Texan Bigotry

[kentonio]

Are you a Christian? I don't see how one who isn't a Christian is qualified to assess this. Walk the walk.

What a ridiculous supposition.

[Ben Kenobi]

What a ridiculous supposition.

The preposition that someone who isn't a Christian would have a better understanding than a Christian of his own faith is no different than the art critic's opinion on the artists. It's easy to criticize, hard to do. Try it. Find out.

[Berzerker]

You said, "his wife is already married". Which wife? This is ambiguous.

You're not quoting me, you're quoting yourself and accusing me of backtracking from what you said. She's a widow, that means she's unmarried - Deut 25 commands the brother of her deceased husband marry her. It doesn't say the brother-in-law must be a bachelor, you added that to the Bible.

The nonexistant one he is already married to, or the widow? Again, I see no evidence that the brother who marries his brother's widow is already married.

The command is for the brother-in-law to marry the widow, it doesn't give him a loophole out of the command if he's already married. That means polygamy is commanded if the brother is already married.

Why if both are married would they be doing so?

Extended families often live together, but Deut 25 suggests they're living in the same town. If the brother-in-law refuses, the widow is to inform the town elders.

[Ben Kenobi]

it doesn't give him a loophole out of the command if he's already married.

Ahh. Jesus didn't say fapping to dickgirl porn was sinful. Ergo, it must be condoned.

Extended families often live together, but Deut 25 suggests they're living in the same town. If the brother-in-law refuses, the widow is to inform the town elders.

Says, living together. Does not say, 'brother is already married'. Does not say, 'marry the already married brother'. I'm out of my depth here - is there anyone familiar with Rabbinic literature? I'm seeing exactly zero support and, "brother already married" is considered sufficent cause to relinquish the obligation of the brother to his brother's wife. The object is preservation of the patrimony. The brother already married has preserved the patrimony.

[Berzerker]

I'm out of my depth here

then read Deut 25, it makes no exception for brothers that are married. You added the requirement of bachelorhood. God commanded polygamy... And God gave David many wives, so its illogical to say polygamy is a sin.

The brother already married has preserved the patrimony

Not if he wont marry the widow of his brother, its the name of the deceased being preserved.

[Ben Kenobi]

then read Deut 25, it makes no exception for brothers that are married.

This is an argument from silence. You're essentially saying that because Jesus didn't explicitly say X, that it must be condoned. This is a bad argument.

You added the requirement of bachelorhood.

This is a Talmudic scholar question. This happens in the world of today - and I don't see any examples where this was enforced by Orthodox Rabbis when the brother was already married to someone else. I'm trying Berz - I just don't see any evidence for your position.

God commanded polygamy

No. He did not. God tolerated polygamy just like he tolerates sin. He permits people to indulge in it but he does condemn it. There are many, many examples in the bible where God extolls a faithful wife and a faithful husband.

... And God gave David many wives, so its illogical to say polygamy is a sin.

Right. That's because David is held up as a model of faith in God and he never sinned.

Not if he wont marry the widow of his brother, its the name of the deceased being preserved.

The family name will pass just as easily through younger son as older son.

[SlowwHand]

"The army of Israel looked at Goliath and said, 'He's too big to beat'. David looked at Goliath through the eyes of God and said, 'He's too big to miss'."

Perspective is everything.

[Berzerker]

This is an argument from silence. You're essentially saying that because Jesus didn't explicitly say X, that it must be condoned. This is a bad argument.

You argued the brother had to be a bachelor, Deut 25 is silent about that.

This is a Talmudic scholar question.

Just read the text, it explains why polygamy is commanded - the brother must marry the widow of his deceased brother so that his name will carry on. These people were intensely hung up on purity and lineages, thats why the widow is supposed to marry a brother-in-law rather than a stranger, even if the stranger is a bachelor. Look at how people are to treat the brother who refuses this command - his family, his lineage will be ostracized. The sin is not polygamy, its refusing marriage by the bachelor and polygamy by the brother who is already married. Imagine that, the sin in Deut 25 is a monogamous marriage. Can you find an example where a polygamous marriage is the sin? Dont use Jesus, the sin he identified was divorce without cause.

No. He did not. God tolerated polygamy just like he tolerates sin. He permits people to indulge in it but he does condemn it. There are many, many examples in the bible where God extolls a faithful wife and a faithful husband.

edit Sorry, mis-read that... Deut 25 commands polygamy, thats just the reality - it makes no distinction between unwed or married brothers.

Right. That's because David is held up as a model of faith in God and he never sinned.

According to you he didn't sin when he married the wives God gave him, but you still accuse polygamists of sin.

The family name will pass just as easily through younger son as older son.

Not the name of the deceased brother

and btw, Ishmael's sons and the peoples and towns they founded are mentioned in the NT - in Galatians Paul speaks of the gentile seed from Abraham. Thats them...

[kentonio]

The preposition that someone who isn't a Christian would have a better understanding than a Christian of his own faith is no different than the art critic's opinion on the artists.

No-one cares about your faith or lack of it, it's your ridiculous pre-school reading of the bible that's bordering on offensive. I've actually heard some pretty good explanations for why god would allow polygamy in ancient times and this no longer be applicable.

You being you though, you just make up your own version of the bible to suit your own interpretation. Your hubris is simply mind-blowing.

It's easy to criticize, hard to do. Try it. Find out.

It'd almost be worth becoming a Christian if someone could guarantee me that there's an afterlife and that once there I could stand and watch you try and explain yourself to St Peter. The comedic potential would be near limitless.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think you have to explain yourself to St. Peter in the age to come . Though my view of that age isn't the good ole evangelical 'you go somewhere else' type of corruption of Scripture. Ben would likely have to face judgment from God before his sins were to be burned off in the cleansing fire before he (and all of us) could go live in the new heaven & new earth.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think you have to explain yourself to St. Peter in the age to come . Though my view of that age isn't the good ole evangelical 'you go somewhere else' type of corruption of Scripture. Ben would likely have to face judgment from God before his sins were to be burned off in the cleansing fire before he (and all of us) could go live in the new heaven & new earth.

If I'm wrong and you're right - you won't have to suffer in purgatory, and neither will I. If I'm right and you're wrong, we'll all have to suffer in purgatory - assuming we've been saved. I'm not sure of the latter. And in any case, I will have a long time in purgatory even if I am saved.

[Ben Kenobi]

No-one cares about your faith or lack of it, it's your ridiculous pre-school reading of the bible

Yet it is Christ himself who says, "suffer not the little children and let them come to me."

that's bordering on offensive.

You seem to believe that the proper Christianity never offends anyone.

I've actually heard some pretty good explanations for why god would allow polygamy in ancient times

Cool beans.

You being you though, you just make up your own version of the bible to suit your own interpretation.

Yawn. Do you sincerely believe that no one else shares my interpretation?

It'd almost be worth becoming a Christian if someone could guarantee me that there's an afterlife and that once there I could stand and watch you try and explain yourself to St Peter. The comedic potential would be near limitless.

Why don't you become one and then find out what my judgment will be in the world to come?

[Ben Kenobi]

You argued the brother had to be a bachelor, Deut 25 is silent about that.

You argued that the brother still had the obligation even if he were already married. Deut 25 is silent about that.

At best, your whole argument is based on silence. My argument that polygamy is condemned by God is backed up by what Jesus says in Matthew 19 arguing that the ideal of marriage was one man and one woman. My argument does not depend on Deut 25. Yours does.

Just read the text

The text is silent in saying that the brother has an obligation if he is already married.

it explains why polygamy is commanded - the brother must marry the widow of his deceased brother so that his name will carry on.

The only problem - there is nothing in there that specifies that the brother must marry even if already married. Which is crucial to your position.

These people were intensely hung up on purity and lineages, thats why the widow is supposed to marry a brother-in-law rather than a stranger

Yes, for the preservation of the patrimony. If the brother is already married, then there's no need for a second marriage in order to preserve the patrimony.

The sin is not polygamy, its refusing marriage by the bachelor and polygamy by the brother who is already married.

Where does the text say that this is applicable even if the brother is already married? It's not there. And I see zero evidence from Orthodox Talmudic scholars to back up your position.

Can you find an example where a polygamous marriage is the sin? Dont use Jesus

And that, in a nutshell is why this debate is finished. Thank you Berz!

[Berzerker]

You argued that the brother still had the obligation even if he were already married. Deut 25 is silent about that.

Its silent about your loophole, you said it applied only to bachelors - Deut 25 says nothing about bachelors. That means the command is to brothers regardless if they're married or not. If God had wanted to exempt married brothers Deut 25 would have said so. How do you explain that?

My argument that polygamy is condemned by God is backed up by what Jesus says in Matthew 19 arguing that the ideal of marriage was one man and one woman. My argument does not depend on Deut 25. Yours does.

I said the Bible commanded polygamy and you asked me to back it up, I did. Now you're complaining because I backed it up? All you have is your interpretation of Matthew that requires us to believe Jesus was calling his fathers sinners for having more than one wife.

The text is silent in saying that the brother has an obligation if he is already married.

Its silent about the requirement of bachelorhood - that was your argument. It isn't silent about who the command is for, the brother of the deceased. God doesn't care if he's married or not.

The only problem - there is nothing in there that specifies that the brother must marry even if already married. Which is crucial to your position.

God tells the brother to marry the widow but you say the brother can ignore the command if he's married - the text doesn't say that, its "silent" about the existing marital status of the brother. Why? Because it dont matter, God wants the brother to marry her, period. God commanded polygamy...

Yes, for the preservation of the patrimony. If the brother is already married, then there's no need for a second marriage in order to preserve the patrimony.

He isn't preserving his brother's name by refusing to marry the widow. Go read the text, it explains the reason for the command - a duty to the deceased brother.

And that, in a nutshell is why this debate is finished. Thank you Berz!

Do you want to explain why Paul speaks of Ishmael's descendants alive in his day? Thats pre-Islamic documentation of their existence straight from the Bible.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you want to explain why Paul speaks of Ishmael's descendants alive in his day? Thats pre-Islamic documentation of their existence straight from the Bible.

Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”i meaning one person, who is Christ.

Question asked, question Answered.