"The Christian Marriage" [Archive]

km34

01-12-2012, 07:23 PM

neegoola

01-13-2012, 01:39 PM

Am I just completely naive in thinking that the Bible as a whole teaches us to be loving and respectful of everyone regardless of gender, marital status, sexuality, or any other qualifier?
darling, according to me the Bible is the most splatter masterpiece i have ever read.
and what's more, the patriarchical system of the last 5000 years overcharged literature (and brainwashings) with cruelty and subjection (of course on women) through many official books and myths.

obligado.

OpenandCountry

01-13-2012, 03:13 PM

Just an opinion, but the bible itself has very little influence on the beliefs of many "Christians". They mostly just believe what is acceptable according to what their preacher/other people at church/their politician of choice says. In summary, religion, even the most peaceful, well-meaning religions, have been used by those in authority to brainwash people into following a paradigm they think would be useful to them. Giving the head of household power over the family was just a convenient interpretation.

That being said, the bible is a wonderful book, and, if people actually read it and interpretted it for themselves, Christianity would look a lot different. I'm glad that your church preaches love instead of hate. :)

What is the first rule? "Love God" (which, according to I Corinthians, God IS Love) what is the second rule? "Love thy neighbor".

km34

01-13-2012, 05:30 PM

Just an opinion, but the bible itself has very little influence on the beliefs of many "Christians".

I suppose this is the problem I have with organized religion and why I call myself a Christian now instead of a Baptist. lol I don't attend church anymore because I moved to a larger city for school, and all of the ones I've visited here DON'T preach love.

Neegoola - I understand that society was VERY different in Biblical times. I am not denying that there are terrible stories and situations in it and in general women were treated as property, but I don't feel like that is the moral of the story. Are you taking the Bible as a whole and calling it trash or are you looking at individual pieces and judging it by that?

km34

01-13-2012, 05:32 PM

What is the first rule? "Love God" (which, according to I Corinthians, God IS Love) what is the second rule? "Love thy neighbor".

*Like* by the way. :) Although i always struggle with the "Love thy neighbor" part... At least my direct neighbors always seem to be the irritating college boys or the extremely loud families with 20 people living there. Oh, well, at least it's a safe area!

vermin06

01-13-2012, 09:06 PM

Am I just completely naive in thinking that the Bible as a whole teaches us to be loving and respectful of everyone regardless of gender, marital status, sexuality, or any other qualifier?

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

"Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed." (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

"But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Yes, you are, but that's not a bad thing. Most people follow what's taught in church without reading the Bible objectively because they're taught to not question religion. It means eternal damnation to do so. If you believe you'll be separated from the kingdom of heaven, would you want to risk that? It's understandable.

Having read the old testament and skimmed parts of the new testament, I can see the foundations of the Bible are wrought with men of power killing women for not conforming to man-made roles, killing men who don't conform to their beliefs and roles, and God plays the biggest murderer throughout the Bible.

Luckily, modern Christianity is conformed to today's first world standards of morality more so than the laws of the Bible. Understand the Bible is very old. Not only that, but some parts of much older than others, and there are even texts of earlier Judism and Christianity that were left out of the canon as we know it. It doesn't teach love until Jesus comes around, and even then, it's conditioned on the worship of the God of the Bible.

"For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me." (Luke 19-26-27) I read the chapter surrounding this quote, and from what I understand, it was Jesus saying this to a rich man who offered to let Jesus stay with him on his way to Jerusalem.

Anyways, just because a culture teaches you that something is right, doesn't mean it is so. Same goes for religious/spiritual beliefs, politics, and relationship ideals to name a couple. If we follow the new testament's version of marriage, it's between a man and woman, and of definite gender roles in the house hold, and the male role automatically comes with more power and control over the family. In today's modern society, it makes little sense to continue this tradition as women are working as equal members of the community, working and earning more power among everyone else.

At least that's how I've some to understand things. The Bible as a whole seems to teach things like bigotry, hate crime, fear of differing religious/cultural views, fear of questioning, it's full of contradictions, it teaches genocide, racism, sexism, and the moral of the story is "Worship the God of the Bible or else". That's the point of the original scriptures, was to organize Christianity into something to be followed, and it was militant in nature in it's early to middle times.

Now to address the male dominating the house hold thing; I have read a marriage pamphlet that was very much Christian in it's ideals (it self proclaimed as such), and it was quite biased towards the woman serving the man while the man sustains ownership of the household, essentially. This doesn't mean abuse necessarily of course, but it does mean inequality based on sex. Not ever based on gender, but on one's genitalia. Man has run of the home, and the woman works to maintain it, and to make her husband happy (which is a job no one should be put up to). It's inherently flawed, in my opinion.

km34

01-13-2012, 09:49 PM

I don't think citing religious law shows that followers of a particular faith should not be loving - punishment for religious crimes (which is what is referred to in all of those verses) is not the purpose of the text or of the religion. Consequences for various actions are a part of every religion, but that doesn't mean that the only thing people should learn from it is to avoid those actions so that they don't get punished.

Here are a few POSITIVE things to think about when you think of the Bible and marriage (even with men holding the power):

Ephesians 5:25-28 (NIV)
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

-My take- Husbands are to love their wives and treat them with the same type love and respect that Christ has given the church (CHRIST, not God, so vindictive/angry/actions meant to punish from the Old Testament are not an argument against this). A man should treat his wife as well as he treats himself. Granted, this is a New Testament verse which means that by this time "Christians" (not Jews - although Christianity is merely a sect of Judaism - but that is a whole other thing) should be focused on the expanded teachings that include the behaviors as Christ as an example. Christ had great respect for women and pushed the boundaries of society by teaching them and treating them as equals to men in many cases.

I Corinthians 13:4-8 (NIV)
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

-My take- Love (which is what a man should have for his wife) is good and causes the person feeling it to treat the recipient with these good qualities.

Proverbs 31:28-31 (NIV)
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her: 29 “Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all.” 30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. 31 Honor her for all that her hands have done,and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

-My take-A good wife who fears the Lord (it's a religious text, you have to expect the religious caveat) should be honored and praised for her goodness. I made sure to include an Old Testament verse to show that even before Jesus there were instructions and encouragement to treat spouses with caring.

As for the marriage being between a man and a woman, I heard a podcast the other day that went through all of the verses people normally cite in anti-gay marriage campaigns and showed how they could be interpreted to SUPPORT gay marriage claims. I will ask my brother in law to get me the info on it so I can share who it was that was speaking.

I understand it is all about interpretation, but why is everyone always so quick to interpret things in a negative light?

junco

01-13-2012, 10:10 PM

Wow. maybe the toughest of all subjects.
The bible has something for everyone in it, it has been proclaimed. there are several instances of group marriage in the old testament. the new testament seems to stay away from polyamory, and one could speculate that its messages were for people who were not well-to-do financially. if they were well off there might very well have been more than two in a marriage.
Also, many of the people in the new testament may very well have been involved romantically with more than one partner in a live-in arrangement. the scriptures say nothing about that one way or another.
It seems that the topic and its moral questions are left up to us post moderns. i've never read any opinion to the contrary. what we are 'supposed' to do or not do regarding someone we love is left up to our own hearts.
Is it right? only my heart can say. is it virtuous? only my heart knows. no one else but the people i make love to could have a voice here. is my love any of the many things the bible extols?
Who else could possibly say but me and my lovers?
Is our love pure? oh yes. always. and most pure when it is most dirty. :)

vermin06

01-13-2012, 10:26 PM

I don't think citing religious law shows that followers of a particular faith should not be loving - punishment for religious crimes (which is what is referred to in all of those verses) is not the purpose of the text or of the religion. Consequences for various actions are a part of every religion, but that doesn't mean that the only thing people should learn from it is to avoid those actions so that they don't get punished.

The point I was making was exactly that Christianity isn't accurately measurable by looking at the bible, nor are Christians themselves. I was trying to say that the Bible should be looked at in a cultural/historical aspect because it has outdated philosophies, even surrounding marriage. Anyone can get whatever they want from the Bible because it says so many things in different ways. It can be cherry picked for relateable context, but I see it as rather redundant simply because we have other sources of such understanding that don't need Jesus or a God as it's foundation. Which is more relateable to me than to someone who believes in a god/gods.

Of course I'd rather anyone who reads the Bible doesn't interpret it like Albert Fish for example. I'm glad people look at the Bible and strain out the good from everything else, even though it's an outdated source.

As for the marriage being between a man and a woman, I heard a podcast the other day that went through all of the verses people normally cite in anti-gay marriage campaigns and showed how they could be interpreted to SUPPORT gay marriage claims. I will ask my brother in law to get me the info on it so I can share who it was that was speaking.

I understand it is all about interpretation, but why is everyone always so quick to interpret things in a negative light?

Because when the Bible says things like "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives", it can't be interpreted any other way than negatively. When the Bible says to kill "adulterers", it means to kill adulterers. But depending on where you go in the Bible, you can do some sweet word acrobatics and reinterpret things as you please. This means you're manipulating something to fit what you already think. That's not following scripture, that's making scripture follow you.

All in all, my main point is that the Bible is an outdated, hypocritic source to look when dealing with things such as marriage. It's wishy-washy-messy, and forces you to pick and choose what you want to believe, which only means you're conforming the Bible to what you already think. (I'm saying "you" in a general sense throughout this post, not necessarily as YOU btw haha).

All in all, I think this is a very good, debatable topic and I'm glad you brought it up, even if in the end, we agree to disagree. :)

junco

01-13-2012, 10:40 PM

hmmm.
well, this all seems to have it covered.
no i'm not kidding. got sharp brains here. this is a great site.
not being sarcastic or ironic or any shit. we got good men and women.
i agree the bible says everything to anyone.
so is there an answer? to the thread starter's question?

km34

01-13-2012, 11:08 PM

(I'm saying "you" in a general sense throughout this post, not necessarily as YOU btw haha).

Man, I was so ready to just get all bitchy about you accusing me of things and then you had to go and qualify it... :D Just kidding. I appreciate the fact that you thought out your response, and I really didn't expect anyone to change my mind. I just like hearing (or reading) people's thoughts.

The "If a man lieth with another man" verse is one that I have heard is a poor translation from the original Hebrew. I don't know Hebrew, so I can't say this definitively, but I have taken a Hebrew Bible class where the instructor knew Hebrew, and he also claims that the verse had an 'ALSO' in it. If so a more accurate translation would be "If a man ALSO lies with another man as he lies with a woman..." Which would then seem to prohibit bisexuality (in which case, I'm screwed - and not in the good way) but perhaps homosexuality is okay.

I don't think there is an answer to my question... Am I naive? Perhaps. But if I am then I am going to choose to remain in denial about it until something that speaks of a deeper truth comes along.

vermin06

01-14-2012, 02:56 AM

When discussing/defending the Bible, it's hard especially when we bring in possible past translations. If you want to go down that road, then "sin" isn't actually an act or crime that separates you from God as it was translated from the Greek word, "hamartia" which means "missing the mark". Then you'd have to start looking into other books and scriptures and gospels and books that aren't even in the Bible, but are definitely Christian literature. Then discerning which are based off oral traditions, or possible re-writes of older versions or early translations. THEN you there's the whole no reference-able authors to the books of the Bible.

It's all very messy, and I'd rather simplify things for myself by looking to myself, to my community and society, and current writings for truths about morality and looking to life to give me valuable life lessons. I personally think the Bible gets talked up more than it should. I kind of view it like any other way of learning something; if you want to learn the truth about the subject, get up-to-date information. If I want to understand modern English mechanics, I'm not going to look at Shakespear, then pick and choose what I feel is best used and discern that as the best source available for such knowledge.

Same with morality and marriage. I'm not going to look to the Bible for those truths when I have up to date, modern sources that actually relate and come from a society and culture with certain pressures and environments. So, I think, when dealing with marriage, we have deeper truths that don't rely on gender/sex role assignments, but rather deal with significance of the individual, which didn't make sense to do 2000 years ago in the Judeo-Christian cultures.

Sorry if I can't offer any useful answers for you, but this really is a wonderful thread so far, haha!

km34

01-14-2012, 03:28 AM

Eh.. I didn't really have any specific questions. I just see people mentioning (more often than not in an incredibly insulting fashion) the "Christian marriage" concept all of the time and in my experience "Christian marriages" tend to be very loving, so I find it interesting.

vermin06

01-14-2012, 04:15 AM

Ah, I see. Yes, I think the word "Puritan" or "Biblical" gets replaced with "Christian" because Puritan values were inspired by old fundamentalist views on parts of the Bible. Then again, some people get offended at the thought of ONE person in the relationship "running the house hold" when they feel love is about finding equilibrium between partners. I'm willing to bet you'd get a few answers if I'd shut my mouth and stopped flooding your thread. ;)

neegoola

01-14-2012, 08:04 AM

km,
both ways you take The Bible (in general or in specific passages) it is a book containing many horror situations (if someone smashes your teeth with a fist, would you react with: "oohh, but he is very good in cooking?!"),
lies (for instance: we don't have any hystorical reference that Jesus existed and wisdom words you may find coming out from his mouth are present in very ancient cultures like Vedas and others..)
and there is no innovation at all in it if not towards destruction*;
IMO the bible should have no value also because many of the topics were stolen to other cultures; the myth of someone coming to light and simbolizing the sun is much older than the characters that the poor (of course christians became so many in short time because they were obliged to it to save their neck or because they were very hungry and ready to preach to any monogod around so to obtain at least a piece of bread from the powerful rich institution born officially through Constantin job)) new church copied.

i ask: why should you lean on the bible that support the same churches you say you don't feel in attending? there's plenty of spiritual messages in our last 5.000 years till now and time is coming for very big and hard changements:
it is not any more the Pisces era (fishes bite anything BELIEVING it's safe food); Acquarian period means STUDYING and KNOWING: no faith anymore, but intelligence and critical spirit according to one's own ...type!

*if you still feel in analizing one specifical passage:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A18&version=KJV

Heinlein founded: "you are god, i am god".

SourGirl

01-16-2012, 05:56 PM

Just an opinion, but the bible itself has very little influence on the beliefs of many "Christians".

That is true. I have a belief in God, not just a 'higher power', but I do not believe in the bible. At all. Even as a kid, I found most of it to be a crock o' crap.

I am Catholic...without guilt. :p

RunicWolf

01-17-2012, 02:25 PM

The part that frustrates me on "Christian Marriages", or most anything the hardcore right wing Christians preach, is that 98% of their arguments against homosexuality come from the Old Testament.

The particular part of the bible they call to also forbids the wearing of gold or silver jewelry, clothes made of two or more fabrics, and so on. It's got laws about how much you can sell your daughter for into slavery. It's a very blatant "We're going to take this part and use it as a weapon, while ignoring everything else around it" situation. Also, the Old Testament was intended to be used as a history book and a reference to the old laws everyone around the Christian church was using. Jesus himself said that through him a new Covenant with God was formed, meaning that the old, antiquated laws that where being followed because they where the only way to get into heaven where now obsolete.

Jesus himself never makes mention of homosexuality, if memory serves me right. You know what he does mention a lot? Love. He wanted his new followers to love, and accept one another no matter their backgrounds. Jews, Gentiles, Romans, all accepted for who they are. Is sleeping around with both genders a crime? Jesus forgave and hung around with a prostitute. I think that's a pretty clear indicator that Jesus is pretty forgiving of "sexual deviance" just so long as you believe and act in accordance with how he wanted us to live.

opalescent

01-17-2012, 04:37 PM

jasminegld

01-18-2012, 06:53 PM

I see a lot of people comment on having been in and taught the "Christian Marriage" and it being a major hurdle to their journey to poly. ...What I am curious about is why Christian husbands tend to get a bad reputation for being repressive and completely controlling.

The "Christian Marriage" that initially was a hurdle for me was the unspoken assumption that monogamy is automatic and unquestionable. And in fact, simply asking one's spouse to TALK about nonmonogamy -- without taking any action -- has the potential to seriously stress or even break up a marriage.

Am I just completely naive in thinking that the Bible as a whole teaches us to be loving and respectful of everyone regardless of gender, marital status, sexuality, or any other qualifier?

This is a message that can be taken from the Bible. It all depends on how one chooses to read it.

Jasmine

IsobelR

01-19-2012, 02:30 PM

I find frustrating that 'Christian' and 'Christian marriage' have been appropriated by the radical, fundamentalist, evangelical right. (OP, I am not saying you are doing this!) It's to the point that liberal or moderate Christians are effectively erased from a public presence in the US. Christian marriage can look and feel and be different depending if the marriage is Catholic, liberal Episcopalian or Southern Baptist. There will be some commonalities of course but marriage in all of these Christian denominations has different approaches to the purpose of marriage, gender roles if any and so on.

THIS!

As with all religions texts, there are so many interpretations. As an historical text, much of the Bible just isn't relevant today. Wearing two different cloths? That would have been flaunting your wealth in a very un-Christlike way. Lying with a man as with a woman? In my mind, that's more about social standing of the time than actual intercourse. I could be wrong.
Mind you, I tend to take most of the Old Testament with a pinch of salt. It was written in the spirit of its time, with laws that mostly made sense then, but not now.

The way I have always tried to live out my religion is with 1 Corinthians 13. 'Love is gentle, love is kind' etcetc. Christ was all about love :D It's why, for my, my polyamory is intertwined with my faith. People (often other Christians) can tell me about the sanctity of marriage, the lies of evolution and how those who don't believe will burn in hell until they're blue in the face, but I won't believe it or agree with them.
In MY mind, God is forgiving, with infinite love for all of creation (or the world, if you so prefer). You don't have to believe in Her, be monogomous, have 6 wives (but only wives...) to have Her love, She gives it whether you want it or not, and whether or not you jump through the correct hoops.
Love God, love your neighbour, however hard that may be. Even if you don't believe in God, the second isn't a bad idea for your life :)

For the original question...I'm going to go back to the whole 'Bible as historical text' thing. In antiquity, the husband WAS the head of the household and could be expected to be deferred to in all things. Not so much anymore.

km34

01-19-2012, 06:30 PM

When only hate and control take over, you know something is terribly wrong. People practice what they think or prefer to live by.

This is what bothers me the most. That people CHOOSE to focus on the hateful/judgmental parts and ignore the loving parts.

Granted, some hardcore Christians would probably be equally frustrated by my refusal to use every strict guideline that you can garner from the Bible as my moral code.

nycindie

01-19-2012, 07:11 PM

RunicWolf

01-19-2012, 07:24 PM

Granted, some hardcore "Christians" would probably be equally frustrated by my refusal to use every strict guideline that you can garner from the Bible as my moral code.

I'm gonna throw that in quotes for ya. ;)

While I'll admit I'm not a "Hardcore Christian" in my beliefs (God is a disco ball), at least to some, I'd like to think I've hit on a pretty good philosophy that's more "Hardcore Christian" then the radical right. I'm forever rebuffing the radical right with passages from their own book that tell them that what they are doing is wrong and that Christ would rather we hug each other then throw stones and insults.

The moral code that they "go by" is bits and pieces from an old set of laws that forbids even some of the simpler things we do today. Maybe if they went by the whole code, and not parts of it, I'd take them more seriously. After all, how many of them do you see railing against clothing made from two fabrics, or gold/silver jewelry?

What it all boils down to is fear and control. If they can get their people to fear and hate a certain group of people, they keep them under control. If all of a sudden they all actually where Christ-like, how would they steer the flock if there was no wolf at the door any more? Homosexuals have replaced the Romans of biblical times with one important exception: the homosexuals don't actually want to kill you all and tear down the church. All they want is to be accepted by it.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi

I would also like to state I do define myself as a Christian in a loose sense. I have a differing view of God then most, as well as different practices, and that has created some tension before. I've read the bible, front to back, but kept the Old Testament as history, with the relevant, Christian passages (hard to have Christian works without, you know, Christ), in the New Testament as the focus of my study. These are things I've been fighting for years. In some groups there is a deep resentment of Christians as a whole, often treated like the radical right treats people in their sights. I make it a personal mission to reach out to others and show that not all Christians are full of hate and spite, and that, sometimes, we can actually be pretty awesome.

neegoola

01-19-2012, 10:13 PM

Homosexuals have replaced the Romans of biblical times with one important exception: the homosexuals don't actually want to kill you all and tear down the church. All they want is to be accepted by it.

darling, i can't remember that Romans pulled down christian churches and that they wanted to kill* christians: first reason because there were not so many churches while the roman empire was still "on" (the empire ended about the IV century, while costantino signed in nicea; the church at that time didn't have so much money and people), second reason because romans has always melt their culture (and their pantheon) with culture and religions they did find in other people that they submitted -which were pagan too, everyone fo these groups in their way.
the monotheism of christians, coming to mediterranean side and up and taking people "by" their hunger, came to occupy, to bring a new religion to people that had already theirs, belonging to their geography (i.e. why should i worry about not eating pig if i live among forests? this matters islam, for instance, ah? -"marry just one man, stay at home, be passive, feel opressed, the patriarch rules, give him your dowry. you are a true bitch.". no, thanks.)

*and it is not even true that the christian history was filled up of so many martyrs and saints; two years ago, i think, the church (rome, the vatican, i mean) admitted that more than a half of saints and martyrs on calendars had been invented to fill it up, to give every day a story/mith that the church "needed" to insert in our "literature" -to complete the feudal/courtoise brainwashing about monogamy we suffered.

sorry it was so long, but living 200km from the vatican with what this means on the national AND the international side of it, has such a weight on my true skin..

I make it a personal mission to reach out to others and show that not all Christians are full of hate and spite, and that, sometimes, we can actually be pretty awesome.
thank you, i imagine you understand that my "attacks" were directed most of all to the old testament. i didn't mean to offend anyone, if i did i'm sorry.
just i keep on asking: if the basic book, guideline, of the religion you think you chose for yourself is valid for less than a half, why remaining there? there's plenty of re-discovered currents.. what's about the place you have your roots, your blood? Natives? shamans? pagan? wicca?
why a monotheistic, masculine, "foreign" religion? (not talking about studies, but about religion choice).

p.s. hi, RW, i read you a bit in this period, nice to meet you directly here and now :)

BrigidsDaughter

01-19-2012, 11:50 PM

darling, i can't remember that Romans pulled down christian churches and that they wanted to kill* christians: first reason because there were not so many churches while the roman empire was still "on" (the empire ended about the IV century, while costantino signed in nicea; the church at that time didn't have so much money and people), second reason because romans has always melt their culture (and their pantheon) with culture and religions they did find in other people that they submitted -which were pagan too, everyone fo these groups in their way.
the monotheism of christians, coming to mediterranean side and up and taking people "by" their hunger, came to occupy, to bring a new religion to people that had already theirs, belonging to their geography (i.e. why should i worry about not eating pig if i live among forests? this matters islam, for instance, ah? -"marry just one man, stay at home, be passive, feel opressed, the patriarch rules, give him your dowry. you are a true bitch.". no, thanks.)

*and it is not even true that the christian history was filled up of so many martyrs and saints; two years ago, i think, the church (rome, the vatican, i mean) admitted that more than a half of saints and martyrs on calendars had been invented to fill it up, to give every day a story/mith that the church "needed" to insert in our "literature" -to complete the feudal/courtoise brainwashing about monogamy we suffered.

sorry it was so long, but living 200km from the vatican with what this means on the national AND the international side of it, has such a weight on my true skin..

thank you, i imagine you understand that my "attacks" were directed most of all to the old testament. i didn't mean to offend anyone, if i did i'm sorry.
just i keep on asking: if the basic book, guideline, of the religion you think you chose for yourself is valid for less than a half, why remaining there? there's plenty of re-discovered currents.. what's about the place you have your roots, your blood? Natives? shamans? pagan? wicca?
why a monotheistic, masculine, "foreign" religion? (not talking about studies, but about religion choice).

p.s. hi, RW, i read you a bit in this period, nice to meet you directly here and now :)

I think Runic Wolf and I agree that the New Testament *is* the basic book/ guideline for Christians. Jesus himself said he formed a new covenant with us and that the old laws, the Old Testament is dead. So for us, we remain because we believe in the teachings of Christ, not the teachings of some church. Actually, we left the non-denominational church we were attending several years ago. I also honor my roots, and follow a celtic path. I tend to refer to myself as either a Christian mystic or a Christopagan. Either way, I feel no need to replace Christ with another faith.

neegoola

01-20-2012, 08:18 AM

I also honor my roots, and follow a celtic path. I tend to refer to myself as either a Christian mystic or a Christopagan. Either way, I feel no need to replace Christ with another faith.

would you feel in saying that, from a strictly psyco-chemical point of View, the Christ and the Goddess/Mother ARE the same?

you never mind that celtic people too were murdered by those who brought Christ Gooddist message through europe? no? ok.

are you not touched by the fact that people who name christ and officiates rites to Him are entering your energy too as you are in the christ calling out his name (i think that the Spirit has very good antennas)? no, very good for you.

have you ever read that we have NO historical prove of jesus existing? that the fact that he has been hidden in the census period is a lie to cover up that he was not there, he's never born; that those who needed a new monotheist religion to follow with monogamic mariage to build up a "new" society (in which we still llive) created a Huge/wise character stealing pieces of myths and other ancient wise people studies here and there, not worrying so much about copiright as the official Ancient priests and priestesses were all dead by christians' hands? adn that, if he were existed one may consider that no gospel says that he was NOT married on the contrary of any other man living there at that time; so it can also be that he was poly, just authorities didn't let people no and darkness is still around there?
is your power based on faith?

IMO mother mary is not the Goddess, it's the only female image that christians had to let be in order to manage to keep power on people and avoid their revolution.

time passes by, but i still don't com-prehend romance and drama around jesus, above all through pagans; of course it must be a limit i have.
BD, feel free of not answering; i could not keep all these words in silence, but i guess i'm not the first one raising a dust about this subject: i will stop it now. live and let live.
i definitely gave my opinion to Km question, fertig.

have a nice sabbath, tomorrow.

BrigidsDaughter

01-20-2012, 06:35 PM

would you feel in saying that, from a strictly psyco-chemical point of View, the Christ and the Goddess/Mother ARE the same?

I am not familiar with the psyco-chemical point of view.

you never mind that celtic people too were murdered by those who brought Christ Gooddist message through europe? no? ok.

are you not touched by the fact that people who name christ and officiates rites to Him are entering your energy too as you are in the christ calling out his name (i think that the Spirit has very good antennas)? no, very good for you.

Most religions were not spread as peaceably as we'd like to believe. I am aware that the Church murdered many people in it's "conversion", but I cannot shoulder the burden of responsibility for actions that were not my own. As for the second part of your question, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are asking.... my energy is my own to give; they cannot enter my energy into anything. My own worship is personal and private. I am familiar with the practice of energy raising and know this to be true.

have you ever read that we have NO historical prove of jesus existing? that the fact that he has been hidden in the census period is a lie to cover up that he was not there, he's never born; that those who needed a new monotheist religion to follow with monogamic mariage to build up a "new" society (in which we still llive) created a Huge/wise character stealing pieces of myths and other ancient wise people studies here and there, not worrying so much about copiright as the official Ancient priests and priestesses were all dead by christians' hands? adn that, if he were existed one may consider that no gospel says that he was NOT married on the contrary of any other man living there at that time; so it can also be that he was poly, just authorities didn't let people no and darkness is still around there?
is your power based on faith?

Honestly, I'm having a hard time following your train of thought here. Different groups believe different things, but last I heard, they had found a man who they believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. The main problem with searching for Jesus' birth records is that many times they are looking in the wrong time period. Jesus was born around the time of the census, NOT around when the Catholic church decided to celebrate his birth, in December.

IMO mother mary is not the Goddess, it's the only female image that christians had to let be in order to manage to keep power on people and avoid their revolution.

Some people do revere Mary as a goddess, but I do not. Who am I to tell anyone what to believe or how to worship?

Quath

01-23-2012, 03:03 AM

I have talked with several Christians about marriage and the Bible. We ended up talking about gay marriage, Biblical view on marriage and how husbands should treat their wives.

The obvious gay marriage tends to come up, but it is dealt with in a weird way. The Old Testament says to kill them. The New Testament is against it (depending on how you interpret Paul's words). However, there is nothing about gay marriage. The choices seem to be to follow the OT and kill gay people or maybe ignore that and try not to be gay. But it doesn't say anything about how how civil unions are ok while marriage is not. That stuff pretty much just comes out of preacher's biases.

There is a lot of talk about how God wants marriage. However, if you look up how it was originally set up in the Old Testament, a marriage is a man, one or more wives and his concubines and slaves. There are many passages supporting this and many times God blesses such a marriage (like Jacob's or David's). The Biblical view of marriage also had rules like making a raped woman marry her rapist and killing women who are not virgins on their wedding night in front of her parents. As a society we have rejected these things as bad morality even though it is promoted as good in the Bible. But many Christians tend to be in some weird middle ground where such things are just ignored and pretend the Bible only teaches virtues.

Finally, we talked about how a husband treats his wife. This got caught up in how a master treats his slaves. The spin was the same. The husband/wife is equal before God in some spiritual sense. The husband is the head of the house but the woman is equally important in maintaining the household.

However, in the discussion on slavery in which the Christians were trying to justify why slavery was acceptable in the Old Testament, they said that the master/save relationship forms one in which they are equally important before God. The master makes the decisions and the slave carries them out. But they are both equal before God.

So what I took away from this is that it is very easy to rule a wife but spin it as she is equal. Personally, let people fall into the relationship they want. If the woman is better at making decisions, then let her. If they like to share in responsibility, then work on that model. A penis or vagina doesn't make a compelling reason on why one partner should be subjugated to the other.

Magdlyn

01-23-2012, 04:54 AM

would you feel in saying that, from a strictly psyco-chemical point of View, the Christ and the Goddess/Mother ARE the same?

I'll play. No, they are definitely NOT the same. Christ and his 2 Marys (Virgin Mother, and the Magdalene/consort) are archetypes, common in Greek/Roman myth of the the time the New Testament were written. In fact, these archetypes are found in earliest written Sumerian myth of centuries earlier.

Early gnostic Christianity expresses this (see the so-called heretical 3rd and 4th century gospels which are readily available online). Early Christianity was feminist, and one of their gospels brings this to light, showing Christ and Mary Magdalene as two parts of a whole, split and constantly questing to be brought back together, a hermaphrodite.

That said, the Old Testament's main thrust is a hatred of Asherah worship in Canaan and a constant struggle to destroy her sacred groves and orgiastic worship. Patriarchy using force to destroy the goddess worship taints the entire religion for me... and makes Abrahamic/Christo-paganism impossible.

you never mind that celtic people too were murdered by those who brought Christ Goddist message through europe? no? ok.

Right. Though the Irish have had some success keeping Brigid alive while vilifying "sinful" women at the same time.

are you not touched by the fact that people who name christ and officiates rites to Him are entering your energy too as you are in the christ calling out his name (i think that the Spirit has very good antennas)? no, very good for you.

The only possible way to "worship Christ" is to understand him as a spirit within each one of us, entirely identical to the Buddha nature of the Far Eastern philosophers.

have you ever read that we have NO historical prove of jesus existing?

Correct. Christ is a literary figure based on other grain gods of the past, such as Osiris and Tammuz and Adonis and many others. The British had their John Barleycorn as well.

he's never born; that those who needed a new monotheist religion to follow with monogamic mariage to build up a "new" society (in which we still llive) created a Huge/wise character stealing pieces of myths and other ancient wise people studies here and there, not worrying so much about copiright as the official Ancient priests and priestesses were all dead by christians' hands?

Right. Hypatia was the last pagan priestess in Rome, killed by the Christians in the 4th century, her skin scraped off with sharp oystershells as she died.

and that, if he were existed one may consider that no gospel says that he was NOT married on the contrary of any other man living there at that time; so it can also be that he was poly, just authorities didn't let people know and darkness is still around there?

Evidence in the gospels represents Christ as mated with Mary Magdalene/Mary of Bethany. It's just been broken up and hidden.

is your power based on faith?

My power is based on knowledge (gnosis), and I don't *believe* anything without data and proof.

IMO mother mary is not the Goddess, it's the only female image that christians had to let be in order to manage to keep power on people and avoid their revolution.

The Virgin Mary is half a goddess, complimented by the sexual, slippery with oil, Mary Magdalene. One is at the womb cave, one is at the tomb cave. Combined, they equal Sophia, Wisdom, the great goddess of the gnostics.

time passes by, but i still don't com-prehend romance and drama around jesus, above all through pagans; of course it must be a limit i have.
BD, feel free of not answering; i could not keep all these words in silence, but i guess i'm not the first one raising a dust about this subject: i will stop it now. live and let live.
i definitely gave my opinion to Km question, fertig.

have a nice sabbath, tomorrow.

Heh, Saturn's Day, or the day of the Sun? And what does either designation have to do with Abraham or Yeshua? Jews celebrate the Sabbath from Friday sundown til Saturday sundown. So did first century Jews. The Romans spread pro-pagan-da, by getting pagans to celebrate the Christ on the day of the pagan Sun god. And to celebrate his resurrection on Ostara/vernal equinox, and his birth on Yule, the winter solstice.

neegoola

01-24-2012, 01:56 PM

i came to put together my words for answering here

Honestly, I'm having a hard time following your train of thought here.

Who am I to tell anyone what to believe or how to worship?
and to many other open options that BD left open, and i'm very pleased to see that Magdlyn gave a very good anwering, i thank you very much :)

BD and RW, i was not trying to tell anyone what to do and who to " worship" if this is still for you a valid word for your relationship to Deities; i tryed to explain that it's wise to try to know truth through knowledge together with Feeling and choosing what's ok for us. ;) i really go mad when i see that lies are been told to my sisters and they seem they don't know..

Patriarchy using force to destroy the goddess worship taints the entire religion for me... and makes Abrahamic/Christo-paganism impossible.

yes, after agriculture and monotheism came, our whole system changed..it's such a long and powerful speech..

The only possible way to "worship Christ" is to understand him as a spirit within each one of us

never happened, darlings, that while you "meditate" or act somehow in your own spiritual way, you may Feel souls to whom you are connected being closer than they are geographically?
once i was in the stones Circle in my sister's garden; i entered, radicated, breath few times and: my sister came outside saying "did you call me?", one of our closest friend/sister called just to say hallo, our friend/sister's cat living with my sister entered the Circle :):)
we are all connected and the vibration (sound, words, are vibrations) of Holy Names put us together.
but: if i call Shiva or Kernunnos i may say that the result is iva "the same" because they are the same.

neegoola

01-24-2012, 01:59 PM

http://web.tiscali.it/angolodidario/ritagliespiragli/Cornuto/Cernunnos3.JPG http://sanatan.org/en/festivals/hindu/images/Shiva2.jpg

neegoola

01-24-2012, 02:01 PM

Correct. Christ is a literary figure based on other grain gods of the past, such as Osiris and Tammuz and Adonis and many others.
celebrate the Christ on the day of the pagan Sun god. And to celebrate his resurrection on Ostara/vernal equinox, and his birth on Yule, the winter solstice.
ok, here we are. for instance:
i love Ameratasu (or Amaterasu) the Goddess Sun (in japan) that needed to be convinced by other gods to go out from the cave and bring back light and heat to the world.
demetra had to stop the whole nature from flourishing before persefone came back from Ade, so the earth started to green again.

the sol-stice means that for 3 days the sun is always going down in the same place on the HORISon, not one minute before usual, not one minute after usual. after these 3 days the sun is "born" again and days start becoming longer.

the whole Bible skill stands on ancient myths. the concepts of sufference and abstinence and undermission were USED, and still are, to keep people unhappy, unwilling and GOODDist. gooddist people never protest. all this was very much "supported" by Vedas' teachings too, that is "literature jumping out in our first Neolithic to re-set humanity on different values, different from the past ones". well, thank you.

Evidence in the gospels represents Christ as mated with Mary Magdalene/Mary of Bethany. It's just been broken up and hidden.

there is no evidence in the gospel that they were lovers, yes.
?at that time poligamy was common in Palestina and neighbouring?

The Romans spread pro-pagan-da, :D:D:D

p.s. sabbath as Saturn's day and as any good reason for celebrating the Ancient Mother!! ;)

neegoola

01-24-2012, 02:03 PM

it was not blood :) just some berries :)

http://www.deviantart.com/download/43052526/The_Holly_King_by_ArwensGrace.jpg

Magdlyn

01-24-2012, 03:00 PM

there is no evidence in the gospel that they were lovers, yes.
?at that time poligamy was common in Palestina and neighbouring?

No, I am saying there *is* evidence they were lovers, or married. If you take Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany, and one unnamed woman as one figure (and taken as myth, they certainly are), the interactions between them and Jesus indicate deep intimacy. The pouring of the oil anointing Jesus (for the traditional sacred marriage rite to precede his sacrificial death), the way Jesus approaches the sisters of Lazarus of Bethany, Mary's M's wiping Jesus' feet with her HAIR, her intimacy with him at the cross and his resurrected self at his tomb, the idea that she is the Holy Grail, carrying his child, all indicate a consort role for this Mary.

This is just in the canonical gospels alone. The evidence in gnostic gospels is even stronger, but they were banned, partly because gnostic Christianity was too feminist and esoteric for the goals of Constantine and later Roman rulers.

neegoola

01-26-2012, 04:13 PM

This is just in the canonical gospels alone. The evidence in gnostic gospels is even stronger, but they were banned, partly because gnostic Christianity was too feminist and esoteric for the goals of Constantine and later Roman rulers.
thanks, Mag, i recall an important thing that i want to add to this thread (even if it seems that KM flew away -probably other kind of answering was waited for?) and i hope that BrigidDaughter@wiil read here 'cause i didn't have "time" to reach you under this aspect but i find it very important both if we think about stopping this (as i wrote before your last answer) or we keep on talking:

if one feels in Loving Jesus the Christ i think this person should read whatever was written about Him;
"jesus the Essene" Meaurois-Givaudan which i think is the best calibrated and closer to "truth";
a composition work about Jesus by Gibran;
"unconditioned love" don't remember who wrote it
"the dead sea scrolls"
"the Aquarian gospel"
"apocryphal gospels" which have been censored, but it's worth reading;
"juda's gospel" which has been one of my favourites: jesus CAN laugh and has a different genuinity in consciousness -missing in the official altered 4 gospels.

AND if one wants to discover the Christ, weel i think Looking around would be enough, but there is also:
"the murder of Christ" W.Reich

after these and other readings, one knows waht's talking about and can choose; at that point, KM34, the question "am i too naif?" would not come anymore on your lips.. :)

km34

01-26-2012, 04:19 PM

if one feels in Loving Jesus the Christ i think this person should read whatever was written about Him;
"jesus the Essene" Meaurois-Givaudan which i think is the best calibrated and closer to "truth";
a composition work about Jesus by Gibran;
"unconditioned love" don't remember who wrote it
"the dead sea scrolls"
"the Aquarian gospel"
"apocryphal gospels" which have been censored, but it's worth reading;
"juda's gospel" which has been one of my favourites: jesus CAN laugh and has a different genuinity in consciousness -missing in the official altered 4 gospels.

AND if one wants to discover the Christ, weel i think Looking around would be enough, but there is also:
"the murder of Christ" W.Reich

I've read most of these for various religious courses I took in college, a few just for pleasure as well.

Honestly, I stopped responding to this thread because I felt like it wasn't really a discussion. It was people stating their views and denouncing other people's views which is not what I come here for. I'm glad people enjoyed a chance to put what they think out here, though.

SourGirl

01-26-2012, 04:24 PM

145

opalescent

01-26-2012, 04:43 PM

km34

01-26-2012, 04:49 PM

It was (is) interesting!

I wasn't expecting it to be about the validity of Christianity or whether or not Jesus actually existed at all. So, yes, I suppose I was wanting it to be more about how poly fits into the Christian context or even how Christians (or those that know them) balance what their religious side teaches and what their desires/orientations actually are.

I'm of the mindset that their isn't enough proof for any one religion or lack thereof to be the obvious choice, so I'm not particularly interested in other people trying to change my views. I do enjoy reading about what people believe, though. :)

JohnnyDangerously

01-27-2012, 01:52 AM

T

Jesus himself never makes mention of homosexuality, if memory serves me right. You know what he does mention a lot? Love. He wanted his new followers to love, and accept one another no matter their backgrounds. Jews, Gentiles, Romans, all accepted for who they are. Is sleeping around with both genders a crime? Jesus forgave and hung around with a prostitute. I think that's a pretty clear indicator that Jesus is pretty forgiving of "sexual deviance" just so long as you believe and act in accordance with how he wanted us to live.

Good points... here's another. Jeremiah 3:15 calls Israel's King David "a man after God's own heart". David, who was married to several wives and had a vast number of concubines. A man who seduced and married Bathsheba - and was condemned for lying and having her husband killed so he could have her, not for loving the woman.

catbird

02-14-2012, 10:36 AM

KM,

What kind of discussions were you hoping to spark? I thought it was interesting. Were you hoping for more discussion of how poly marriages might fit into a Christian context? I'm not Christian but that would have been intriguing. Well, Christianity finds its source in the Bible, in the New Testament.

First, the New Testament doesn't go a lot into marriage. Paul wrote a lot about it, but he was one man - a man who didn't marry. Peter was married but didn't write about it and the dynamics of his marriage weren't discussed. The ancients didn't discuss marriage. Perhaps more than anything else that points out that they were sensible, didn't want any fights on their hands, didn't want any negative feedback - that a person may be an ignorant backwater primitive but still have good sense and be very smart.

I think the answer is Paul and his writings. He tried to spread Christianity to the Gentiles, the non-Jews. Non-Christian archelology indicates that the ancients practiced polygamy, homosexuality and other things all over the place. As far as Jews are concerned they practiced monogamy usually only because they couldn't afford more than one wife.

One culture and another, one era and another - seems like mixing them or connecting them seems like a wrong fork in the path. But maybe i'm being a little hasty.

Scott

04-01-2012, 03:21 AM

Here's an interesting article regarding christian marriage. It may not be completely accurate in some respects, but I thought it was definitely very educational...

Captive Virgins, Polygamy, Sex Slaves: What Marriage Would Look Like if We Actually Followed the Bible (http://www.woodhullalliance.org/2012/sex-and-politics/captive-virgins-polygamy-sex-slaves-what-marriage-would-look-like-if-we-actually-followed-the-bible/)

catbird

04-01-2012, 11:09 AM

the article cited here errs actually, on at least eleven counts. To start with there are fewer than 300 Christian denominations anymore. Let me cut to the chase. The above writer QUIT worshiping how he used to worship, he's mad at Christians and seeking to put Christianity in as poor a light as he possibly can.

As far as Christians are concerned they've been in business for 2,000 years. Does anyone actually imagine they didn't ALREADY explore, and explore thoroughly, all the sexual combinations and elaborations this site talks about?

Of course they did, and of course they have. And of course they don't care whether it's cool or not. It's not a matter of what outsiders accept. Behind closed doors means behind locked doors.

Scott

04-01-2012, 05:11 PM

the article cited here errs actually, on at least eleven counts. To start with there are fewer than 300 Christian denominations anymore.

I'll take your word for it...

Let me cut to the chase. The above writer QUIT worshiping how he used to worship, he's mad at Christians and seeking to put Christianity in as poor a light as he possibly can.

Could it not be that it's simply how he sees christianity? I'm not saying that he's necessarily right on all counts, but I don't think that assuming that what he wrote is based solely on his disposition towards christianity is the best course of action.

As far as Christians are concerned they've been in business for 2,000 years. Does anyone actually imagine they didn't ALREADY explore, and explore thoroughly, all the sexual combinations and elaborations this site talks about?

Of course they did, and of course they have. And of course they don't care whether it's cool or not. It's not a matter of what outsiders accept. Behind closed doors means behind locked doors.

Personally, my stance is something like the author's (and no, I'm not a former christian, chomping at the bit to get back at them for something -.-). Essentially, when it comes right down to it, I see the bible as something like Aesop's fables. Sure, you can find some morality lessons in them, and I'm sure there's some historical elements there somewhere, but relying on the bible as a historical tome is the same thing as relying on fairy tales for history; not the wisest of plans.

nycindie

04-01-2012, 06:38 PM

Oh, jeez, here we go.

polypenguin

04-01-2012, 07:14 PM

from what i've seen, there are roughly about 34,000 sects and about 9,000 denominations of christianity. But please don't take my word for it, google it. the fundamental problem i see with the bible is the same as any written word: Words are ALWAYS interpretable. take any sentence ever anywhere, and look up (via dictionary or otherwise) all of the words in that sentence, and how many different combinations can you get? the answer: a lot.

Here's an example: the letter/word "a" according to dictionary.com has 126 different definitions/meanings. when you take into account the bible has roughly 1,300 pages, you can quickly see where interpretations can spring up from.

Here's an example straight from the bible i think most people are familiar with "Thou shalt not kill." seems pretty straight forward, but does that mean we cannot kill in defense? or does that mean we cannot kill animals? or even plants for that matter? What about germs? To do that, humans could not live

I'm not saying i have the answer to everything by any means, but for anyone to say that anyone or anything does have all the answers, i don't believe they can be truthful in saying so.

Scott

04-01-2012, 07:44 PM

from what i've seen, there are roughly about 34,000 sects and about 9,000 denominations of christianity. But please don't take my word for it, google it.

Tried, didn't find those numbers. Could you give me the google terms you used?

the fundamental problem i see with the bible is the same as any written word: Words are ALWAYS interpretable. take any sentence ever anywhere, and look up (via dictionary or otherwise) all of the words in that sentence, and how many different combinations can you get? the answer: a lot.

Here's an example: the letter/word "a" according to dictionary.com has 126 different definitions/meanings. when you take into account the bible has roughly 1,300 pages, you can quickly see where interpretations can spring up from.

Here's an example straight from the bible i think most people are familiar with "Thou shalt not kill." seems pretty straight forward, but does that mean we cannot kill in defense? or does that mean we cannot kill animals? or even plants for that matter? What about germs? To do that, humans could not live

Definitely. There's also the fact that stories tend to change over time; the further down the line, the more distortion inherent. I personally feel that the Zeitgeist movie (http://player.vimeo.com/video/13726978), especially when seen in conjunction with the Zeitgeist Companion Guide (http://www.zeitgeistthefilm.com/Zeitgeist,%20The%20Movie-%20Companion%20Guide%20PDF.pdf) was an excellent resource in regards to religion and christianity in particular.

I'm not saying i have the answer to everything by any means, but for anyone to say that anyone or anything does have all the answers, i don't believe they can be truthful in saying so.

I agree. To quote André Gide (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/andre_gide.html), "Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it."

catbird

04-02-2012, 01:44 AM

from what i've seen, there are roughly about 34,000 sects and about 9,000 denominations of christianity...........

Here's an example straight from the bible i think most people are familiar with "Thou shalt not kill." seems pretty straight forward, but does that mean we cannot kill in defense? or does that mean we cannot kill animals? or even plants for that matter? What about germs? To do that, humans couldnot live.

Those tens of thousand of sects and denominations Google refers to - I've been told those are from all Christian history, 2,000 years. Many of them began and ended like a clam opening and closing its shell.

The ten commandments were written 6,000 years ago - at least - as missives for ancient Hebrews, who were unaware of germs and viewed animals, plants, women, children and often each other as commodities. Many believe that "Thou shalt not kill" originally read "Thou shalt not kill other Hebrews," and while I can't cite sources they make a good case for their theory. Other Hebrews makes a very different revisionist ball game.

That also can be googled. The notion sticks in the craw, doesn't it? It certainly did mine.

Vinccenzo

04-02-2012, 07:50 PM

Scott

04-02-2012, 10:54 PM

Well the problem I have with using the bible as reference to encourage any standard of behavior is that it is treated like it floated down on the wings of some supernatural being and therefore nothing bad could possibly be found within it. Yet it, and many other religious texts, have been responsible for more bloodshed than can be quantified.

Some have tried; the numbers are pretty large. That being said, I think that humanity as a whole is better off with christianity then without it. I think people don't stop to consider what we'd have had if christianity hadn't become the predominant world religion. Its main competition (Islam) is, in my view, generally worse.

Prior to its creation, christian texts had been hunted and burned.

I find that to actually be one of the most encouraging aspects of christianity. The notion that self sacrifice can be a good thing is also something I respect.

Of what was left, later, was picked through by a committe[e] hired by a ruler who wished to appeal to many religions at once in effort to create an army from divided people. Why should anything within be used to persuade, guilt, or control anyone to do something they don't want to do? It would be like using V.C. Andrews novels all mashed up into one book thousands of years from now to tell people how they should live.

I think there is some truth in what you say. That being said, I also think that there are some historical references in the bible; the truth may frequently be distorted to a great degree, but I do believe there is some truth in there. As to the committee you mention, I believe you're referring to the First Council of Nicea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#The_biblical_canon). After reading The Da Vinci Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da_Vinci_Code) and then seeing the film adaptation of said book, I decided to go further, to the main book it was based on, Holy Blood, Holy Grail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Blood_and_the_Holy_Grail). They all mention the Council of Nicea, but only after looking at the wikipedia entry did I find this interesting piece of information:
******
The biblical canon
Main article: Development of the Christian biblical canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon)
A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.[54][55] The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[56] In 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople, but little else is known, though it has been speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith[57][58][59] he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".
******

I also come from a baptist family. You sound like you had a much better situation than what I experienced.

Who are you speaking to?

I have family that feel women should be educated at a bare minimum and then home school their own daughters with what scant knowledge they acquired prior to marriage while their sons go the full 12 years to public school. I at least did get to go to school, but hard science was frowned on even by my immediate family.

:-/

Vinccenzo

04-03-2012, 01:36 PM

Scott

04-03-2012, 03:56 PM

Some have tried; the numbers are pretty large. That being said, I think that humanity as a whole is better off with christianity then without it. I think people don't stop to consider what we'd have had if christianity hadn't become the predominant world religion. Its main competition (Islam) is, in my view, generally worse. it is IMO the same lame horse by another name.

Its no better or worse;

We may have to disagree on that.

I'm not even sure why they're being posed as competition to each other as though one without the other would be some huge game changer.

Alright, I can see that we don't agree as to the relative merits of the 2 religions, but surely you would agree that they -do- compete with each other for adherents?

These two are not the only religions of the world

True. What's more, both of these religions have divisions within themselves as well as has ben pointed out.

and most people who see them as each other's opposite with one being the big bad wolf generally only think one is better due to one seeming "normal" and the other being touted as worse by splash media and their own ignorance.

My mother's tried flavors of both, while I was muslim for a time (a western version, but islam all the same). I think I make it clear that I never said they were each other's opposite or that one was 'bad' and the other 'good'. I simply think that on the whole, I prefer christianity a fair amount, in large part because many people who identify as christians don't actually follow the rules of their own religion. It's not that I'm for hypocrisy, it's just that some things are far worse then hypocrisy.

All religious beliefs compete with each other if they don't share exact dogma in that case.

Pretty much, yeah.

According to my grandmother's church community, if you don't belong to a few of the fundamental christian sects they agree with, its all devil worship and you're going to hell even if it is a christian flavored faith. People feel better about rooting for the "home team" even if they don't practice any faith devoutly.

Yep. If there's one thing that I think is generally a good sign of the quality of a religion, it's in their tolerance for alternative points of view. There are ofcourse limits, but in general, the less tolerance for those outside of their group, the worse the religion.

I find that to actually be one of the most encouraging aspects of christianity. The notion that self sacrifice can be a good thing is also something I respect.

You have to be someone who idealizes self sacrifice regardless of spiritual training for any aspect of it in any religion to be practiced. If not you get this:

http://www.salon.com/2009/07/21/c_street/

Yeah. "The Family"'s pretty messed up.

Who are you speaking to?

The OP

Ah ok.

polypenguin

04-03-2012, 04:25 PM

Scott, to answer your question about what I typed into google it was "34,000 sects." wether that number is current amounts, or the collective of 2,000 years, it matters very little.

The point being written word is and always has been interpretible. Hence the reason there are many different translations of the bible itself. It begs the question of the authors themselves, did they interpret what god told them to write? And in doing so, did they write how they saw it, or word for word?

on top of that, the bible says "you shall not add to the word I command of you, nor take from it." Deuteronomy 4:2. So, how can any bible which is not of the original language be correct, as every one of those has been altracated and interpreted.

there are very few languages which are constant throughout all languages. Math and science being two, and gunshots being another.

Scott

04-04-2012, 07:11 AM

Scott, to answer your question about what I typed into google it was "34,000 sects." wether that number is current amounts, or the collective of 2,000 years, it matters very little.

Regarding sects, I found a little blurb on it on religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm):
*****
"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer. A humorous quotation, but one that is uncomfortably close to reality.
*****

I found the following articles on the subject of denominations. It would appear that the number the number of denominations (the article didn't use the term sects) is rather fuzzy; it would also appear that the number of denominations has grown rapidly in the last 40 years, which means that many of the denominations spoken of are present day....
The 20,000 30,000 numbers and David Barrett's statistics (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a120.htm)

The 20,000 30,000 numbers and David Barrett's statistics Part II (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm)

The point being written word is and always has been interpretible.

Not all bibles are the same either though, so it's also a matter of what texts are being interpreted.

Hence the reason there are many different translations of the bible itself. It begs the question of the authors themselves, did they interpret what god told them to write? And in doing so, did they write how they saw it, or word for word?

This ofcourse assumes that God is separate from the people who wrote the bible; I don't personally believe this to be the case (I believe God is everything, so that would include the people who wrote the bible). I don't believe in a perfect God at this point in time; I don't believe that a perfect God would create imperfect creatures. If God was perfect, he'd create perfect creatures that, of their own free will, would always do the right thing. He'd also never have created the Devil, because clearly the Devil is imperfect. Personally, I find it rather interesting that if you add an o to God you get Good and if you take away the d from Devil you get Evil. Good and Evil, Dark and Light, are concepts that have been with humanity for quite a long time.

on top of that, the bible says "you shall not add to the word I command of you, nor take from it." Deuteronomy 4:2. So, how can any bible which is not of the original language be correct, as every one of those has been altracated and interpreted.

I save myself from such quibbles by not taking the bible too seriously. To quote one of my favourite lines on religion from one of my favourite fictional series, Dune:
"Religion is the emulation of the adult by the child. Religion is the encystment of past beliefs: mythology, which is guesswork, the hidden assumptions of trust in the universe, those pronouncements which men have made in search of personal power… all mingled with shreds of enlightenment. And always the ultimate unspoken commandment is "Thou shalt not question!" But we do anyway. We break that commandment as a matter of course. The work to which we have set ourselves is the liberating of the imagination, the harnessing of imagination to humankind's deepest sense of creativity."

I find it rather ironic that my favourite books regarding beliefs are fictional ones; the old line "there is truth in your fiction and fiction in your truth" comes to mind. If you're reading or doing it because you -like- it instead of because it's been "ordained", well.. consensus is the key in my view. It can't be ordered, it has to be desired.

there are very few languages which are constant throughout all languages. Math and science being two, and gunshots being another.

Heh, yeah :-). Logic could be thought of as a language; its base is math, but it delves into other areas as well.. it's the language that is necessary to come to terms with what is truly "Good" and "Evil", in my view. By the way, I classify good as that which is efficient and evil as that which is inneficient. The question then becomes, "efficient at what?", and I'd say that's a very good question. I think the most important thing to be efficient with is love. The rest pales in comparison. And I definitely think that being able to love more then one person (romantically or otherwise) can be a very efficient thing in the sense that people tend to work a lot better with love in their lives ;-).

catbird

04-04-2012, 10:19 AM

[QUOTE=polypenguin;131313]on top of that, the bible says "you shall not add to the word I command of you, nor take from it." Deuteronomy 4:2. So, how can any bible which is not of the original language be correct, as every one of those has been altracated and interpreted.[END QUOTE]
To answer the question, Deuteronomy was written during a time when no one ever heard of scripture translation, so the person/people that wrote that were referring to the idea of respecting a Higher Power and taking writing about Her/Him/It seriously. It was written for people alive then whom we would call today friends or homeys. That it was misused all these many centuries wasn't the fault of Moses, who is said to have written it, nor pretty much anyone alive today.

catbird

04-04-2012, 10:28 AM

Scott

04-04-2012, 12:10 PM

I'd like to just open a can of worms here. There may be some who are under the impression, because many have tried to sell it that way, that the Bible touts monogamy only.

Actually, that turns out not to be the case. If you count them there are only three people in the Bible that SEEM to advocate monogamy, AND JESUS ISN'T ONE OF THEM!

I bet you people at the site come to the same shocked conclusion I do.

As I think you know, I didn't know that specific information, but I did know that the Bible didn't condemn certain types of non monogamy.. apparently sex slavery was also "ok". For those who missed the article I mentioned in post #44, it's here...
Captive Virgins, Polygamy, Sex Slaves: What Marriage Would Look Like if We Actually Followed the Bible (http://www.woodhullalliance.org/2012/sex-and-politics/captive-virgins-polygamy-sex-slaves-what-marriage-would-look-like-if-we-actually-followed-the-bible/)

StarTeddy

04-04-2012, 05:49 PM

Scott

04-04-2012, 09:54 PM

I'm not interested in debating the Bible here, but then I see "The Christian Marriage" I think about something that's happening in my life. When I broke up with my boyfriend, it was because I had fallen for his best friend, who is Catholic. He is surprisingly semi-ok with the possibility of sharing me, while my agnostic-ish ex is not. And I wonder, is there really a way to reconcile polyandry within the christian marriage, when a woman having multiple men is clearly condemned by the Bible?

Is it really though? There are so many things about the bible that people have wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if they got that wrong as well. Anyway, how can anyone use that as a guide for sexual relations? Take a look at this excerpt I pulled from the article I linked in my last post (http://www.woodhullalliance.org/2012/sex-and-politics/captive-virgins-polygamy-sex-slaves-what-marriage-would-look-like-if-we-actually-followed-the-bible/):

***************
Let me tell you a secret about Bible believers that I know because I was one. Most of them don’t read their Bibles. If they did, they would know that the biblical model of sex and marriage has little to do with the one they so loudly defend. Stories depicted in the Bible include rape, incest, master-slave sexual relations, captive virgins, and more. Now, just because a story is told in the Bible doesn’t mean it is intended as a model for devout behavior. Other factors have to be considered, like whether God commands or forbids the behavior, if the behavior is punished, and if Jesus subsequently indicates the rules have changed, come the New Testament.

Through this lens, you find that the God of the Bible still endorses polygamy and sexual slavery and coerced marriage of young virgins along with monogamy. In fact, he endorses all three to the point of providing detailed regulations. Based on stories of sex and marriage that God rewards and appears to approve one might add incest to the mix. Nowhere does the Bible say, “Don’t have sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you.”

Furthermore, none of the norms that are endorsed and regulated in the Old Testament law – polygamy, sexual slavery, coerced marriage of young girls—are revised, reversed, or condemned by Jesus. In fact, the writer of Matthew puts these words in the mouth of Jesus:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law [the Old Testament] until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)

The Law of which Jesus speaks is the Law of Moses, or the Torah, and anyone who claims the Bible as the perfect word of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God should have the decency to read it carefully—and then keep going.

Polygamy is a norm in the Old Testament and accepted in the New Testament. Biblicalpolygamy.com has pages dedicated to 40 biblical figure,s each of whom had multiple wives. The list includes patriarchs like Abraham and Isaac. King David, the first king of Israel may have limited himself to eight wives, but his son Solomon, reputed to be the wisest man who ever lived had 700 wives and 300 concubines! (1 Kings 11)

Concubines are sex slaves, and the Bible gives instructions on acquisition of several types of sex slaves, although the line between biblical marriage and sexual slavery is blurry. A Hebrew man might, for example, sell his daughter to another Hebrew, who then has certain obligations to her once she is used. For example, he can’t then sell her to a foreigner. Alternately a man might see a virgin war captive that he wants for himself.

In the book of Numbers (31:18) God’s servant commands the Israelites to kill all of the used Midianite women who have been captured in war, and all of the boy children, but to keep all of the virgin girls for themselves. The Law of Moses spells out a purification ritual to prepare a captive virgin for life as a concubine. It requires her owner to shave her head and trim her nails and give her a month to mourn her parents before the first sex act (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). A Hebrew girl who is raped can be sold to her rapist for 50 shekels, or about $580 (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). He must then keep her as one of his wives for as long as she lives.

A man might acquire multiple wives whether he wanted them or not if his brother died. In fact, if a brother dies with no children, it becomes a duty to impregnate his wife. In the book of Genesis, Onan is struck dead by God because he fails to fulfill this duty – preferring to spill his seed on the ground rather than providing offspring for his brother (Genesis 38:8-10).
***************

StarTeddy

04-05-2012, 03:26 AM

I think that's probably why he's not too worried about it. He understands that the Bible was written by prejudiced men, and not everything that's written is accurate, or meant to be followed. It just worries me, because even though I'm not a believer myself, I understand that his faith is important to him and a part of his happiness. I certainly don't want him to feel like being with me would distance him from God. But, I suppose, that's something he'll have to figure out on his own.

nycindie

04-05-2012, 05:41 AM

When I broke up with my boyfriend, it was because I had fallen for his best friend, who is Catholic. He is surprisingly semi-ok with the possibility of sharing me, while my agnostic-ish ex is not... I can't help but wonder if somewhere along the line he'd feel like he wasn't being as good of a christian as he could be because of the implications of poly.My lover is Catholic and pretty devoted to his faith. He told me he has just accepted that he's a sinner and he can't fight that, so that's how he seems to reconcile with his own sex life. I guess he feels like he's imperfect, so to enjoy his sinning while he can and not worry about it until it's time to meet his maker. That's how I interpreted what he said to me, but I will have to ask him more about that.

Scott

04-05-2012, 11:07 AM

I think that's probably why he's not too worried about it. He understands that the Bible was written by prejudiced men, and not everything that's written is accurate, or meant to be followed.

I'm glad he's wise enough to realize this :-).

It just worries me, because even though I'm not a believer myself, I understand that his faith is important to him and a part of his happiness. I certainly don't want him to feel like being with me would distance him from God. But, I suppose, that's something he'll have to figure out on his own.

If he's wise enough to realize that not everything in the bible should be followed, I think he has a good chance of coming to the conclusion that your arrangement with him is fine by God. I define God as everything; I'm not exactly sure as to what "everything" entails, but I can't believe that God wouldn't want us to share everything with those we love (and sex is definitely part of everything :-)).

catbird

04-09-2012, 11:36 AM

Not sure if this is really the correct place to post this since the topic at hand doesn't strictly have to do with polyamory, but it is about spirituality so I didn't know where else to put it!

I see a lot of people comment on having been in and taught the "Christian Marriage" and it being a major hurdle to their journey to poly. I was raised Southern Baptist. My grandpa was a pastor. I still consider myself a Christian, although in a different sense (the Christ-like sense, not the religious sense).

What I am curious about is why Christian husbands tend to get a bad reputation for being repressive and completely controlling. My family and the churches I have gone to have acknowledged that the husband is the head of the household and ultimate decision making is up to them and used various Biblical references to back it up and whatnot, BUT they have always also focused on passages such as I Peter 3:7 that tells husbands to treat their wives with understanding.

NONE of the devoutly Christian men I know would EVER do something to blatantly hurt their wives (i.e. expect them to completely stop being their own person after marriage, expect that a second wife would be acceptable without the first one agreeing, etc.). Am I just completely naive in thinking that the Bible as a whole teaches us to be loving and respectful of everyone regardless of gender, marital status, sexuality, or any other qualifier?

No, the Bible as a whole doesn't teach love and respect for everyone. There are parts of it that teach that it's a good idea and what God wants. The Bible writers were human, though, and what they wrote was their idea of what God wants.

I'm a guy. I think stories never stop about men being bullies, simply because we are larger and stronger than women, usually, and we have testosterone. A man can't say anything agressive or confident anymore, or the stories start. Or another male starts feeling all responsible and bullies the "bully." The fact is everybody assumes about men, but no one understands men really.