Apr 292014
 

links_image1The good, bad, and in between about Steven Furtick…

The United Church of Christ sues for same sex marriage…

Tribulation is already happening for millions…

How child predators exploit “Gospel” terms…

The “Christian Books of the Year”…none of which I own or intend to…

Does it matter what you wear to church?

J. Dwight Pentecost dies…

Why some teachers are banning laptops from class…

Five problems with grace…

A really weird article on online dating…

Piper and Keller on gay marriage…

An interesting take on Hebrews 4:12…

Against the argument culture…

A reverse Ehrman…

Wenatchee the Hatchet is watching Mars Hill purge it’s media…

Moral failure or slave of lust?

Jars of Clay backlash…

Why Mormons aren’t Christians…

Homosexuality in the New Testament…

Kerry under fire for Israel comments…

A compilation of the evidence against Ergun Caner…

Finally…I get “prophecies” like these three or four times a week.

  144 Responses to “LINKS!”

  1. I expected at least one artice about decent people doing good things after your comment yesterday πŸ˜‰

  2. Jars’ first album was epic. After that, they sucked.

  3. Good luck finding stories like that to link to.

  4. The United Church of Christ – how they have fallen. They used to be the Puritans in a previous time.

  5. I was listening to a rep from the UCC on NPR this AM. He said they were just continuing in the tradition of their Puritan forefathers who came to America for the sake of religious freedom. That is one confused man, is all I have to say.

  6. The article I linked to in #4 is profound when it comes to identifying your church as a cult. And hits far too close to home.

  7. For all those who say it doesn’t matter what they wear to church, I refer them to their own weddings (or the future wedding of their dreams) where THEY are the star of the show and dress up to the max and expect everyone in the wedding party to do likewise. Also, candles (usually disallowed in many evangelical settings as too catholicky) make an appearance. So when God is the “star,” ripped jeans, flip flops and T-shirts are good enough. When THEY are the star, bring on the fancy clothes and the guests are hopefully dressed nicely, too because after all, it’s their big day.

  8. Neo,

    Just now. πŸ™‚
    I frankly think he’s as full of crap as a Christmas goose.
    By his definition, the church has always been a cult, because the church has always been a “confessing” church.
    In other words, the church has always worked hard to define the boundaries of orthodox Christian belief, has written them down, and adopted them as standards…”confessions”.
    Today, actually believing in specific doctrines is treated as an evil thing.
    Second, I’m sick and tired of moderns acting like the church hasn’t wrestled with the implications of stories like the Flood and the Canaanite conquest for at least a thousand years…it has, and some of the best minds in history have addressed it.
    They’re just too damn lazy to actually engage the material.
    This quote sent me through the roof;

    “I understand that there are exegetical methods for dealing with such things but for most people in church some of this stuff is problematic.”

    Those passages are supposed to be problematic, dumb ass.
    They challenge all the modern notions about both God and man and those “exegetical methods” that are passed off as irrelevant are how we integrate all the Bible into a coherent narrative.

    Yes, there are problems in the church, yes, we don’t ask good questions, yes, we sometimes value doctrine over people…but I know that many, many Christians are thinking, wrestling, studying, writing, and living out their faith in wonderful ways all over the world.

    This is America…no one has to believe in anything.
    We’re also supposed to be able to believe as our consciences dictate…if someone doesn’t want to embrace the faith or a particular sect of the faith, they have that ability.

    I just wish they’d do so in peace and quit trying to reform what they reject.

    Rant over.

  9. Well, then there’s that…..

  10. “So then, if your wardrobe is to reflect your special Sunday priorities, it would seem you have two options. The first is to dress down from the other six days of the week. The second is to dress up. Which do you believe most glorifies God?”

    I can’t express how meaningless this conversation is. Please spare us the thoughts of modern-day pharisees.

  11. Neo,

    You know I don’t underestimate the real issues in the church today.
    I’m just at the end of my patience with some of these progressives who don’t engage with any scholarship, who seem to have no hermeneutic, and have no respect for the work of the Holy Spirit in the history of the church.
    The writer touched on some real problems to indict a whole group…and that’s neither honest or fair.

  12. I just like to look a little more spiffed up on Sunday. My family, too. It’s not an issue for us because everybody seems to like it. Maybe it’s like putting on a Angel’s jersey when going to the ball game. It shows it is a special occasion, outside the norm. Then again, I don’t wear a suit and tie the five days of the work week so it’s a nice change up for me to wear an outfit that took a moment of thought. When it comes to what everyone else is wearing at church, I couldn’t care less. I like the diversity. “People not talking bout religion no more, they just wanna praise The Lord. Long hair, short hair, suits and ties, everybody praise The Lord, looking past the hair and straight into the eyes, everybody praise The Lord”

  13. Michael. Somehow I both liked the article and your response.

  14. Neo,

    You fit right in here… πŸ™‚

  15. London,

    Good work!
    You’re now in charge of finding good news for the Tuesday Links column… πŸ˜‰

  16. On a slightly different note, the old school Star Wars trio of Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford were spotted together in London yesterday. No confirmation yet but sources seem to indicate Ford was glowing while Fisher and Hamill faded into oblivion. Or was it the other way around?

  17. I have two problems with that opinion piece on Jars’ frontman:

    1) The whole article is to be read as if he just asked questions. Which is not true. He not only made assertions which were ‘I believe’ statements but even his questions were clearly making points and not mere questions seeking understanding.

    2) None of the actual shocking statements he made are in the article. What’s in the article is tame compared to the rest of it. He questioned and made assertions not only on the perspicuity of Scripture but whether ‘morality’ matters at all.

  18. Matt,

    You nailed it.
    #1 is epidemic in these discussions and has become a literary vehicle to avoid responsibility and claim victimization upon rebuttal.

  19. hi everyone! hope you are well.

  20. Good morning, Dusty!

  21. (((hugs big brother)))

  22. Xenia, I like the idea about dressing up for church, I really do, but what of the homeless man who has nothing better to wear? and what of our daily alonetime worship?

  23. London, that is a wonderful story. Now I want to go on a beach retreat! LOL These women literally coached this woman ‘back to life’. What a wonderful ministry. I hope others read the story.

  24. Do I have cooties? where did everyone go? lol

  25. Dusty ,

    They come and go all day…they’ll be back. πŸ™‚

  26. Sterling banned for life…

  27. I just watched the Furtick video and all I could come up with was, “what in the world was that” and “who in the world would listen to this clown?”

  28. It’s funny – I work in financial markets and we have 3 big screen TV’s going all the time on the business channels. We barely look up as the news scrolls along, and maybe for a second if the Fed chief comes on.

    We were all gathered around watching the comish’s talk about Sterling. πŸ™‚

  29. Dusty, we always have impoverished people, or just plain tourists who don’t know the scoop, come to our churches and they are always welcomed and no one ever says anything to them about their attire. We do have a small notice in the narthex (foyer) which says what appropriate attire is for Divine Liturgy, but no one enforces it, no one would dream of saying anything to anyone that would make them feel unwelcome. Usually, they look around and see what everyone is wearing and the next time they come, they’ve adapted.

    We aren’t talking about fancy, we are talking about appropriate. I bought a long cotton skirt at Wal Mart yesterday for $12, perfectly appropriate to wear at church. All the jeans were way more expensive so wearing a simple skirt is not more expensive than a pair of jeans, it is cheaper. Even at the thrift shops (where I often shop) simple skirts are cheaper than jeans.

    So why does all this matter. I believe we worship God with our whole being, which includes our bodies. We are a very physical Church, we believe that God uses physical means. If we were the kind of group that was mostly the “concert and lecture” style, then it might be appropriate to dress as you would for a concert and a lecture. I believe that there’s more to Christianity than what goes on in our skulls. I am sure most of you believe this, too. Dressing appropriately for church is one way of demonstrating this.

    Most of the women at my parish wear very simple outfits, usually a long skirt w/ a sweater (and the scarf, of course.) A few come all dressed up but not the regulars. Men usually wear Dockers and a sweater. No big deal, nothing fancy.

    It is actually rather refreshing to see a group of women not wearing tight jeans with bare midriffs. You don’t see that too often nowadays. It is especially winsome to see teenage girls dressed modestly.

  30. Xenia, I get it now. thanks for the clarification. I agree with you.

  31. When I taught at a CC high school we had a hard time convincing kids (and their parents) that pajamas and slippers were inappropriate attire for school. Some wanted to bring their blankies, too. We had the most basic of dress codes and enforcing it was one of our biggest headaches.

  32. Dusty, πŸ™‚

  33. Good riddance to Donald Sterling as he long has been a miserable human being. Unfortunately, I imagine he’ll fight this tooth and nail through the courts and so it could be years until he actually is gone for good.

  34. From the “lust” website:

    If you are struggling with lust, consider this:

    1.Do not be misled by Satan’s lies. Even though you see prominent Christians fail, this does not mean that victory over lust is out of reach for you. No life dominating sin can stand before the power that is at work in you.
    2.Step out in obedience. God will lead you to victory, allow you to overcome lust and to experience freedom from sin. Lust will not have dominion over you. You will not be its slave.

    You can replace lust with any besetting sin- it is all the same- and Christ alone can help us lay it down and overcome.

  35. That compiled list on Ergun Caner is unbelievable. Who has the time to even compile all that? But when confronted with this whole list of evidence, I can’t see how anyone can support this man in good conscience.

  36. *Ramsay, not ramsey

  37. The article on child predators in the christian community was excellent. It may be difficult or impossible for some to read but as parents and grandparents I believe it’s very important.

  38. Shame on you Michael!! I read the article about why Mormons are not Christians and it was excellent as it addressed important points many d aren’t aware of. But………. at the end of the article was a link to an excellent article about Alsion Krauss with a few song links!! Here’s the link. πŸ™‚

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/08/26/alison-krauss-and-union-station-in-the-bluegrass-state/

  39. Ebrother said, “The article on child predators in the christian community was excellent.”

    can’t read that one yet.

  40. The lust issue is real simple.

    Most men struggle with it b/c we’re wired up by God to procreate broadly….and the OT illustrates this with multiple wives and concubines as “Okey dokey” under the OT Law…and many “men of God!” had multiple wives and concubines…Gideon, David, Solomon, etc.

    Doesn’t excuse giving into lust and violating marriage vows etc.

    If you have a problem with lust, then P0rnography is like throwing gasoline on the fire. If you start down that path, you’re toast.

    You have to make a choice, do you want to stay married, and if you have kids, do you want to be their father or do you want someone else to raise them?

    It’s about choices and about what controls you. If you give in to lust and go down the p0rn path, you end up like a drug addict and your lust controls you and you’re going to crash and burn eventually.

    If you come to your senses and can make a more clear-headed decision, you have to decide what you want more…feeding that tendency which becomes an addiction and leaving your marriage (and kids as well in some cases) or exercising self-control and starting a new habit of not feeding the lust which helps to curb the tendency to fail.

    It’s not magic, it’s about personal choices, personal responsibility, Reaping and Sowing and taking control of yourself and not feeding a harmful addiction.

    You can choose to go either direction and it’s not the devil’s fault. You are the devil inside. You are capable of good and evil in the same Tree.

  41. Dusty, I had you in mind when I posted the warning I did. Hope you’re doing well. It’s hot and gonna be getting hotter here!

  42. hi eBrother, so sorry you have to put up with all that sunshine. πŸ˜‰

  43. I agree with RB. Now that may be more prophetic than the Blood Moons. πŸ™‚

    btw, whatever happened to those? did we die?

  44. Thank you, Michael, for linking to my blog post about Moral Failure. When pastors expose a church to the grief of a sexual scandal, the resulting discouragement and damage in lives of that they influence is incalculable. overcoming-lust.com

  45. it made it up to 70′ here – finally!!!

  46. 80 degrees here near Monterey. We ate lunch outside for the first time of the year.

  47. I feel lousy. Yesterday I discovered a bird had built a nest and had babies on the eaves at our front porch. There is maybe a 2 inch opening the mother got into. How I discovered it was I found a baby that was dead as it was pushed or somehow got out, slid down the eave and fell on the patio. Later yesterday I came upon a live baby and I wasn’t sure what to do. It seemed injured and so I used a paper towel and a stick to gently place the baby back in the nest. A few hours later it was back on the patio dead. I just went out and found a third baby with eyes not yet open flailing about on the patio. I went ahead and put it out of its misery. Like I said I feel lousy.

  48. πŸ™ so sorry ebrother ((((hugs))))

  49. over-coming lust…makes a difference whether you read ‘over-coming’ as a verb or an adjective.

  50. Test

  51. as an adjective, wouldn’t you have to be serving two masters?

  52. http://youtu.be/ADDkQKZQtnA

    This guy is the president of a university again.

  53. MLK the blood moon does one holy thing, it increases market share, many people make bank on such events and good on them because it is holy to make bank, always and in every single event always. Even if you lie through your teeth, make up nonsense end of the world scenarios that are devoid of any realty. God honors market share I get that. Actually I dont but I am an unrepentant heathen, God hating degenerate. I get that, I really do. It would be helpful if the magic believing side of the fense actually ponied up some evidence. From my side of the fense they have been wrong, always, in every single guess they made they were wrong, always, incase that did not get through ALWAYS. In every single event they predicted they were wrong, every single one. Yes every single one. They are batting 0.0 and that is being nice.

    I struggle with that, always have when one proclaims eternal truth. I dont get it, people bemoan non absolute assertions but our tripe offers nothing, nothing whatsoever. We offer blabber laced in supposition rhetoric and it is utter nonsense. Please if the laws of logic canard is silly. You put on a seat belt, you take medication, you look both ways before you cross the streets. And I’m arrogant I dont hold a candle. We live in a reality of probabilities, it makes it messy but it is quite real and quite human, it also hints and the work of God. Offered for what it is worth, I am willing to be corrected, but what I struggle with is the absolute truth folks you cant be corrected, you have the answer. I find that rather strange. Again offered for what it is worth.

  54. RR God did not wire us to procreate broadly. That’s animals – not us. God created Adam and Eve to be one man and one woman joined as one together forever. Sin ( the Devil) tempted man to fall. That caused us to behave no matter than the animals. God created the human sexual act as pure, man perverted it. All sin involves choice. It’s called free will. List is no different from any other. But to try to argue that God wired is that way is complete foolishness. And all of your OT examples probe only that man rebelled against what God desired

  55. Show me anywhere that the OT Law condones “ok dokeys” multiple wives and concubines. Your bible illiteracy is astonishing.

  56. Jim Vander Spek,

    Maybe those Christians should have never put that Pastor in a pedastol in the first place and work out thier own salvation with, fear and trembling. Its way overdue that Christians stop relying on Pastors for thier walk with God. The Sun will still come out tomorrow, their kids will still go to school and they still will have to go to work to feed their families and pay their bills. Maybe just maybe those Christians will start using their God given discernment like the Bible says to use and stop making Man their fortress. The blind leading the blind into a ditch. Jesus said call no man teacher or father and that you have no need that anyine teach you as its the Holy Spirit that guides you into all truth.

  57. Fil @ 52…. πŸ™‚

  58. Mark, it is your lack of biblical knowledge that is telling…but you are a CC guy so it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t know more than probably 25% of the bible.

    King David’s great sin that Nathan confronted him for was not David’s multiple wives and concubines…it was David having relations with another man’s wife:

    “And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron, and more sons and daughters were born to David.”

    The Levitical Law permitted multiple wives and didn’t condemn it, and it actually clarified that if you did what was permitted there were some rules:

    “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.”

    β€œIf a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,”

    “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.”

    The female “slaves” above, that are expressly permitted, were often made Concubines…similar to Hagar who had relations with Abraham. You do remember Hagar, a slave who bore Abraham’s son Ishmael? That was in basic Sunday School so it’s possible you remember that one…

    I have Orthodox Jewish friends today who agree that OT Law permits multiple wives and concubines…and it’s their Hebrew laws.

    You may not like it b/c it doesn’t fit your Pressup. evangelical fairy-tale Box…but the OT permits multiple wives and concubines/slavery…and even the Hebrews of today agree that it permits it, though many don’t practice it any longer.

  59. @60. Midnight Rider. I hear your concern about raising up pastors as role models.

    However, the concern in my post is broader. As a long time Christian who took a long time to figure out my β€œlust” problem, I am continually amazed how little practical guidance is provided. If I had seen it, I would not have written my book, Overcoming Lust, or kept writing about this on my blog by the same name. (who really wants to be known as the lust guy?)

    I am convinced that many pastors including many who are never going to go all Bob Coy in their lives fail to understand the basics of this issue or teach effectively about it. Pastors who fall demonstrate this and cause others to give up. http://www.overcoming-lust.com/

  60. Luther had a thought on multiple wives. He said that he could no see a clear command against it so he refused to bind people’s conscience over it.

  61. I highly encourage Christian men to only have one wife because I believe this is wise and honorable for today’s society; however, I can not find anything in OT or the NT that forbids a man to have more than one wife other than for leaders in the church are only to have one wife. I say this because missionaries in foreign countries where men have more than one wife are presented with a sticky question if the men convert to Christianity. Are they to divorce all their wives and just keep one? My opinion is they shouldn’t but I would be interested to hear other opinions on the matter.

  62. Permitting annd condoning are two different things. Levitical law st practical guidelines around man’s fallen nature. The constrcut of marriage predates Levitical law. It was set in the Garden. One man-one woman. Man perverted it so God set up protections. You have not proven anything. Show me anywhere that God established multiple wives as OK.

  63. Mark,

    In my example above, should the converted polygamists divorce all their wives accept one?

  64. Mark and RB are the same – Mark has the problem on one side and RB has the problem on the other – they both misuse the Bible. They each look at the Bible as a rulebook (RB seeing inconsistencies in the rules and Mark trying to be the disciplinarian).

    The Bible is not a rule book, a recipe book or a book of formulas. The Bible is about Jesus, God of the Most High and how he saves people.

    Perhaps the evangelical bookstores should sell Bibles with penalty flags inserted – so you guys can throw flags on each other.

  65. MLD, I have no particular view of the bible other than what is self-evident and I call out the many inconsistencies.

    I no longer force a Presupposition into the text…I view it through as much a critical thinking and rational lens as I humanly can.

    I do not require the bible to be perfect or “god” to have faith.

    If you perceive my comments as making it some sort of “rule book” then that is your personal projection and interpretation of my critical thinking analysis applied to the texts.

  66. MLD- if you do not believe the Bible contains communicates God’s desire for what is right and wrong – then why did God give us the Ten Commandments. And why did Jesus give us two commandments. Are they meaningless? I never said the bible was a rulebook- I was only responding to soemone who cliamed that God “hard wired” man to sin. That is heresy.

  67. Maybe God gave us the ten commandments to show us that we couldn’t keep them. Kind of like a tutor to show us our need for a savior? Just a thought, what do you think Mark? And where in the ten commandments does it say you can’t have more than one wife?

  68. Mark said, ” I was only responding to soemone who cliamed that God β€œhard wired” man to sin. That is heresy.”

    Mark, if you assert that “god” created all things…and that nothing exists outside of “god” and that he is truly the “author” of all things….then sin does not exist unless “god” created it and allowed it.

    Or, you are asserting there is something superior to “god” that is outside of his will and control….

  69. Perhaps God gave the 10 Commandments to the Jews and NOT to us.

  70. MLD, you have argued that God gave the 10 Commandments to all of mankind and that is where we got our “Moral Ought”

    You are a walking contradiction and can’t even keep track of your own arguments.

  71. You need to ask your Lutheran god for a prosthetic brain to go with those prosthetic arms πŸ™‚

  72. RB,
    Not at all, in fact moral “ought” comes out of the nature of God … not out of anything I do.

  73. How can you be so wrong so often?

  74. MLD, if I get the time and the inclination I’ll find the discussion and remind you of your words and previous position.

  75. Who the 10 commandments were for is listed by the recipients in the 1st command.

    1) I am the Lord thy god, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

    2) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

    3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

    4) Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.

    5) Honor thy father and thy mother.

    6) Thou shalt not murder.

    7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    8) Thou shalt not steal.

    9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.

    10) Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor.

  76. You won’t be honest when I post your previous remarks, but I’ll find them and post it anyway to illustrate your poor memory and your double-speak.

  77. RR sin is not a created thing. It is a description of mans rebellion against God. Saying God created sin is like saying God created depression or addiction or lust. These are words used to describe mans actions. God created man pure and holy in His image. Man rebelled. He broke fellowship with God. Jesus came died and was resurrected as the ultimate sacrifice to pay the penalty for mans sin and restore man to fellowship with God. Christianity 101. God foreknew thatan would sin. God did not create man to sin. Unfortunately some things are outside our human limitations to comprehend. We accept by faith. Logic is extremely worthless when applied to a God who lives outside of time space dimension thought and matter. The good news is we will all understand it when we are restored with Him for eternity. The better news is we won’t give a ?$;() because we will b so busy worshipping Him.

  78. RB, save yourself the time – i may say God’s law binds everyone to moral out – but why would i limit it to the 10 commandments – which are specific to a people?

  79. correction – ” i may say God’s law binds everyone to moral ought” –

  80. MLD, how does the Lutheran understand the 4th commandment and how does a non Jew remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy out of moral ought?

  81. Andrew, I think you are confusing categories. Moral ought just means that their are things that we “ought” to do. Without a God, why should anyone “ought” to do anything.

    There is no “should” or “ought” outside of God. An atheist cannot do something out of “ought” – they can do something because right now it seems like a good thing to do.

  82. Andrew,
    ” how does the Lutheran understand the 4th commandment ” We understand it as the 3rd commandment. πŸ™‚

    http://www.sundaysoftware.com/ten/number.htm

  83. I probably am mixing categories and I do apologize for that. However, The question though is what those “oughts” exactly are knowing that there is a God? Is this just a Holy Spirit inspired thing or do the “oughts” come from scripture?

  84. Andrew, at a point in discussion, it doesn’t matter what the particular ought is. The discussion is “are there ‘shoulds & oughts’ or are there not ‘shoulds & oughts'”

  85. MLD, you are a walking contradiction. πŸ™‚ You just listed it as the 4th commandment in your post #79.

  86. Andrew, if you want to know what Lutherans think of the 3rd commandment about the Sabbath, may I suggest Luther’s Small Catechism. #rd commandment begins on p. 15

    http://www.mtolivelutheran.info/uploads/5/9/1/6/5916933/explanation.pdf

  87. Andrew, you are a poor reader – that list #79 is the Jewish listing.
    I gave that to show their #1 command includes the part about God brining them out of Israel

    My # 86 includes the Lutheran listing.

  88. MLD, Just wanted to let you know that I sought out a Lutheran pastor in my area. I’m going to meet him for coffee soon and then attend a service. That is why I am asking all these questions. Never been to Lutheran church before but I do find the theology compelling.

  89. Andrew, good. Read the catechism I posted at #90.

  90. My gosh. Doesn’t anyone here think polygymy is against Gods will? Really? Xenia? Michael ? E runner ? Dusty? G???? This might b the end of the PP for me

  91. Mark, as someone that may go on the mission field someday to a country that practices polygamy, I would really like you to answer my post at #67.

  92. Simple. God instituted marriage in the Garden. A man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to a woman and the two shall become one. Not the three four or five. God hates divorce and commanded against adultery. Thus one man one woman forever.

  93. You must go back to the institution of marriage to establish its requirements. Regarding the missionary if the convert was a cannibal would u tell him to keep eating ? If he was a drunk would u say keep drinking ? Think of what Jesus said to the rich young ruler. When we take up our cross we lay things down. In some cases it may even be the person u love if u r unequally yoked ( but not yet married). The way is narrow

  94. Mark, I surely don’t make a case for polygamy – I think someone would be crazy to want more than one spouse.But the things you describe are descriptive of what God did, but not necessarily prescriptive for what he allows.

    I don’t think we see God telling someone NOT to marry more than one, and I am pretty sure that we never see anyone reprimanded or punished for having more than one wife … I could be wrong, so you can show me.

    At best, it is a very unclear area.

  95. Found an article relating to the Mormonism one.

    http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/04/30/glenn-beck-shares-mormon-teachings-liberty-university/

    This is why you don’t invite Mormons to speak at your institution even if you agree with their politics.

  96. Derek, I just saw the same article and posted on Facebook. This is what happens when you lead with politics instead of the Gospel.

  97. BTW, I sort of agree with Andrews assertion about conversions in polygamous countries. I don’t think the qualification for one wife would even be put in there if there weren’t Christians who had several wives due to having them before they became Christians.

    This is not to approve polygamous marriages, but just a fact of the first generation of gentile Christians.

    There is however a reason that this did not last long though. God had a plan for man and it was one man with one woman.

  98. Kevin H said “This is what happens when you lead with politics instead of the Gospel.”

    No, this is what happens when you give up the gospel. I can say this – I am a Liberty grad.

  99. Mark, just got in….Im with you I think polygamy is against God’s will….one man and one woman-that is it!

  100. You are not making anyone divorce their 2nd, 3rd, 4th……wife…they are not legit marriages.

  101. Hi Mark,
    “My gosh. Doesn’t anyone here think polygymy is against Gods will? Really? Xenia? Michael ? E runner ? Dusty? G???? This might b the end of the PP for me”

    Sorry, am slammed at work with a ramp up to a national conference, just saw your plead for one of us to weigh in.

    Polygamy is a weird concept for me. I’m a one woman man, even back when I was unmarried, I was never able to have multiple girlfriends. It’s an intimacy thing for me and I cannot fathom how anyone can have that complex spousal relationship with more than one spouse. Even in seasons of emotional distance, monogamy is the only workable relationship for me.

  102. Mark, don’t give up on PP. Really it is hard sometimes but we do get a lot out of the debates. I’m sorry I did not see your distress cry earlier.

  103. hi ( |o )====:::

  104. if it were not sinful for a man to have more than one wife, it should not be sinful for a woman to have more than one husband. But our marriage contract protects us from that. (and state laws)

    But I believe it is against God’s will as well.

  105. Just got in for a walk and saw Mark’s post. I am against polygamy 100% and have not been following whatever led to your post. Hope you’re okay.

  106. I hope Mark really does not stay away because of this….none of us were here to hear his plea.

  107. Mixing politics and our faith is a thing one does carefully. I can’t believe he was allowed to share his beliefs. I hope there’s students there who will challenge this and create some dialogue on campus. Unreal…

  108. So i cooked yesterday! First time in a long time…I used a crock pot and that helped. My memory fails sometimes and I can’t remember to turn off the burners. It made me feel accomplished in something.

  109. Mark:

    From the beginning it was a one woman thing and scripture indicates it is the lust and wickedness of man which led to more than one wife. Look in Genesis and see how the first man with multiple wives treated them and others he came in contact with. His name is Lamech!

    The question should be, why would a man want more than one wife? It certainly wasn’t for the good of the tribe.

  110. In arranged marriages there is no lust – you may not even know the bride before the wedding.

    Without a “thus saith the Lord – “you will not have more than one wife” – and with absolutely no examples of anyone being reprimanded or punished by God for marrying more than one one, at best it is a disputed issue.

  111. “In arranged marriages there is no lust – you may not even know the bride before the wedding.”

    not knowing each other does not stop people from sleeping together….and how could the marriage be consummated if there were no lust from at least one of the wedding couple.

  112. I often have my daily devotionals in my jammies. Does that make me a bad person? I mean, I am in the presence of God.

    Really, who are we dressing up for? When Jesus was crucified He had two articles of clothing. Were they His Sunday best?

    Extra-biblical literature somewhere documents that many were turned away from the Sermon on the Mount because they didn’t have shoes on. Terrible! What were they thinking, not having shoes! “No shoes, no shirt, no sermon!”

    And of course, Jesus! A terrible example. No tie, sandals, hanging out with tax collectors and sinners. (You know, I heard that His feet were dirty!). What was He thinking? And the way He talked about the religious leaders! Certainly, not very tolerant at all.

    Honestly, in church I’m happy if those next to me have showered. But if they haven’t…

    will I still love them?
    will I embrace them?
    will I pray for them?
    will I deny myself to help them? even if it costs me money?
    will I look past all the outward?
    will I see them with God’s heart?

    Honestly, it is no wonder the world wants nothing to do with the “American Church!” We are the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the planet! Who wants anything to do with a bunch of hypocrites?

    Now if you will excuse me, WWF is on and I don’t like to miss any of it.

  113. It is interesting to me how in the bible God :: regulates :: polygamy, just as the bible also regulates slavery, war, and many other things which are not ideal. It leaves me scratching my head because the same bible says that God hates divorce, yet the same bible has God regulating it. This is one of the reasons I view the bible differently now that I am no longer an evangelical.

  114. MLD are you serious?

    “In arranged marriages there is no lust”

    So what you are saying the young man or woman had no anticipation of the arranged marriage process and what it will lead to. Come on get real, people are the same today and yesterday.

    Let’s add the politically motivated marriages also, Solomon had a bunch of those, when it’s something new coming to the barn of course there’s lust.

    I admit it why do people (I want) “need” the latest Apple product? Pure lust for a shiny new object when there was nothing wrong with the current one.

    Lust in arranged marriages? You bet! Just a different mating tradition.

    Why did Eve want to eat the fruit?
    What did James teach about lust?

    The G man might also notice the regulations of these things tend to mostly prevent abuse from happening to the other party. Lamech in Genesis, the originator of more than one wife, verbally abused his wives and murdered other men.

  115. MLD:

    I think we’ve discovered a secret desire (lust) of yours, hmmm more than one wife not a disputed issue?

    My wife’s calling, see ya!

  116. Bob,
    You missed the point – their is n lust for a particular person before the arranged marriage..
    Look, didn’t you lust after your wife before marriage?

    I am still waiting for the thus saith the lord – or someone being punished for having more than one wife.

    Look, I will even take God warning someone in particular in the Bible not to take a 2nd wife.

    I said way up the line, I do not advocate for polygamy, but I sure can’t say the Bible is against it.

  117. Hi Mark, I was away all day and missed the conversation. I do believe polygamy is against God’s will. He tolerated it in some cases but it was never His ideal.

  118. Let’s look at it this way. Is dating a legitimate Christian practice. I see no examples of dating and it seems that the only proper way to meet etc is the way God did it in the Bible

    As with the marriage examples being given – I would say the only way to meet a girl is the one God makes and delivers for you… like God did for Adam.

    Even when the patriarchs looked for wives for the kids, they had direct measurements to make sure the girl was delivered by God.

    So, dating, biblical or not – acceptable Christian practice or not?

  119. Deuteronomy 17:15-17

    (NKJV)

    15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the Lord has said to you, β€˜You shall not return that way again.’ 17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.

  120. “The G man might also notice the regulations of these things tend to mostly prevent abuse from happening to the other party.”

    …and what I definitely notice is that there is no prohibition of the atrocities, a failure. The persons who wrote those regulations had not yet evolved concepts of equality.

  121. God forbids bigamy….”no man can serve two masters”.

  122. G, I agree. Seeing the Bible in terms of a journey, one with a trajectory, is more helpful than seeing it a one destination.

  123. Linda, that only shows that kings weren’t to multiply wives … whatever that means.
    Does the passage mean that the king can have only one horse in his stable? πŸ™‚

    I think the ESV states it more clearly ; “16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, β€˜You shall never return that way again.’ 17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. ”

    Now, it seems to me a couple of horses and wives are OK – “many” = greedy. πŸ™‚

  124. Agreed, Neo, and the trajectory is blessed!

  125. I just knew someone was going to say, “that’s was for kings only.” Okay, try this: horses are not equivalent to a wife.

    Proverbs 5 through 7 or 8 talks about a spouse getting all their satisfaction from one wife. There is Hebrews 13:4 AND we sure don’t want to leave out the final word on this in Revelation 22:15. Then one can always go back to Genesis then start all over again to see what God said about having one husband and one wife and note the consequences of not abiding by this but doing it the heathen way, as usual. Justifying it all along the way.

    Just like some did when the king wanted so many women, some say it was okay because after all, they needed to form alliances with other nations and leaders. Never mind what God told them to do—-trust in Him, You know, like Job, Joseph, Abraham, Zachariah and Martha, and so many others.

    But God let them run themselves out, suffering along the way, simply because they thought they could given that consequences of doing so was not always immediately felt or experienced. I would dare say, like Michal, generally speaking the women folk felt it more deeply and learn to put their focus upon that which they did have a voice—that is the teaching of the children. Poor Michal, even then David made the announcement he would flaunt himself even the more towards the ladies, if he so chose to do. He did, and whoops!!

  126. Linda,
    Great to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks!

  127. Lust = to desire something that is not yours to have. When we have a desire to be with our betrothed, that is a good thing, but to practice self control is a god-fearing thing.

    At one time when the monarch and other “royal” people were married, they would be required to consummate the marriage by having witnesses present which included a church leader, the parents, and a recorder.

    Speaking of passion, we can read about Jacob not knowing it was Leah who he was being so passionate towards. Conversely, we can speculate about Abraham giving into Sarah request to sleep with her handmaid. Then we have Esther, who upon tradition was interviewed by being among many who spent one night with the king of Persia (?).

    Michal desire for her husband and his desire to have her back as his wife, but not so much to be her husband.

    Lust: I want it, I deserve it, I can handle it.

  128. Can I ask an honest question about where in the bible is there an example of a one wife one husband model as often spoken about, where the marriage was not arranged, money was involved, a brother taking over the “duty” of the dead husband, a slave etc. Just one couple where they met, courted / dated married and became an independent economic unit. Thanks.

  129. #134–brian
    This is an EXCELLENT question. Most of what I read in scripture seems more socio-economically oriented, and less love for love’s sake. The culture then was agrarian–so procreation was a necessity for survival. We have moved away from that model and focus now on romance in interdependent agreements/contracts [as opposed to covenants] called “marriage”.
    Except for that scandalous narrative in Song of Solomon in which the female is the primary voice, and it is difficult to prove that marriage vows have even been shared? In some of her pericopes—her attentions even appear divided between two different men???
    I dare you to read it again—without a commentary–without the preconceived ideas of metaphor etc. Just as love poetry [which was a popular genre in the time it was written]. I don’t know how Song of Sol passed the cannonization process–but I’m so glad it did!!!

    I will wait for a more “traditional” answer with you Brian. But I appreciate your question:)

  130. Thanks to my PP brothers and sisters for chiming in. Linda u best me to it but all of your verses speak to this. I do not believe we have to find specific literal prohibition in Scripture to discern Gods heart on every matter. If MLD thinks so he’s turning the bible into a rule book not me

  131. MLD

    So did you pick out spouses for your children?

    G guy:

    You might also notice something often mentioned about people sacrificing their children to gods. Was that ok and allowed?

    Mark’s right, you guys have to quit reading the bible as a set of rules and look for every “loop hole” to fill with your lusts. I guess it’s a lot like doing taxes.

  132. MLD

    I lusted for my wife even before I knew who she was.

  133. Bob,

    I am not sure who you are referring to that is looking for a “loop hole” because Jesus made it pretty clear that a man that lusts after a women not his wife has committed adultery in his heart. No “loop holes with that.

  134. Bob,
    “So did you pick out spouses for your children?”

    No – and I admit that I sin, because as many have pointed out, I should have followed “the biblical” model (which discerns God’s heart) on how a spouse is chosen.

    Besides, perhaps I should have as I wouldn’t have done worse since 2 of my 3 are divorced. The only redeeming factor of their poor choices is the grand kids. πŸ˜‰

  135. Enjoyed the links this week and regret the shortness of time that I have to spend on them.

  136. RE: brian @ # 134,
    The story of Mary and Joseph might be just such a story. Matthew’s Gospel records that even though Joseph was Torah observant he would not allow Mary to suffer public ridicule or private shame under the strictures of the Mosaic codes. He broke with the demands of the Law. Why? Why would he do that if their engagement was primarily about dowry and what good Jews did to cement house alliances?
    Have you ever heard Percy Sledge’s old song When a Man Loves a Woman?
    I don’t think it’s a hard stretch of imagination between the lines of Scripture at all to say that Joseph felt the same way about Mary.
    The story has a beauty and a fetching quality to it not found in any other holy book.

  137. @133 Linda: I find your definition of lust difficult to apply. If it is as you say, how are we to put lust to death? You may want to consider a workable, biblical definition that I have developed: http://www.overcoming-lust.com/articles/understanding-lust/

  138. I do believe it matters what you wear to an assembly gathered to worship the Lord. He did tell women to dress modestly, and if women are to do that, surely it applies to men as well. I can’t believe it is right to go to a service dressed like you are going to the beach or a picnic. This goes for the established Christian especially. It turns me off to see a “sea” of naked legs whether male or female. In the Old Testament, God said he didn’t want to see the legs of the priest as he went up to the altar. One Sunday at a local C.C. I saw a woman with both breasts exposed except for the nipples. This is not clothes line preaching, it is just being sensible about what you wear to a church service. I’m not saying it should be a suit or even a tie, just that it should be decent.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)

%d bloggers like this: