You have no case whatsoever, and in the courtroom analogy, your case would probably be thrown out and dismissed rather quickly.
You actually failed to address the principle of why it is wrong as I have stated in a previous post. Applying the principle the issue is not about sin, the issue is about lack of love, which is not very impressive to God as can be seen when He blessed Leah instead of Rachel. If God is not impressed by something we can call that sin, since sin is not just a transgression of a Law.
A person can not always serve two masters, but two servants can serve the same master. And the servants can even serve two different masters just as long as the masters are not on the same level or not in conflict. For instance, a wife can serve her husband and serve God.
Yes, God was not impressed with a man NOT loving two women. Therefore, based on YOUR logic, we can say that it is a sin for a man NOT to love two women when he is married to those two women. That’s why God took steps to help the poly marriage rather than breaking it up. Secondly, God eventually got around to blessing Rachel according to Genesis 30:22-23.
What does “hard-hearted repopulation” mean? Surely you’re not saying that God was hard-hearted since he’s the one that wanted the Earth to be populated.
I appeal to both the moral law and logic because even in the NT you are not to sin. There’s a reason that the NT has some of the same exact rules as the OT, like on bestiality, same-sex acts, incest, murdering, etc.
The moral law in the OT still applies to the NT. That’s why the NT mentions to not sin, and sin is a transgression of the moral Law.
This is largely just argument for the sake of argument. Comparing apples to oranges is in some way logic.
No, it’s not and it seems you’re basically trying to make the issue about me rather than sticking to the issues. Do you have a rebuttal to my response?
You don’t answer issues with your misunderstanding directly.
Some things in the OT can be taken literally and others can not. Some of the literal things are binding forever and others are not. I don’t know if the 6 day creation story was meant to be taken literally by the biblical writers because if it were then that should be part of Christian beliefs, accordingly. I don’t make any claims on that issue. What I do know based on theology and the biblical data is that the MORAL law of the OT is binding even in the New Covenant era. The moral law allowed for polygamy, God’s actions which reflect moral goodness (since he is all-good) allowed for polygamy, so logically it must carry over into the New Covenant era just like all of the other moral rules. Again, the moral Law from the OT is still binding upon Christians today!You don’t answer issues with your misunderstanding directly.
issue 1:
You project OT happenings onto Christian morality like fundamentalists do.
so then, you need to answer why you are not also a 6 day creationist.
You haven’t. Your position is not consistent.
so,
I did post a rebuttal, it wasn’t complex, but it is true, but you are more focused on you (which I am not), and therefore you didn’t see it. I am not one to spell things out in black and white. I am instead only interested in providing hints that will, if one is reflective rather than reactive (and your post reeks of reactive), provide some deeper thought on the subject, and I would then witness that in correspondence, and even continue the discussion. Argument on the other hand will miss it entirely, and just see words to tackle rather than ideas to approach, because the express reason is nothing more than debate, not expansion.
You’re confusing debate with quarrel. In a debate, if you make a claim that I disagree with, then it’s only natural respond to it by explaining why I disagree. For example, you said God never blessed Rachel. I respond by pointing out a clear passage that proves otherwise.
And you still don’t get it.
The rules state the following:
I don’t get what you mean here.
No it’s not, at least in the rigid way you are applying it.
When I respond here, I actually take the time to address most or all points that are in response to my view. You don’t do the same for me but are seemingly trying to get me to stop responding. I see a bunch of threads on this forum about the gay lifestyle, gay marriage, divorce, etc, so why should polygamy be talked about any less?
Yes I do . Others also do. It’s repetitive.
This is a vague answer. Why would only some of the moral rules carry over to the NT but not others? What is evidence or logic do you have to support your claim?
People respond and it’s up to me (not YOU) to choose if or when to respond. So when people make a rebuttal to my points, does that mean they are trying to force their beliefs on me? If I have a clear rebuttal, which oftentimes I do on this issue because I’ve studied, taken notes from prior debates, etc, then most likely I will respond. I’m prepared, and I will use that to my advantage!!!