Texan Bigotry

[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.

[Berzerker]

what does that have to do with Paul talking about Ishmael's descendants?

[Berzerker]

I'm sorry Ben, you're clearly upset by our discussion so I wont bother you any more

[SlowwHand]

I think it's kind of interesting that if you can "take it like water off a duck's back" the analogies that people throw at Texas that really have not a thing to do with Texas.
It becomes flattering in a perverse way.

[kentonio]

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.

Given that purgatory didn't get added as a formal church doctrine for over 1000 years (IIRC), I'm going to have to go with the Orthodox guys on this one.

[kentonio]

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.

Fire?

[kentonio]

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

Yet very few little children claim to be an expert on Christianity. Maybe you should follow their wise lead.

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

Lots of things about Christianity offend me, but oh so many more things about you personally.

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

I'm sure with a little work we could find multiple people who believe that eating their own feces is a good idea, but finding two idiots sharing an idea doesn't actually prove anything.

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

On second thoughts the idea of spending my life not experiencing the rich wonders of existence just because some fictional character supposedly wrote a do's and don'ts list for me 2000 years ago just isn't that appealing. Ditto the idea of feeling guilt for the fictional death of an incarnation of an immortal figure (Which I must admit I've never been able to wrap my head around).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Given that purgatory didn't get added as a formal church doctrine for over 1000 years (IIRC), I'm going to have to go with the Orthodox guys on this one.

I'm Protestant. Lutheran to be specific. Though a lot of my views on the age to come arises from an Anglican (N.T. Wright). Rob Bell (an evangelical Protestant) is also good with this.

[Dauphin]

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

You saying that Jesus was a paedophile priest. You are one sick puppy.

[Ben Kenobi]

what does that have to do with Paul talking about Ishmael's descendants?

Not a thing in the world. That's my point.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sorry Ben, you're clearly upset by our discussion so I wont bother you any more

I am. I work in this field and it's disheartening to see someone making your arguments. I'm not so much angry as disappointed. I work with kids who just quote wikipedia on everything and I have to teach them about the reliability of sources and why wikipedia cannot be used for papers.