C
Christian_Unity
Guest
What’s better than the writings of Augustine is your Catholic Bible… just read the first book in the Bible and let’s discuss what you find.
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I have read it.
If you are talking of the early practice of polygamy, it is still not ‘man-man’ or ‘woman-woman’ and St. Augustine dealt with the notion very well. He wasn’t FOR it.
Nor was Jesus. Did Jesus speak of “men and women” coming together in the flesh?
Did He say, “And a man shall leave his father and his WIVES leave their homes and the THREE shall be of One Flesh?”
Didn’t HE speak of the 'hardness of the hearts" of the early Jews and that Moses had permitted it for a time, “BUT THAT IT WAS NOT MEANT TO BE SO.”
I think you sir need to read YOUR Bible.
L
Lochias
Guest
I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree. The “absolute best” does not entail picking and choosing what doctrines to follow to one’s satisfaction. Many people are Christians by self-identification only; actions speak much, much louder than words, and the actions of many “Christians” these days are sorely wanting.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Christian Unity>Re-read post 4. The fact that marriage might have been degraded at various times and places either by polygamy or by the scandal of divorce does not mean that marriage can be thus ‘morphed’ into meaning 'whatever you want it to mean.'
NOR does the old practice of polygamy mean that it was correct, or that its practice means same-sex marriage is ‘peachy keen too’.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
If they don’t “know” what you “know” then they are not just “choosing” to ignore it. It has just never a part of their faith or what they were taught.
J
JHow
Guest
Marriage between a man and a woman pre-dates the Church by a long shot. When you argue against it you are arguing against the earliest human institution (family), rooted as it is in biology. Your beef isn’t with Paul or Christ or Leviticus (or all the other cultures that see marriage this way) - it is a complaint against human nature.
C
Christian_Unity
Guest
Everybody keeps telling me that the Bible is a Catholic book; It is sacred written tradition. Just read the book of Genesis in a Catholic translation, and let’s see if you still believe that the Bible teaches that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. Saint Augustine would agree with my findings in Scripture too.
C
Christian_Unity
Guest
Incestuous polygamous marriages were the normal standard with God’s saints in the OT Scriptures. I agree with Augustine that polygamy is never condemned in the Scriptures (OT and NT).
C
Christian_Unity
Guest
Augustine:
That the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom God gave His testimony that “they pleased Him,” [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their wives, no one who is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to certain individuals amongst them to have a plurality of wives, where the reason was for the multiplication of their offspring, not the desire of varying gratification… . . In the advance, however, of the human race, it came to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of good wives, — many to each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many to have dominion over one (A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Volume 5, page 267).
But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge the conduct of holy men, any more than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness of food…If our critics, then, wish to attain not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound moral health, let them find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that the honorable name of saint is given not without reason to men who had several wives; and that the reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not to allow the appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate intention. . . .the holy patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives make the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the husbands, to whose character the divine word bears the highest testimony. . . . (Ibid., Volume 4; page 290).
The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it. Whoever despises these restraints, even though he uses his wives only to get children, still commits sin, and does an injury to human society itself, for the sake of which it is that the procreation of children is required. In the present altered state of customs and laws, men can have no pleasure in a plurality of wives, except from an excess of lust; and so the mistake arises of supposing that no one could ever have had many wives but from sensuality and the vehemence of sinful desires. Unable to form an idea of men whose force of mind is beyond their conception, they compare themselves with themselves, as the apostle says [2 Cor. x. 12], and so make mistakes. Conscious that, in their intercourse though with one wife only, they areoften influenced by mere animal passion instead of an intelligent motive, they think it an obvious inference that, if the limits of moderation are not observed where there is only one wife, the infirmity must be aggravated where there are more than one(Ibid., page 289).
But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. As regards nature, [Jacob] used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it (Ibid. page 289).
That the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom God gave His testimony that “they pleased Him,” [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their wives, no one who is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to certain individuals amongst them to have a plurality of wives, where the reason was for the multiplication of their offspring, not the desire of varying gratification… . . In the advance, however, of the human race, it came to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of good wives, — many to each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many to have dominion over one (A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Volume 5, page 267).
But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge the conduct of holy men, any more than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness of food…If our critics, then, wish to attain not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound moral health, let them find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that the honorable name of saint is given not without reason to men who had several wives; and that the reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not to allow the appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate intention. . . .the holy patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives make the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the husbands, to whose character the divine word bears the highest testimony. . . . (Ibid., Volume 4; page 290).
The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it. Whoever despises these restraints, even though he uses his wives only to get children, still commits sin, and does an injury to human society itself, for the sake of which it is that the procreation of children is required. In the present altered state of customs and laws, men can have no pleasure in a plurality of wives, except from an excess of lust; and so the mistake arises of supposing that no one could ever have had many wives but from sensuality and the vehemence of sinful desires. Unable to form an idea of men whose force of mind is beyond their conception, they compare themselves with themselves, as the apostle says [2 Cor. x. 12], and so make mistakes. Conscious that, in their intercourse though with one wife only, they areoften influenced by mere animal passion instead of an intelligent motive, they think it an obvious inference that, if the limits of moderation are not observed where there is only one wife, the infirmity must be aggravated where there are more than one(Ibid., page 289).
But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. As regards nature, [Jacob] used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it (Ibid. page 289).
S
SteveVH
Guest
Then why are you on a religious forum? I’m glad you are but I wouldn’t go to an atheist forum and then just ignore their arguments because they are based on atheistic material.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Genesis 2
18 Then the Lord God said,** “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19** Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Genesis is the story of creation, including God creating Adam and Eve…not Adam and Steve. The natural law is clear, if we all followed same sex marraige, the human race would cease to exist. I don’t see same sex Marraige mentioned anywhere as a creation by God, nor polygamy.
C
Christian_Unity
Guest
Incestuous polygamous marriages were the normal standard with God’s saints in the OT Scriptures. Do you think Adam and Eve’s children had incestuous relationships? How do we know if Adam didn’t have multiple wives since polygamy was the norm, and Adam lived to 800? Abraham married his half sister and had more than one wife. Isaac married family. Jacob married several relatives. God blessed David with multiple wives. God even instructed Israelite warriors on how to take women as booty from the conquered tribes as additional wives. Jesus even gave us a parable of the ten virgin brides and one bridegroom. I am not debating for or against same sex marriage. I’m just saying the argument of a traditional marriage between a man and woman does not hold up in the light of Scripture.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Hi. This line of argument about polygamy in the OT is also taken up by the Muslims when Christians discuss polygamy with them.
My reply to you is still the same: what the OT patriarchs did (polygamy) does not make the practice right bearing in mind that the patriarchs and kings in the OT were not always righteous. They failed, sinned and made wrong decisions in their life.
It should be noted that many times polygamous marriage resulted in disaster for the family as if curses came with such marriage. At the same time, a faithful spouse who was faithful to one marriage was blessed tremendously. We see many examples of that in the OT. One such person is Ruth, who eventually became the ancestor of our Lord Jesus. On the other hand, it only brought King David misery and tragedy when he decided to take another wife (wives).
God bless.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Yes indeed, and the good folks of the Missouri Synod are arguably as close to Catholic as possible without actually carrying rosaries. These Lutherans are certainly in agreement on same sex “marriage,” for which I commend them!
btw, I’ll be starting my third graduate degree soon at Concordia. I might take a little flack for not doing it at a Catholic school but there isn’t anything comparable at a Catholic school, at least not at one that’s more than nominally Catholic.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Read about Bathsheba, their child, Absalom, Tamar, Amnon, et al. David was a broken old man indeed when he saw the tragedies that happened to his children.
Later on we can read about Solomon and what happened to his kingdom just because of his wives.
C
Christian_Unity
Guest
I guess polygamy is another topic in which Catholics and Christians disagree over. I know Augustine and Luther both defended polygamy. It is strange to post that polygamy is still the norm around the world (Google it). Here is a link from Christians who believe in bible polygamy. I am not taken sides for either or against polygamy, nor am I taking a position for or against same sex marriage. I just think these discussions are very interesting.
Check out this link:
biblepolygamy.com/
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Its not ignoring an argument, it’s being smart about what sources I listen to. I don’t listen to obviously biased sources of any religious or political stripe. I’ve learned a lot on this site, both from the experiences of the members and from material that they post from reputable sources.
I even tried to google the archeological discovery that he was talking about and all I could find on it were articles from extremely biased sources.
P
Porknpie
Guest
I’m just saying the argument of a traditional marriage between a man and woman does not hold up in the light of Scripture.
Here’s the “normal standard of the New Testament”. This is the light of scripture, not the twisting of scripture.Incestuous polygamous marriages were the normal standard with God’s saints in the OT Scriptures.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[f] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 **They know God’s decree, that those who practise such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practise them. **(Romans 1).
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I hope you are not just trolling then.I am not taken sides for either or against polygamy, nor am I taking a position for or against same sex marriage. I just think these discussions are very interesting.
Check out this link:
biblepolygamy.com/
Stephen168
New member
It is correct and proves the definition of a Christian Marriage. You will not find same-sex marriage in the Bible anywhere.
- Status