Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:49:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1324 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
“And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from
the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, FOR THIS REASON A MAN
SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO
SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What
therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6
JOHN
|
I’m not seeing where that description of linkage rules out a similar linkage
with another willing partner, although I’d grant that it does rule out the
partmer being the same gender.
I’m also not seeing the relevance to constitutional rights but that’s a
different topic.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
| (...) The operative word I'd say would be "two". (...) Not really. Marriage is a religious institution-- that governments decide to recognize marriages as civil unions is where the rub lies. All I am arguing is for the preservation of the definition (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
| (...) Why don't you leave the exogesis of the Bible to those who know what they are talking about (as you obviously don't). (...) The point is moot, to Christians at least. Jesus' teaching on the subject is clear, as He quotes from Genesis (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
