that's what marriage is about. Nothing else.

:Muz:

themuzicman

August 1st 2003, 09:03 AM

Today @ 07:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=164477#post164477)
Swordman:
Alright, let us get a little better perspective here: All those women who married at 20, who pointed a gun to their head to forced them into marriage? Who told them they had to go ahead and marry those crumbs who eventually divorced and left them with children? Who told them they were not allowed to exercise their own better judgment by going ahead and marrying that guy? Are you going to say that our culture ALLOWS this?

Is there a stigmatism related to being divorced? No. It is considered as normal, maybe even more normal, than a mom staying home to raise her own children.

No one pointed a gun to her head, but neither did the husband say "until age 40, we do part."

Come on. Just how far are do you want our laws to go in taking away people's rights? Are we to completely remove all those women's responsibility and the ensuing consequences for making bad choices ON THEIR OWN? Sure, those men should pay child support. Injustice is all around us on a daily basis. We already have laws to deal with dead-beat dads. Sure, the enforcement is not what it should be, but then we could say the same thing about any law that exists. No amount of law enforcement could possibly 100% enforce all the laws on the books. YOU would be broke right now and in prison from all the fines of every petty law on the books that you have broken on a DAILY BASIS. Anytime you deal with a culture of people who have walked away from self-governance, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, it is over for that nation.

I never suggested writing any new laws in this regard. I just said it was a problem.

Look, you are going after a mere symptom, not the disease itself. Your whole philosophy is self-defeating. You do not go to the doctor to have him treat the symptoms, but rather the disease itself that CAUSED the many symptoms you are suffering from. Injustice against women is but only ONE of MANY symptoms that point to a deeper problem within our culture. We have activists running out our ears who are trying to fight on every battle front against the plethora of symptoms, but few are going after the root cause. Discover the disease itself, and THEN you can engage the root cause, and therefore solve FAR more of the symptoms than you could ever possibly battle in your whole life.

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean

The disease is secular hedonism. The cure is God. But that doesn't mean we let the symptoms run wild and destroy our culture while we deal with the root.

THat would be like letting pneumonia go untreated because it was caused by the cancer in the kidneys. You cure the cancer, and the patient dies of suffocation from the symptoms.

You treat symptoms AND root causes.

:Muz:

Swordman

August 4th 2003, 07:52 AM

08-01-2003 @ 08:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=164509#post164509)
themuzicman:

Is there a stigmatism related to being divorced? No. It is considered as normal, maybe even more normal, than a mom staying home to raise her own children.

Well, you have a point when addressing a problem in many people's perspective concerning divorce, and it is a problem. The fix is really more simple than most people are aware, but then it would also have a cost that most "pastors" are not willing to pay. To their way of thinking, losing numbers of people from their congregation (audience) is too high a price to pay to address the issue of divorce in their "churches."

No one pointed a gun to her head, but neither did the husband say "until age 40, we do part."

You are still ignoring the woman's responsibility for marrying such a man who was not suitable for marriage in the first place. Everyone talks about all the single mothers out there, but nobody seems to be talking about how many of those single mothers are in that situation because of their OWN BAD CHOICES. Nobody is saying that they WANTED that situation in their lives, but then are those women so isolated from personal responsbility that we go ONLY after the men who left them? Your attack is all one-sided. You need to look at many of those women whose husbands left them because they were "fooling around," or were not willing to meet their husband's sexual needs. It is interesting that we find ourselves in a culture that thinks it such a terrible wrong against a woman for her husband to not meet her emotional needs, but that it is ok for her to not meet her husband's sexual needs. The list goes on and on, but then it all never really gets down to the root cause. We are ALL responsible for the choices we make. For a woman to marry a crumb of a man and then play the victim when he leaves her is nothing but living out a denial of her own responsibilities for her own choices. You are not going to fix those situations by going after those crumbs. Women need to be instructed by other older women who can give them a better understanding of what TRUE LOVE really is rather than making choices based upon our warped, cultural thinking of love and what it entails.

I never suggested writing any new laws in this regard. I just said it was a problem.

I agree. So, what are you going to do about it; sit in here and TALK about it, or go out and DO something about it?

The disease is secular hedonism. The cure is God. But that doesn't mean we let the symptoms run wild and destroy our culture while we deal with the root.

THat would be like letting pneumonia go untreated because it was caused by the cancer in the kidneys. You cure the cancer, and the patient dies of suffocation from the symptoms.

You treat symptoms AND root causes.

Well, that sounds very emotional and all, but it is really quite meaningless because you have demonstrated your lack of understanding of the root itself. We have been fighting the symptoms for many centuries, but very few have engaged the root cause. I never suggested that we leave the symptoms completely to themselves. I said that the FOCUS of our battle is completely in the wrong direction. "Secular hedonism" is nothing in and of itself, and it is still just another SYMPTOM, not the disease itself.

Like I said, talking about it all rather than doing something about it is what most people do best. I fight these battles on a daily basis within my scope of infleunce, and I even win some victories to the glory of God. He is the One who empowers us. You have the tools, now go out and DO something if you are not already.

Dr. Don Dean

dizzle

August 4th 2003, 08:01 AM

And I remind everyone where I dismantled any Christian basis for polygamy here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2377

Swordman

August 4th 2003, 08:03 PM

Today @ 07:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166658#post166658)
Dee Dee Warren:

And I remind everyone where I dismantled any Christian basis for polygamy here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2377

Yes. My friend Dee Dee thinks she came up with a very intellectual stumbling block to polygamy by pointing at Jesus' words concerning divorce, and that the taking of another wife apart from Biblical divorce is in fact wrong (which I agree). The problem with her reasoning is that she thinks a man taking in a subsequent wife somehow violates Jesus' words, and if I remember correctly, falls within the Biblical definitions of adultery or fornication. I do not recall which one she thinks it is. The problem with this also rests in the fact that if having plural wives were ever a violation of God's moral absolutes, then God must then have made a mistake when He said in Gen 26:5, "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Abraham had several wives at the same time, and yet was obedient to God's voice, His charge, His commandments, statutes and laws. How very strange that the Lord could make such a grave error about such a terrible man.

Dr. Don Dean

dizzle

August 4th 2003, 08:13 PM

Today @ 08:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167120#post167120)
Swordman:

Yes. My friend Dee Dee thinks she came up with a very intellectual stumbling block to polygamy by pointing at Jesus' words concerning divorce, and that the taking of another wife apart from Biblical divorce is in fact wrong (which I agree). The problem with her reasoning is that she thinks a man taking in a subsequent wife somehow violates Jesus' words, and if I remember correctly, falls within the Biblical definitions of adultery or fornication. I do not recall which one she thinks it is. The problem with this also rests in the fact that if having plural wives were ever a violation of God's moral absolutes, then God must then have made a mistake when He said in Gen 26:5, "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Abraham had several wives at the same time, and yet was obedient to God's voice, His charge, His commandments, statutes and laws. How very strange that the Lord could make such a grave error about such a terrible man.

Dr. Don Dean

I encourage everyone to read that thread. I had totally demolished the above and then some. And I see now Don is giving Abraham the label of sinless perfection which is the only way in which such an argument makes senses.

This modern day advocation of sexual immorality known as so called Christian polygamy is nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse to justify horndoggedness.

John Powell

August 4th 2003, 08:31 PM

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I care about the Bible because of how much people like you care about the Bible. I share this world with Christians, so I'm trying to help them learn to be more logical and scientific in their approach to the problems that beset us all.

SWORDMAN:
Well, this sounds very noble. Thank you.....if what you say is genuine. As for one's approach to problems, well, we as Christians take not only a logical approach to the Bible, but also a spiritual one. Within the mere words of the Bible are many deeper, spiritual dynamics that you have chosen to walk away from in your own life.....if the identity you have taken upon yourself is indicative of your true stance.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Are you suggesting that the "spiritual approach" is not logical, Dr. Dean?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Then for the moment I'll take your answer to be "I don't know."

SWORDMAN:
This system does not provide my quoted statement so that I can see what this addresses.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
The system at TWEB is good. *I* am the reason your quoted statement was not carried into the next post. I assumed you would be able to easily locate it in the previous post.

Here is the context:

SWORDMAN:
Our Lord defined marriage in seemingly simplistic and seemingly felshly [fleshly?] terms. In Genesis He said that a man will leave his mother and father and "cleave" to his wife. The Hebrew word "cleave" was translated from speaks of "commitment," not a romanticized, emotional love, but rather a love based upon COMMITMENT.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
How do you know that God was not speaking to only heterosexual men in this verse, Dr. Dean?

SWORDMAN:
This engages an entirely different subject that is off-topic in this thread.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Then for the moment I'll take your answer to be "I don't know."

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Is the "I don't know" conclusion ok now?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Did you avoid the trap? You now have the problem of defending your unwise use of "everyone else."

SWORDMAN:
Elicit sex is what I was addressing. Loose sex is what I was addressing. Look, this is a dead end since I have not had the time to go back and refresh my memory of exactly what I said. I wish this system would give me all the message when I hit the quote button on a post.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I don't advise you blaming the TWEB system for your problems with unnecessary exaggeration, Dr. Dean.

It doesn't matter whether you were addressing elicit / loose sex, Dr. Dean, because you would still be exaggerating. Even those people don't give "it" to "everyone else." What distinguishes those who have sex with only one partner and those who do so with more than one is whether they give "it" to "anyone else," not whether they give it to "everyone else." No one gives "it" to "everyone else" since that's impossible.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
How about the definition of marriage you claim is God's, is that necessarily procreative in nature?

SWORDMAN:
That depends upon how you define "procreative." (Also, no, I am not trying to be like Clinton.)

JOHN SUPPORTER:
By "procreative" I mean that with the purpose and likely result of childbirth.

SWORDMAN:
A couple is not required to be able to have children to fall within God's definition of marriage. However, if they are not able to engage in the sex act, then they are not able to become one flesh, which is the second half of Hid definition of marriage.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Then what about the other part of God's command to Adam and Eve to "multiply and replenish the Earth"?

Then, Dr. Dean, are you in favor of Christian men and women who either can't or are advised by their Doctors not to do "it" becoming divorced?

Who says that becoming "one flesh" must be male penis in female vagina, Dr. Dean? Who says that sodomy or finger stimulation can't be included? Perhaps you're reading more into the Bible than God intended.

SWORDMAN:
Perhaps there are those who would see this as being a great injustice, but then I am not the one who wrote Genesis.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I think you would be more empathetic about these issues if you had been born homosexual or sexually dysfunctional.

SWORDMAN:
Are you going to measure the word of God against what you see to be just and right?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Sure. Do you fear that the Bible will lose out too many times if you were to do so?

SWORDMAN:
If so, then you are measuring that which is divinely inspired against that which is subject to many fallable, human factors.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
You're assuming that logical thinking is not divinely inspired and assuming that divine inspiration of the Bible writers implies they could not be wrong.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I noticed you didn't answer my question. For the moment, I'll take your answer to be "Whatever God wants is ok with me."

It should concern you if your beliefs on this issue of marriage are based on poor reasoning.

SWORDMAN:
I agree that it should concern me. This also shows that we will never really come to any agreement on this because you reject the authority of scripture, right?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
As an atheist, yes, but I'm not necessarily defending the atheist point of view here, but merely the rights of Gays / Lesbians to things like marriage.

Perhaps we won't come to an agreement on this, Dr. Dean, but I haven't given up hope on persuading you yet.

SWORDMAN:
Reason is also subject to rules external to itself.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
That's doubtful. Are you suggesting the rules of reason are not reasonable?

SWORDMAN:
The word of God is not.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I'm pretty sure that's wrong. The Bible is subject to God's will, right?

SWORDMAN:
We have rules of exegesis, for instance, in order to draw out the meaning of what is written, but we do not subject what is written to an external authority because that would inevitably corrupt the original meaning. This is all very elementry [sic].

JOHN SUPPORTER:
But, Dr. Dean, YOU DO subject what is written in the Bible to external authority. You use translators and theologians to conclude what the words say and mean. If you didn't do that, if you really subjected the Bible to no external / mortal authority, but only to God, then you could look at the Hebrew and Greek words, even knowing no Hebrew or Greek, and the meaning would be made manifest to you directly from God.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Where does God's word clearly disallow homosexual marriages, Dr. Dean?

SWORDMAN:
I already told you that I will not engage in that here. It is pointless to argue this with one who does not believe in the source to begin with. You can be concerned all you want, but that concern will not ever mean that you utilize the balanced reason that you may like to think that you are capable of utilizing in all facets of your belief system.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Perhaps we need an Anglican / Episcopalian here. I read that they are now allowing homosexual marriages, but a small number of their Bishops feel this is too early since the doctrine is not yet clarified. Perhaps you can persuade them to stop these marriages by using the Bible that they also believe in.

POWELL (atheist):
Do you think discussing Santa Claus with a child who believes is pointless, Dr. Dean? I don't think our discussion is pointless. I can help theists improve their logical thinking and my own even if I don't believe in their make believe super friend and their "word of God" Bible.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
While we're at it, Dr. Dean, where does God's word clearly disallow polygamous marriages or marriages to children brides?

SWORDMAN:
The human conscience, as corrupt as it may get at times, provides the answer to that. The Bible does not cover every possible avenue of depravity. If it did, then we would never be able to carry it about as we do today. If your conscience does not give you pause to ask such a question, then I will answer only that parental authority over their children is what has kept this from being a widespread problem. The Bible also does not say that it is wrong for a man to attempt having sex with the knot hole in a board. God gave to us conscience, reason and responsibility. There are those who desire to have sex with a child, which speaks of a grave problem. You may defend that perversion by asking about its prohibition within the Bible, but then you are having to ignore the obvious to do so. I am not aware of any such prohibition, but to argue that a child can fully comprehend the full extent of what is involved in marriage and sex is to argue from silence. Forcing one into that which they are not yet able to fully comprehend is a basic violation of our God-given conscience, just as a man who has any measure of moral stature will not go out and kill just because someone got in his way.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Even 18 year olds don't fully understand what they're getting into, but they're much better equipped to do so than a child.

Through out most of our history important people were promised to marry each other while still children.

The point is that polygamous and perhaps child marriages are reported in the Bible approved by God, so it would be inconsistent if these things were prohibited by God.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I was not aware of that and still am not aware. I'm basing it on the standards of the study / science of population growth. The number of people we could support at our present food production technological ability may not be known to better than maybe a few billions. However, surely you realize that we could not support 1 trillion people, right?

SWORDMAN:
Food production is actually quite low right now because our tax dollars are going to farmers to keep them from planting all their land. We could almost produce double right now. I know this because I come from a farming family in Kansas. There are other implications of this topic that I could go into, but we are REALLY violating thist thread with this myriad of questions that are WAY off topic.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Yes, it's off topic. Do you seriously believe that we could support 1 trillion people on Earth, Dr. Dean?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I'm trying to persuade you to be more tolerant of others.

SWORDMAN:
My battle is not with "others". My battle is with that which stands against righteousness. My battle is with the unseen.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Then perhaps your efforts will be unseen and ineffective.

SWORDMAN:
Again, this is wasted typing since you have chosen to disbelieve what I know to be true. That means that we are at an empass. We will never agree. This is futile. We have no common ground.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I think you are too pessimistic about such things, Dr. Dean.

SWORDMAN:
The cliche' you are utilizing of "tolerance" is really a form of "intelerance." You are "intolerant" of my views that disagree with things that you personally have chosen to embrace as being somehow "equal" with all other ideas. There is no such thing as equality of ideas. If you were truly intellectual, you would know that already.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I think I'm tolerant, but I seek an opportunity to persuade you to my way of thinking. I recognize that some ideas are more valuable than others.

John Powell

John Powell

August 4th 2003, 08:54 PM

THOMAS2003:
Dear John,

I'm commenting on your many questions, but I don't which you this really is. So, I'm not intending to open a dialogue with you.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Huh?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Do you think the government has legitimate authority to license other things like health care providers, day care centers, automobile drivers, etc.? One does not have to have a marriage license to be legally married, but it's convenient. It's sort of like having a state-issued photo ID. Life is easier for those who have one. ”

THOMAS2003:
In fact I don't - I believe the civil magistrate is a very limited area of Christ's government. I would say no, on all three of your questions - I believe "licensing" is a sinful concept and practice and militates against God's ordination.

I also would not agree that it is convenient.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Ok. You seem to be consistent in this regard.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
This is perhaps the worst thing you've said, Thomas. Are you trying to keep your religious opponents from having children so they die out in this generation?

THOMAS2003:
The lack of a marriage hasn't ever stopped copulation.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
I see. Everyone else has to be fornicators, huh?

JOHN SUPPPORTER:
Perhaps if you would distinguish between your kind of Christian marriage and what the others are allowed to do, I would be in agreement. "Non Presbyterians can legally marry, but their marriages are not the same as those that God has provided for His people" is a more acceptable, but still controversial, position. ”

THOMAS2003:
Marriage is a covenantal institution - the Church cannot lawfully administer a covenantal oath to a non-believer. It's not different than not baptising a non-believer or prohibiting them from the Lord's Supper, for example.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
This is similar to the Mormon attitude about sealings. At least they allow and encourage others to marry rather than be fornicators.

THOMAS2003:
As a non-believe why do you want to engage in our religious activities?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
For a number of reasons. Perhaps of most relevance here is to help you see any cases of poor reasoning on your part concerning this issue.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
For example, Nonbelievers are prohibited from being sealed for eternity in the Mormon temples, but that does not mean they are prohibited from being married in their own way. If it were legal for gays and lesbians to be married that would not force the Mormon church to let them into their temples to have their marriages sealed for eternity. Your religion has similar rights.

THOMAS2003:
You can go to your code of law then, if you wish, and form whatever contracts you like. Your right to contract is viritually unlimited.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Marriage could be viewed as a contract.

THOMAS2003:
I beleive coming into our churches and making covenantal oaths before God and licensing that under civil law to blaspheme the oath is wrong. It wrongs both the religion and the state and the people who in their original character were grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of forming their governments.

Although, you are incorrect regarding a religions rights. The uniform marriage act didn't come into existence until 1878 - prior to that no such thing as a "marriage license" existed.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
How does what you say indicate that I was wrong? Are you saying that your religion does not have the right to claim that their marriages are specially accepted by God?

THOMAS2003:
It was brought into existence to license the violation of the Common Law regarding miscegenation - it ordered a minister to perform a marriage ceremony in violation of the common law or suffer criminal contempt charges. The same will be true for the homosexuals.

In America religious practices are not protected under the First Amendment, only beliefs.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Interesting.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
To what lengths are you willing to prevent this unacceptable situation, Thomas?

THOMAS2003:
I believe Christians must refuse, such as Churches and ministers, to marry homosexuals. They should resist and suffer the criminal prosecutions if necessary.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Why aren't religious punishments (of things like lack of privileges within the Church) and the punishments of God sufficient for you? Why do you also want governmental punishments invoked?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Would you have voted for our Founding Fathers who were deist "non-believers"?

THOMAS2003:
No, but there weren't very many of them.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Mormons seem to have a similar attitude. Many non-believers think it's wise to have fewer children.

When do you think the days of this evil situation will stop being numbered, Thomas? When is this evil going to end? Will it continue beyond your death, beyond the death of your children and grandchildren? If it will continue for thousands of years, what does it mean to say the days are "numbered"?

THOMAS2003:
I explained my views of covenantalism in another post, it addresses several of yoru following questions, I'll just defer to that.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
What about your views on the end of the world? When do you think that will happen?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Why is it not permissible for homosexuals to marry, Thomas? What are the logical, biological, psychological, social, and Biblical reasons you use to support this conclusion?

I might be able to accept that your church won't marry them, like Mormons currently won't, but why do you think the state should not recognize their marriages like any heterosexual marriage? ”

THOMAS2003:
Marriage is a religious institution - the licensing of this activity violates the separation of church and state.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Even atheists marry, Thomas, so it's not strictly a religious institution. That would be like calling "eating" a religious institution because it's ceremoniously done in the Sacrament.

Perhaps you don't think atheists really are married. Is that it? Perhaps no one is really married on Earth except Presbyterians and certain other Christian groups.

THOMAS2003:
I would hold the state doesn't have authority to license any marriage - not just homosexuals, hetersexuals as well.

The civil magistrate would have jurisdiction to adjudicate terms of a contract, as it always has - but not the licensing of that contract.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
How do you intend to do this, Thomas? It's the homosexuals who are in the more logical position to disobey the law by getting married anyway.

THOMAS2003:
What is to prohibit a civil contract under whatever pretenses anyone wants to engage in one?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
There are reasons a judge might disallow one to be fulfilled.

THOMAS2003:
Why do homosexuals demand the state support them in the right to stand before our God in a Christian Church and blaspheme Him and our beliefs and practices?

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Separation of church and state would make this unlikely to be fulfilled even if it were what homosexuals were demanding, which they aren't. Homosexuals want the social acceptance that other sexually devoted members of society have. Those who are religious also seek the acceptance of the others in their religion.

THOMAS2003:
For example, I'm not a Mormon, I don't think Mormon's are Christians - but I certainly don't want to go before a Mormon church and partake of their religious oaths and practices. I would never go to the law and demand that this occur.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
You probably think Mormons aren't Christians because their beliefs about Jesus differ considerably from your own. To be consistent you should also think they aren't theists because their beliefs about God differ considerably from your own.

In your opinion, are Mormons theists, Thomas?

John Powell

Swordman

August 5th 2003, 07:34 AM

Yesterday @ 07:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167126#post167126)
Dee Dee Warren:

I encourage everyone to read that thread. I had totally demolished the above and then some. And I see now Don is giving Abraham the label of sinless perfection which is the only way in which such an argument makes senses.

This modern day advocation of sexual immorality known as so called Christian polygamy is nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse to justify horndoggedness.

Uh oh. There she goes again with her straw man attacks. (There is an insatiable love for straw man tactics in these threads.) I clearly said in this very thread that Abraham and David were just as much in need of a Savior as all the rest of mankind. I never upheld sinless perfection in any man's life. My friend Dee Dee does have a gift for gab and colorful wording, but she still stands as an accusor of the Patriarchs themselves as living in sexual immorality. So you see, folks, we all may as well expect to see the Patriarchs who had more than one wife and died nonrepentent deaths for having them to be cast into the lake of fire, in accordance with Dee Dee's judgment of them.

BTW, Dee Dee, what is the view like from upon the Throne of Christ? :teeth: How is everything upon the Mount?

Dr. Don Dean

dizzle

August 5th 2003, 07:43 AM

Today @ 07:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167360#post167360)
Swordman:

Uh oh. There she goes again with her straw man attacks. (There is an insatiable love for straw man tactics in these threads.)

Ahh the smell of irony from someone trying to justify the satisfaction of inordinate lust and disregard for the emotional and spiritual needs of women.

I clearly said in this very thread that Abraham and David were just as much in need of a Savior as all the rest of mankind.

Yet God called Abraham righteous. So you have shot yourself in the foot. You killed your own point.

I never upheld sinless perfection in any man's life. My friend Dee Dee does have a gift for gab and colorful wording, but she still stands as an accusor of the Patriarchs themselves as living in sexual immorality.

Any see the nonsense here? He admits they were not sinless, which means HE ACCUSES THEM OF SIN. But of course I explained in that other thread the differences between varying situations and God's ideals and how He may tolerate certain behaviour for certian purposes and in specific times. It is called forbearance which Swordman wants to use as a justification for disgusting lust.

So you see, folks, we all may as well expect to see the Patriarchs who had more than one wife and died nonrepentent deaths for having them to be cast into the lake of fire, in accordance with Dee Dee's judgment of them.

I am judging your advocation of polygamy for the believer today. I leave the Patriachs in the hand of God. I completely proved from the NT that polygamy is a disgusting perversion for a Christian to advocate. The New Covenant is a return to God's ideal for us, and the NT clearly teaches that God in His forbearance had passed over sins previously committed.

BTW, Dee Dee, what is the view like from upon the Throne of Christ? :teeth: How is everything upon the Mount?

Dr. Don Dean

It is much easier to engage in silly attempt to justify horndogedness than to engage the NT text.

Swordman

August 5th 2003, 08:05 AM

Greetings.

For those of you who like to argue that "God's Law did not CONDONE a man having more than one wife," is really not an argument at all. :whack: I point at your own lives as the evidence for this. Most of you, if not all, own and drive one or more vehicles on public roads. Well, our laws do not CONDONE you owning one or more vehicles, and then driving them on public roads, but you do it anyway, regardless of the fact that you could lose control of it and take another person's life. You obviously consider the risk to be worth the convenience. Our laws uphold governing provision for you to own and operate a vehicle upon public roads, and you do it.

The same thing applies to God's Law, which also made governing provision for a man to have more than one wife when it said, "If a man have two wives....." (I am not comparing vehicles to wives, for those of you who like to utilize every form of leverage you can dig up.) This is simply an observation of how you relate to our own laws. You live out one standard of obedience to our civil laws, then you apply an entirely different set of standards to God's Law in relation to others. That is hypocrisy.

If we are COMMANDED to obey the laws of our nation, then you are not violating any law to own and drive a vehicle, even though it does not CONDONE your having them, so long as you stay within the governing guidlines of our laws concerning vehicles. The same thing can be said of God's Law. They were COMMANDED to obey God's Law, but it was not a violation of God's Law for them to have more than one wife so long as they stayed within the governing guidlines of that Law concerning their wives.

You can argue till you are blue in the face about how it was not God's ideal for a man to have more than one wife, but then you would be arguing from a foundation of flawed reasoning since His Law did make governing provision for such a family structure. God never said anything about which number of wives was His ideal, He simply said that it is not good that man is alone.

What is astounding is how professing believers will so easily apply two different standards of observance of the two systems of law. God's Law is very much like our laws today in that they both govern the daily lives and conduct of the people in general who are under them. However, God's Law is ABOVE our Laws in that it also established moral absolutes that transcend both time and national boundaries, even to this very day and this nation.

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean

dizzle

August 5th 2003, 08:10 AM

Asked and answered in the original thread. So sad that you are attempting to promote and justify heterosexual immorality but speak out so strongly against homosexuality immorality.

Swordman

August 5th 2003, 08:26 AM

Today @ 06:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167367#post167367)
Dee Dee Warren:

Ahh the smell of irony from someone trying to justify the satisfaction of inordinate lust and disregard for the emotional and spiritual needs of women.

Hello, Dee Dee. It is good to see you up and around this early morning.

This illusion of yours is functional only when the reason for a man taking more than one wife is based upon lust. Are you saying that Abraham having several wives was a demonstration of lust in his heart? You will find yourself in a very difficult position to back this, my friend.

Yet God called Abraham righteous. So you have shot yourself in the foot. You killed your own point.

Again, this stands or falls only on the condition that his need for a Savior additionally stemed from his having more than one wife. Again, are you saying that Abraham was motivated by lust to have more than one wife? Yes or no?

Any see the nonsense here? He admits they were not sinless, which means HE ACCUSES THEM OF SIN.

No, YOU accused them of the "sin" of having more than one wife. We are dealing with a plurality of wives here, not that they had ever sinned.

But of course I explained in that other thread the differences between varying situations and God's ideals and how He may tolerate certain behaviour for certian purposes and in specific times. It is called forbearance which Swordman wants to use as a justification for disgusting lust.

The strength of your arguments rest solely upon the condition of lust being the motivation for a man having more than one wife. All I am saying is that there is no evidence that Abraham was motivated by lust for having several wives. You simply refuse to take responsibility for your accusations by admitting that you are accusing Abraham of lust? Sin in all our lives is not at issue here. What is at issue, in the midst of all your straw man arguments, is whether having a plurality of wives automatically indicates lust.

I am judging your advocation of polygamy for the believer today. I leave the Patriachs in the hand of God.

Ah, so God's moral absolutes are not at all absolute after all? Is that what you are saying?

I completely proved from the NT that polygamy is a disgusting perversion for a Christian to advocate.

You proved only that you can twist the context and add to it whatever you desire. Lust is a sin today just as it was back then. Laying with a prostitute is a sin today just as it was back then. Nothing has changed with the coming of Christ where God's moral absolutes are concerned.

The New Covenant is a return to God's ideal for us, and the NT clearly teaches that God in His forbearance had passed over sins previously committed.

This is nothing but a smoke screen. God NEVER overlooked sin in ANYONE'S life. You are only fooling yourself with this nonsense. Come on, Dee Dee. I thought you knew better than this.

It is much easier to engage in silly attempt to justify horndogedness than to engage the NT text.

The word of God is one continuous stream of revelation that does not contradict itself. The seperation betweem the Old and New Testaments is man-made. Sin is sin. It does not change just because men decided to create a gap between the two "testaments."

Thanks, Dee Dee.

Dr. Don Dean

dizzle

August 5th 2003, 08:32 AM

All asked and answered in the other thread.

Romans 3:25 -
whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed

So much for your denial that God passed over sins. And was multiple wives signs of lust in the OT. Sure amongst other things. If you are going to deny that David had lust issues, then I have a bridge to sell you.

But all of your other ramblings were thoroughly defeated in that other thread.

Swordman

August 5th 2003, 11:58 AM

Today @ 07:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167401#post167401)
Dee Dee Warren:

Romans 3:25 -
whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed

So much for your denial that God passed over sins.

I agree with you, Dee Dee, to the extent that God did indeed overlook past sins until the fulfillment of the atonement for all those sins. Christ is the One who paid the ultimate price for all their sin. Yes, God overlooked all their sin until the coming of Christ. Just as they had to offer up sacrifice that pointed to the fulfillment of the cleansing of their sin in Christ Jesus, we also must "confess" our sin in order for the blood of Christ to cleanse us. The sin of the ancients were symbolically laid upon those animals as a "sin covering," which speaks of God overlooking their sin until the ultimate fulfillment. If those animals were the complete cleansing of all their sin, then there would have been no need for Christ to come and die.

Now, by what authority, outside of yourself, are you relying upon do lump polygyny into the classification of sin?

And was multiple wives signs of lust in the OT. Sure amongst other things. If you are going to deny that David had lust issues, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Was Abraham's having multiple wives a sign of lust in his heart? You are STILL avoiding this. David is too easy to pick on. What about Abraham? Are you saying that Abraham was a man of lust for having multiple wives? Please stop dancing around this and just answer the question.

But all of your other ramblings were thoroughly defeated in that other thread.

You can call it ramblings and declare a false victory all you want, but the bottom line is that you are having to defend ideas to back your stance that you clearly are finding to be very uncomfortable.

Are you stating that Abraham was a man of lust, therefore living and having died in the sin of lust, for having a plurality of wives, or are you not? Please just answer the question without all the fanfare of having won a nonexistent victory.

Thanks

Dr. Don Dean

dizzle

August 5th 2003, 08:28 PM

Today @ 11:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167598#post167598)
Swordman:

I agree with you, Dee Dee, to the extent that God did indeed overlook past sins until the fulfillment of the atonement for all those sins. Christ is the One who paid the ultimate price for all their sin.

Then that contradicts what you said before which I suspect was said in haste.

Now, by what authority, outside of yourself, are you relying upon do lump polygyny into the classification of sin?

The fuller revelation of the NT which you have to twist to fit your justifications of sexual immorality.

Was Abraham's having multiple wives a sign of lust in his heart? You are STILL avoiding this. David is too easy to pick on.

Oh, I proved your wrong, and now you are complaining that I picked too easy of a target? :rofl: All I needed to provide was one representative sample. The fact is that we do not know what Abe's issues were. But as Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun, and it is no secret that men struggle with lust, remarkably so. So it is highly likely. David certainly did and was called a man after God's own heart. Undercuts your example totally.

First sign of gross error. When an abherrant doctrine has to rely on the OT for its sole support.

You can call it ramblings and declare a false victory all you want, but the bottom line is that you are having to defend ideas to back your stance that you clearly are finding to be very uncomfortable.

That statement was incoherent. I invite readers back to the original thread. If you were suggesting I find polygamy uncomfortable, let me say how I really feel. I am repulsed that a Christian man is promoting sexual immorality, and I am repulsed by sexual immorality, unlike yourself who is selective, and seems to focus more on homosexuality.

Are you stating that Abraham was a man of lust, therefore living and having died in the sin of lust, for having a plurality of wives, or are you not? Please just answer the question without all the fanfare of having won a nonexistent victory.

We do not know Abe's issues, and we do not know if he repented or not. We do know God judges us by the light that we have....

And I am sorry you are so embarassed by the NT teaching on it.

Socrates

August 5th 2003, 09:03 PM

Today @ 11:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=168321#post168321)
Dee Dee Warren, replying to:

Swordman: Was Abraham's having multiple wives a sign of lust in his heart? You are STILL avoiding this.

The fact is that we do not know what Abe's issues were.

I think we do. Abraham married Hagar at Sarah's request, and the customs of the day allowed a handmaid to have children on behalf of the mistress. Abraham's other wife Keturah wasn't even an example of polygamy because she came on the scene after Sarah died.

That statement was incoherent. I invite readers back to the original thread. If you were suggesting I find polygamy uncomfortable, let me say how I really feel. I am repulsed that a Christian man is promoting sexual immorality, and I am repulsed by sexual immorality, unlike yourself who is selective, and seems to focus more on homosexuality.

Yeah, in this Church age, someone wants to move away from Jesus's affirmation that the created order is TWO becoming one flesh.

Red Rooster

August 5th 2003, 09:52 PM

To Dee Dee, Swordman, et. al.,

I think we can make some reasonable assumptions about Abraham. Yes Dr. Dean, Abraham struggled with lust. I have never known a man that did not to some degree or another(except Christ). If you are honest with yourself you will admit to the same. Did he therefore die in unrepentant sin? Of course not. His faith was accounted as righteousness. He was saved by faith in the future sacrifice of what the animal sacrifices represented. The sin of having more than one wife was forgiven, just as your persistent sins, some of which you will die in, are forgiven as a result of your faith in the same Christ. It was Sarah's faithless idea for Abraham to have intercourse with Hagar, not God's idea, not Abraham's idea. It is very naive of you Dr. Dean to think Abraham's response was devoid of any hint of lust. How would you respond if your wife (assuming you're married, and if you are I hope she's not aware of your support of polygamy) suggested you bed another woman. Don't you think you might entertain the notion of what it might be like to lay with her, especiallysince you would be free from the fear your wife would learn of your indescretion? Really sir, human nature has not changed. I think someone quoted Ecclesiastes above. The lust that dwells in men's hearts has always been there - even in Abraham's heart.

You will have to do better than Abraham to justify polygamy. Ask your wife what she thinks. She may have some wisdom for you.

His Peace,

Red Rooster

Thomas2003

August 5th 2003, 11:10 PM

I see. Everyone else has to be fornicators, huh?

I believe God's word is the center of society, there is nothing prohibiting anyone from becoming a Christian.

At least they allow and encourage others to marry rather than be fornicators.

I'm not encouraging people to be fornicators - God's law governs sexual relations. I just said that His law has never engaged in prior restraint.

For a number of reasons. Perhaps of most relevance here is to help you see any cases of poor reasoning on your part concerning this issue.

And what are those reasons?

Marriage could be viewed as a contract.

It is viewed as a contract. The problem we have today is the civil law claims priority over the ecclesesiatical and condemns it. Most marriages are nothing more than tradition.

How does what you say indicate that I was wrong? Are you saying that your religion does not have the right to claim that their marriages are specially accepted by God?

I don't remember exactly what you said now, but the answer to your latter question is no. The civil law has usurped the religious covenant in its origination, administration and termination.

For example, most Churches are licensed by the state and in fact state institutions in the United States. It's very difficult to find a "church" that isn't public institution whose primary duty is to carry out public policy and a publican (tax collector).

So, lets take someone like me. I have particular religious beliefs - but because I don't believe the state has authority to license my marriage I cannot go into any church and get married, or by a licensed minister. It would be a crime for him to marry me and me not be licensed by the state. So, I have to find an unlicensed minister and an unlicensed Church and enter into our Marriage Covenant, which is limited to 2 states out of 50.

I'm a just a simple Christian who wanted to marry a woman according to the precepts of the Christian Faith. That's very difficult to do. I had the same problem getting my children baptized, if you refuse the state license, you can't get it done.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Why aren't religious punishments (of things like lack of privileges within the Church) and the punishments of God sufficient for you? Why do you also want governmental punishments invoked?

Ask the state, I don't know why they feel its necessary to criminally prosecute ministers who may marry people based upon their personal religious convictions. Ask the state why they demand baptisms be licensed.

I believe it is because they are totalitarians and are hostile and intolerant to any religious beliefs and practices that threaten the established religion.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
What about your views on the end of the world? When do you think that will happen?

No idea, don't really care. I have a theory, but its no better than anyone elses magic eight ball theory. If I accept Usshers chronology, which is probably as good as any, and take God's Covenantal promise to a 1000 generations literally - human history is approximately determined to be 40,000 years, using the generation of 40 years as a standard. Thus, the Church is in it's infancy and we have about 30,000 years of History to live yet.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Even atheists marry, Thomas, so it's not strictly a religious institution. That would be like calling "eating" a religious institution because it's ceremoniously done in the Sacrament.

Atheists go into a Church and make a marriage Covenant before God according to the terms of His Covenant? LOL

Perhaps you don't think atheists really are married. Is that it? Perhaps no one is really married on Earth except Presbyterians and certain other Christian groups.

Well, not if they didn't enter into a marriage no - the very concept of being an Atheist would proscribe the conclusion. How can an Atheist make an oath to God? The sincerity of the oath must be denied on the veracity of the facts. It is prima facie absurd.

I haven't made a final determination on whether or not I believe licensed marriages are valid or not. I do believe it is polygamous and essentially adulterous - but spiritually so.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
There are reasons a judge might disallow one to be fulfilled

People have an unlimited right to contract - judge has absolutely nothing to say about it. The problem here is the homosexual doesn't want anything to do with a personal covenant that doesn't involve his religious presupposition of the state as mediator.

At that point I'm going to hold to the separation of Church and State, he can hold to the state as his religious institution if he wishes, but it cannot act as priest.

The Westminster Confession absolutely denies the civil magistrate authority to exercise the keys of the kingdom.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
Separation of church and state would make this unlikely to be fulfilled even if it were what homosexuals were demanding, which they aren't. Homosexuals want the social acceptance that other sexually devoted members of society have. Those who are religious also seek the acceptance of the others in their religion.

Didn't stop it for miscegenation - quite the contrary, the state claimed the high moral ground and condemned everyone that didn't hold to their views. It even use forced and soldiers in the South.

Homosexuals want their crimes to be normalized - in order to obtain social acceptance they must destroy society.

JOHN SUPPORTER:
You probably think Mormons aren't Christians because their beliefs about Jesus differ considerably from your own. To be consistent you should also think they aren't theists because their beliefs about God differ considerably from your own.

In your opinion, are Mormons theists, Thomas?

I would agree with that, your religion hasn't changed, just your practice. I beleive Mormonism is a satanic religion, it's lord is Baal - it's practices seem to be very similar to the Masonic order. I do think it is synthesis - Ancient Baal worship in new testament terminology. I don't think I would say they are not theists, I don't believe Atheists are not theists, they are just not worshipping God, meaning the Holy Trinity.

Cordialy,

Thomas

Swordman

August 7th 2003, 08:35 AM

08-05-2003 @ 07:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=168321#post168321)
Dee Dee Warren:

Then that contradicts what you said before which I suspect was said in haste.

Not at all. I never said Abraham lived in sinless perfection. You assumed that into my thinking. What I quoted to you came directly from God in reference to Abraham. If Abraham had at all been in violation of God's commandments, statutes or Laws concerning his having several wives right to the time of his death, then it does seem unlikely the Lord would have declared such a thing about him for living in such a gross sin as the "lust" of which you accuse him.

The fuller revelation of the NT which you have to twist to fit your justifications of sexual immorality.

Is that right? Hmm. What was that revelation? Was it about that One who would come to save the world from sin, or was it a completion of God's moral absolutes? Please qualify your statement as to what you think the revelation actually was. Sifferent people have different ideas. I know what the word says, but people's thinking is not always in line with what is written.

Oh, I proved your wrong, and now you are complaining that I picked too easy of a target? All I needed to provide was one representative sample.

Well, anyone can look at a BB in a rail road box car and declare that the bax car is full, but then is their declaration actually true, or is it only true based upon their perspective? You said that David had lust in his heart. There was no great revelation in that. Anyone with a fifth grade education could have observed that. What you are doing is avoiding the fact that you issued a blanket declaration that ALL men who had multiple wives were guilty of lust. I am challenging that statement in reference to Abraham. The Lord did not say that David fulfilled His statutes, commandments and Laws, but He did say that about Abraham. Your pointing at David was simplistic and evasive.

The fact is that we do not know what Abe's issues were.

We know enough about his "issues" that labeling him as a man of lust is a clear demonstration of the fact that you have an agenda.....whatever it is. You stuck your foot in your mouth, and now you are trying to wiggle out of it.

But as Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun, and it is no secret that men struggle with lust, remarkably so. So it is highly likely. David certainly did and was called a man after God's own heart. Undercuts your example totally.

Ah, but the REAL issue at stake here is your ego. You accused Abraham of lust for his having several wives, now you are trying to qualify your statement with cop-outs and more blanket assertions without any real substance. Mankind is plagued with many sins. What you are saying is no different than to say, "Everyone who owns a Cadillac has a problem with materialism." That is a false statement. It is equally inaccurate to say that all the men who had more than one wife had a problem with lust. This assumes that none of the men with plural wives had achieved contentment in their lives. You have no idea as to just how content and fulfilled Abraham's wives may have been. If Abraham was guilty of lust for having more than one wife, then one would expect that his wives were less than content since their being in his home was based upon something LESS than any real love for them. You simply have gone too far this time, Dee Dee, and now you are trying to wiggle out of it by going so far as to try and defend the idea that morality changed with the coming of Christ. You cannot show me ONE example where the Lord EVER overlooked adultery (which CAN be said to be based upon LUST), idolotry, theft, murder, etc. Your position is simply indefensible.

First sign of gross error. When an abherrant doctrine has to rely on the OT for its sole support.

Well, you will have a very difficult time defending the dogma that the Bible is seperated into two distinct systems of morality. I am not talking about social laws and ordinances, but only about morality. Lust has ALWAYS been immoral, and therefore a sin that does in fact condemn the soul that dies within its clutches.

The more you talk, the more it sounds like you believe in a god of your own making. The God of the Bible is not so fickle as to change His stance on moral absolutes simply because mankind split up His written word into what is now known as the "Old" and "New Testament." Again, the strength of your argument rests solely upon the weakness of mankind's own creation of a seperation that actually is not valid. Our Bibles have several blank pages between the two "Testaments." So? History is one continuous line all the way through the word of God. The coming of Christ changed NOTHING in the foundation of God's moral absolutes.

That statement was incoherent. I invite readers back to the original thread. If you were suggesting I find polygamy uncomfortable, let me say how I really feel. I am repulsed that a Christian man is promoting sexual immorality, and I am repulsed by sexual immorality, unlike yourself who is selective, and seems to focus more on homosexuality.

Oh, Dee Dee. If only you could see just how pathetic this is. Is ad hominem the best you can do? You have assume that sexual immorality was "allowed," or "overlooked" in the "Old Testament." I can show you where you are wrong. God NEVER overlooked sexual immorality ANYWHERE in His written word. If you can show me where He did, then you will have something of more substance. YOU have judged a plurality of wives to be a form of sexual immorality, but your defense of that idea in that other thread was based upon nothing but contextual error and warped interpretations. You show me any instance of Lord overlooking sexual immorality, and then we will talk.

We do not know Abe's issues, and we do not know if he repented or not. We do know God judges us by the light that we have....

That is more of a cliche' than anything else. "Abe's issues." Maybe you need to talk to your "pastor" about this so that he can set you straight.....if he has the courage to stand up for what the word of God REALLY says about sin in both "Testaments."

Come on, Dee Dee, just show me where God EVER overlooked the sin of sexual immorality. He did not overlook it in David's life. The Lord was not about to allow another man to take Sarah, Abraham's wife, as his own, which would have been sexual immoraltiy. God TALKED to that Pharoah, just like He did to the prophets, in a dream. God clearly judged ALL sexual immorality in His Law. Those who engaged in it were generally STONED TO DEATH. The Lord was serious about sexual immorality.

Then we observe you accusing God of overlooking it when the earth is stained with the blood of those who were executed because of it. It would be interesting to see you telling those who had been executed for sexual immorality how the Lord actually overlooked what they had done. I doubt they would have taken any comfort in that idea when that one deadly stone was in the process of smashing their skull into their brain.

And I am sorry you are so embarassed by the NT teaching on it.

Self-flattery is an ugly thing indeed, Dee Dee, and so is ad hominem.

Dr. Don Dean

dizzle

August 10th 2003, 12:33 AM

All of those issues were dealt with in full in the other thread. If you wish to revive it go back there. I sure hope that you are consistent and accusing those who condemn homosexuality of gross immorality as engagin in ad homs.. (which of course you did as well and even suggested that I am not a Christian - which I do not care that you did - I am just pointing out your inconistencies, and I despise the "victim" card) - oh but you will say it is not an ad hom cause homosexuality is a gross immorality. But the homosexual doesn't think so... so you are arguing in a not so artful circle here. From my point of view, I would be shameful if I didn't loudly and roundly condemn you advocation of the perversion of God's order.

You never dealt with the breadth of the NT verses, you engaged in a anemic exercise of explaining away and much hand-waving.

Swordman

August 10th 2003, 08:16 AM

Yesterday @ 11:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=176861#post176861)
Dee Dee Warren:

All of those issues were dealt with in full in the other thread. If you wish to revive it go back there. I sure hope that you are consistent and accusing those who condemn homosexuality of gross immorality as engagin in ad homs.. (which of course you did as well and even suggested that I am not a Christian - which I do not care that you did - I am just pointing out your inconistencies, and I despise the "victim" card) - oh but you will say it is not an ad hom cause homosexuality is a gross immorality. But the homosexual doesn't think so... so you are arguing in a not so artful circle here. From my point of view, I would be shameful if I didn't loudly and roundly condemn you advocation of the perversion of God's order.

You never dealt with the breadth of the NT verses, you engaged in a anemic exercise of explaining away and much hand-waving.

Actually, Dee Dee, all you had to do was say "yes" or "no" that you thought Abraham was guilty of "lust" for his having several wives without our having to rehash all the non-issues in that other thread. Your consistent dodging of giving a simple "yes" or "no" is indicative of the weakness in all your other arguments in that other thread. The "hand waving" was in essence a dismissal of many of your attempts at forcing God's word to contradict itself by way of your adding to the context, removing from the context, twisting the context, or completely ignoring the context altogether. If you want to discuss homosexuality, then we can do that in another thread, but for the record, active homosexuality is indeed a sin. That perversion is clearly declared to be sin in God's word, but you had to concoct a contextual warp in order to force polygyny into the context of Jesus words concerning adultery resuting from an unbiblical divorce.

As for my other statements, I indicated that your "words" appeared to indicate a god of your own making rather than the God portrayed within the Bible. That is not an accusation of your not being a Christian. It simply means that you appear to have a warped understanding of who He is. The God of the Bible did not make any changes to the foundation of His moral absolutes. I invited you to show me where He did, but you either ignored that or were unable to do so. To assume that He made changes to His moral absolutes is to believe in a god OTHER than the One portrayed within the pages of the Bible. No hand-waving here. Just cold hard facts that stand in the way of your attempts at creating inconsistencies in the word of God that simply do not exist. That simply points at the ramifications of your words, not that you are indeed an unbeliever or are pro-homosexual.

Dr. Don Dean

dizzle

August 10th 2003, 09:11 AM

Not an answer. Nor was your post in the other thread an answer operating under that mistaken assumption that I was particularly enamored of John Gill. Nice dodges though, not surprising since the NT is pretty clear on this. You have not dealt with that whatsoever. I did extensive exegesis on Paul's words in several epistles and Jesus' words. When you are resorting to insinuationg that I have a different God out of the blue (and again I don't care), I know you have lost the exegetical case.

For this exegitcal case to the readers of this thread who may think we are just engaging in a spitting match here, I refer you once again to the prior thread I referenced earlier here.

Swordman

August 10th 2003, 05:30 PM

08-05-2003 @ 08:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=168400#post168400)
Red Rooster:

I think we can make some reasonable assumptions about Abraham. Yes Dr. Dean, Abraham struggled with lust. I have never known a man that did not to some degree or another(except Christ). If you are honest with yourself you will admit to the same.

That is a general answer that I do not disagree with, however, it does not answer the specific question itself. The question had to do with the reason Abraham had several wives. Dee Dee declared that EVERY man was guilty of lust who had more than one wife. That is not much different than accusing everyone who eats a whole hamburger of gluttony.

Did he therefore die in unrepentant sin? Of course not. His faith was accounted as righteousness. He was saved by faith in the future sacrifice of what the animal sacrifices represented.

If Abraham lived in the sin of "lust" his entire life without ever giving it up and repenting, can it be said that he had any real faith? We are not talking about a lesser sin here, but rather a major sin that God declared to be a sin that keeps one from inheriting the kingdom of God. Matt. 5:28, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Also James 1:15, "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." This obviously is not speaking of physical death, but rather spiritual death.

Now, Abraham had several wives up to the time of his death. Who is going to say that his having several wives signified a life-long example of lust? Lust in general was never the issue, Red. What was at issue was Dee Dee's condemnation of Abraham as being a man of lust for having several wives. THAT is what I take great exception to.

The sin of having more than one wife was forgiven, just as your persistent sins, some of which you will die in, are forgiven as a result of your faith in the same Christ.

Well, here we go again.....more groundless assumption of sin in relation to a plurality of wives.....

It was Sarah's faithless idea for Abraham to have intercourse with Hagar, not God's idea, not Abraham's idea.

I agree. However, that did not make Hagar any less Abraham's wife. That also did not make the other women after Sarah any less his wives.

It is very naive of you Dr. Dean to think Abraham's response was devoid of any hint of lust. How would you respond if your wife (assuming you're married, and if you are I hope she's not aware of your support of polygamy) suggested you bed another woman.

I would never "bed" a woman. I do not "bed" my wife. Any man who "beds" his wife has a problem. There is much more to a marriage than merely "bedding" a woman. Abraham and Sarah both knew full well the implications of taking Hagar as his wife, therefore becoming one flesh with Hagar.

Hypothetically speaking, if my wife wanted me to take in another wife, then we would talk about it. I would never follow her suggestion blindly. Abraham was responsible for his choices back then just as we are responsible for ours today.

Don't you think you might entertain the notion of what it might be like to lay with her, especiallysince you would be free from the fear your wife would learn of your indescretion?

The possibility is there that such thoughts would cross my mind, but temptation is not sin. It is when temaptation is allowed to take root that sin is empowered to enter in.

We could discuss hypothetical sitations for many years to come and never really deal with the reality of what happened in Abraham's real life situation. Dee Dee aparently thought herself to be enough of a deity to judge that Abraham had several wives because of lust in his heart. I have a problem with that.

Really sir, human nature has not changed.

That is exactly what I said in this very thread.

I think someone quoted Ecclesiastes above. The lust that dwells in men's hearts has always been there - even in Abraham's heart.

But that does not mean that everything we do is motivated by lust. Are you going to tell me that your every desire in this life is motivated by lust? Is that your theology?

You will have to do better than Abraham to justify polygamy. Ask your wife what she thinks. She may have some wisdom for you.

You mean repeat in my marriage what Sarah did with Abraham? Why would I do that? Yes, my wife thinks that she gets to pick my second wife, but that only assumes that I would even want one. I have that freedom, but I do not have a desire for it. At the same time, I would not acquiesce to the idea on the basis of lust. I could love a second wife apart from lust, but I simply do not WANT a second wife. My wife enjoys the fellowship with my friend's wives, and he has three. She has learned much from them about the benefits of an extended family, but she also understands that I am not only content with her, but that I do not wish to add a wife to my family. There are many considerations that have to be thought out in this day and age. I simply have enough going on in my life right now that a second wife simply is not in my thinking.

Besides, Abraham was not my only basis from which I worked with the morality of polygyny. Abraham is but only one aspect of the overall picture.

Dr. Don Dean