Smoking, Drinking, and Polygamy

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A

angelos

Guest
#21
ehhh I would say polygamy is a sin and was deffinetly not God's best in the OT
 
A

angelos

Guest
#22
also nice of you to ignore my Mark 7 reference ;)
 

PBUH

Banned
Jan 24, 2011
273
0
0
#23
19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) Mark 7:19 so yes Jesus pronouced all food clean just to clear that up now enjoy your debate with credo
Hi Angelos

Jesus pbuh was answering a querstion concerning eating food with unclean hands.

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?
Mark 7:5

Jesus pbuh answer

Are you so dull?” he asked.
“Don’t you see that nothing that enters you from the outside can defile you?
Mark 7:16

The Pharisees were ceremonially washing their hands with some notion it made them a better people than the disciples who were not.

Jesus, who was not hesitant to go against the status quo and attack any practice that the pharisees performed that had no basis in the scripture, did not eat pork himself. Yet this fact is ignored by those who say they follow Jesus.
 
A

angelos

Guest
#24
well that's all cute but that verse says ALL FOODS CLEAN so I would say that it's all good, and secondly the only thing we are told about Jesus eating is bread and wine, thats all we know about for sure.
 
C

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest
#25
PBUH,

If God has stated something explicitly then until he explicitly states otherwise there should be no assumption.
With these sorts of comments it is, unfortunately, clear that you still don't plan on having a rational discussion. You haven't shown where God explicitly approves of polygamy. The only two verses you cited I responded to and you ignored my response.

You quote me as talking about good and necessary inference and then you indicate in your "response" here that "there should be no assumption" but this fails to grapple with the fact that what is deduced by good and necessary inference is not an assumption.

Jesus did not speak out against polygamy
This ignores the argument I referenced by Instone-Brewer.

thus christians continued to have poligamous relatioships for another 400 years.
This ignores the evidence that I gave that polygamy was condemned by Christians as early as circa 100 A.D. (only about 40 or 20 years after many of the NT books were written) and that we can give evidence of continuous condemnations of polygamy all throughout church history (Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc).

Yet if, as you claim, Polygamy was a normal part of Christian practice, a normal part of Jewish practice, and a normal practice in the OT, and was not condemned in the OT or by Jesus in the NT, then you're going to have a dickens of a time explaining how suddenly, as early as 100 A.D., people just randomly started thinking polygamy was wrong with absolutely no historical precedent. In other words, if what you're saying is true, then persons like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus become astonishingly inexplicable phenomena.

And yet if what I've said and Instone-Brewer has said and Wenham has said is correct then persons like Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus make perfect sense. And not only does the historical evidence (of early widespread opposition to polygamy) favor my position, but you haven't even given a reason to reject Instone-Brewer's arguments concerning Jewish opposition to polygamy, evidenced in the Damascus Document. So we know that by the time of Jesus there was already Jewish opposition to polygamy and these Jews argued their position from Scripture; namely, from Genesis 1 and 2. We then find that Jesus appeals to these exact same texts and uses the exact same gloss that the anti-polygamists used in order to justify his conclusions regarding the nature of marriage. This is all the evidence we need to know that God marriage involves just two persons.

It was only when they lost faith in God being a solution to their problems that they banned polygamy.
An assertion in search of an argument.

Wow, Gods law does not fit an ideal society.
No, it doesn't fit an ideal society. Rather, it is accommodated to a sinful, fallen society. Think about it. In an ideal society, would you need laws about people who sell themselves into slavery because of unmanageable debt?

So do you think man laws are better than Gods laws ?
Non-sequitur fallacy. The fact that God accommodates his laws to a sinful, fallen society does not entail that man's laws are better than God's.

Concerning slavery.
Everything you go on to say here about slavery is irrelevant to my point. As usual, you aren't interacting with my points. You're just looking for key words, like "slavery," and then you go on a spiel about that word that doesn't have any relevance to anything I said. This gives off the appearance of being relevant, but it's not. My point was that slavery and, thus, slave laws, don't have any place in an ideal society.

If slavery was option today for people we would have a lot less homeless people having to beg to survive. People would contract themselves to someone for 7 years then be set up for life.
Even if slavery had some benefit today, it wouldn't overturn my point regarding slave laws being an accommodation to a less than ideal society. After all, I don't think anyone has achieved an ideal society today either. My point was that when we can we should eradicate the condition that requires the less than ideal command. For instance, man's stubbornness and sin made divorce laws necessary in order to curtail a bad practice. It would be very misguided for us to say God looks favorably upon divorce and approves of divorce just because he gave laws regulating its occurrence. Thus, insofar as it is possible, we should avoid divorce. Likewise, laws curtailing the practice of slavery (or polygamy) do not imply that God looks favorably upon slavery (or polygamy).

Gods laws when applied correctly are a solution to all our problems. The number of people relying on welfare would be halved within a year. There would be more money in the treasury to give to the poor so they do not get to the stage where they need to contract themselves out for 7 years to survive.
Conjecture.

This is why Jesus pbuh said he had not come to change the laws and told everyone to do what the pharisees say but not do. Jesus pbuh knew the wisdom in what God wanted from us.
Irrelevant to my point. I've argued that laws regulating a practice do not give a Divine stamp of approval to that practice. So even if Jesus didn't overturn divorce laws or polygamy laws or slavery laws, that won't get you to the conclusion that these are things God approves of. (However, there is more to be said here, as Jesus did clearly change (fulfill) some laws such that we no longer practice them. Yet I'm quite sure this wouldn't be a fruitful discussion with you, so I'll leave this point alone.)
 

cookie39

Senior Member
Oct 5, 2009
616
12
18
#26
Hi Cookie



I suggest you may want to read the preceding verses to put that that verse into context.

"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"

It was the answer to the accusation that they did not wash their hands before eating which was a Jewish tradition. Nothing to do with making pork clean. Jesus was not there to change the law.Jesus pbuh never ate pork in his life yet most Christians do not follow his example. It was Paul who said it was OK to eat pork. He is the example Christians follow.

The author Roshen Enam says:
“Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (pbuh), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”. (Follow Jesus or Follow Paul p. 69)
I have read it and I truly kept it into the context God put it in........ if you go on to read what Jesus said in this...... what goes in the BODY does not defile a man. point blank!!! so again as he went on to say WHAT DOES DEFILE A MAN...... think you need to read on that you may understand the WHOLE concept of what the Lord was saying. even if Jesus didn't eat pork he never once said any one will go to hell if they did so. If you read Hebrews you will see that the ordinances and the oracles was of things to come.. so please READ WHAT JESUS SAID '' WILL'' DEFILE A MAN... AND NOT ONE THING EVER SAID SMOKING WILL. and I see you left out everything else I said. there is nothing in the whole bible even come close to God saying anything about smoking. that is of man, not God. So I trust you will go and read what all Jesus said.. cause the washing of hands was not all he was talking about... as He broke it down to us Himself..... For out of the HEART comes... Murders, Adultry, Idolatry, envy, strife, hatred and so on..... not once did he say out of the heart comes smoking.. lol .. seriously!! got to be kidding me..
 

cookie39

Senior Member
Oct 5, 2009
616
12
18
#27
Hi Cookie



I suggest you may want to read the preceding verses to put that that verse into context.

"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"

It was the answer to the accusation that they did not wash their hands before eating which was a Jewish tradition. Nothing to do with making pork clean. Jesus was not there to change the law.Jesus pbuh never ate pork in his life yet most Christians do not follow his example. It was Paul who said it was OK to eat pork. He is the example Christians follow.

The author Roshen Enam says:
“Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (pbuh), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”. (Follow Jesus or Follow Paul p. 69)
for someone who do not believe in the teachings of Paul.... may I ask.... WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE AT THIS SITE?
 

PBUH

Banned
Jan 24, 2011
273
0
0
#28
PBUH,



With these sorts of comments it is, unfortunately, clear that you still don't plan on having a rational discussion. You haven't shown where God explicitly approves of polygamy. The only two verses you cited I responded to and you ignored my response.

You quote me as talking about good and necessary inference and then you indicate in your "response" here that "there should be no assumption" but this fails to grapple with the fact that what is deduced by good and necessary inference is not an assumption.



This ignores the argument I referenced by Instone-Brewer.



This ignores the evidence that I gave that polygamy was condemned by Christians as early as circa 100 A.D. (only about 40 or 20 years after many of the NT books were written) and that we can give evidence of continuous condemnations of polygamy all throughout church history (Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc).

Yet if, as you claim, Polygamy was a normal part of Christian practice, a normal part of Jewish practice, and a normal practice in the OT, and was not condemned in the OT or by Jesus in the NT, then you're going to have a dickens of a time explaining how suddenly, as early as 100 A.D., people just randomly started thinking polygamy was wrong with absolutely no historical precedent. In other words, if what you're saying is true, then persons like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus become astonishingly inexplicable phenomena.

And yet if what I've said and Instone-Brewer has said and Wenham has said is correct then persons like Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus make perfect sense. And not only does the historical evidence (of early widespread opposition to polygamy) favor my position, but you haven't even given a reason to reject Instone-Brewer's arguments concerning Jewish opposition to polygamy, evidenced in the Damascus Document. So we know that by the time of Jesus there was already Jewish opposition to polygamy and these Jews argued their position from Scripture; namely, from Genesis 1 and 2. We then find that Jesus appeals to these exact same texts and uses the exact same gloss that the anti-polygamists used in order to justify his conclusions regarding the nature of marriage. This is all the evidence we need to know that God marriage involves just two persons.



An assertion in search of an argument.



No, it doesn't fit an ideal society. Rather, it is accommodated to a sinful, fallen society. Think about it. In an ideal society, would you need laws about people who sell themselves into slavery because of unmanageable debt?



Non-sequitur fallacy. The fact that God accommodates his laws to a sinful, fallen society does not entail that man's laws are better than God's.



Everything you go on to say here about slavery is irrelevant to my point. As usual, you aren't interacting with my points. You're just looking for key words, like "slavery," and then you go on a spiel about that word that doesn't have any relevance to anything I said. This gives off the appearance of being relevant, but it's not. My point was that slavery and, thus, slave laws, don't have any place in an ideal society.



Even if slavery had some benefit today, it wouldn't overturn my point regarding slave laws being an accommodation to a less than ideal society. After all, I don't think anyone has achieved an ideal society today either. My point was that when we can we should eradicate the condition that requires the less than ideal command. For instance, man's stubbornness and sin made divorce laws necessary in order to curtail a bad practice. It would be very misguided for us to say God looks favorably upon divorce and approves of divorce just because he gave laws regulating its occurrence. Thus, insofar as it is possible, we should avoid divorce. Likewise, laws curtailing the practice of slavery (or polygamy) do not imply that God looks favorably upon slavery (or polygamy).



Conjecture.



Irrelevant to my point. I've argued that laws regulating a practice do not give a Divine stamp of approval to that practice. So even if Jesus didn't overturn divorce laws or polygamy laws or slavery laws, that won't get you to the conclusion that these are things God approves of. (However, there is more to be said here, as Jesus did clearly change (fulfill) some laws such that we no longer practice them. Yet I'm quite sure this wouldn't be a fruitful discussion with you, so I'll leave this point alone.)
Sorry Credo

Time is a commodity I do not have much of, that was the reason I stopped debating you on the Ishmael exodus. It was going nowhere. The only thing we could agree on was to disagree.

I'll have a look through your list.
 
A

angelos

Guest
#29
it was going nowhere because a lot of Credo's stuff gets ignored unfortunately
 

PBUH

Banned
Jan 24, 2011
273
0
0
#30
it was going nowhere because a lot of Credo's stuff gets ignored unfortunately
Good come back Angelos. I don't think so in that case. I think we just did not like what the other said.
 
A

angelos

Guest
#31
if that is truly the case then so be it he just usually gets outright ignored :/
 
Jan 18, 2011
1,117
5
0
#32
God is quite clear on the subject of Polygamy, it is a violation of his intention in the marriage covenant. But first let me address the verses you cite.

These verses (Ex. 21:10 and Deut. 21:15) provide restrictions on persons who have more than one wife, but they do not promote or support having more than one wife. You must understand the logical distinction between these two concepts. Consider that American has laws that provide restrictions on how much alcohol you can drink. But this does not itself mean that America promotes drinking alcohol.

Or consider Jesus' example of divorce. The OT Law provided restrictions on divorce. But clearly God did not promote divorce. In fact, God hates divorce. Yet he did not make a ban of divorce a civil/judicial issue. Rather, he places lesser civil/judicial restrictions on divorce. This simply means that the civil law is not identical to the moral law (this should be obvious, really) and that no immediate inference can be made from civil law to moral law.

So the verses you have given us which provide restrictions on polygamy do not prove that God looks favorably on polygamy any more than divorce law restrictions prove that God looks favorably upon divorce.

But that God looks down upon polygamy is clear throughout the Genesis narrative, including the account of God creating just one woman for Adam. As OT scholar Gordon Wenham states,
"...it is striking that the LORD God created only one Eve for Adam. Polygamy was an accepted feature of life in ancient Israel especially among the leaders of society, yet Adam is provided with just one wife. This is not meanness on God’s part, for the rest of the story shows him keen to supply Adam’s every need, and Adam’s shout of greeting when he meets Eve shows he is perfectly satisfied with just one wife.
That's a straw man since it's not implied that every man desires polygamy. On the contrary, although there are many examples of polygamy in scripture, most marriages were monogamous.
The rest of Genesis seems to confirm monogamy as the most desirable situation, as all the polygamous marriages it describes are marred by strife.
Correlation doesn't imply causation.
Finally, had Adam been supplied with several wives, he could have been fruitful and multiplied even quicker! The creation of one Eve thus shows that monogamy is more important than rapid multiplication…
No it doesn't. Non-sequiter.
Lamech, the first bigamist, is a vicious thug, boasting that he will take seventy-sevenfold vengeance on those who attack him (4:23–24).
More confusion of correlation and causation.
Sarah’s resort to surrogate motherhood, though a well-known practice in the ancient Near East, is described in terms that echo Genesis 3 and causes great tension between Sarah, Hagar and Abraham.
This isn't a good example since the only sense in which it was polygamy was for the specific purpose of bearing a child. It was polygamy for a the sake of bearing a child, not polygamy for its own sake.
Jacob’s involuntary bigamy leads to a most unhappy marriage for all concerned. As Leah and Rachel name their sons, they pour out their feelings of rejection on the one hand and their desire for more children on the other (29:32–30:24)."
As mentioned above, it wasn't claimed that polygamy is for everyone. The fact a person dislikes something doesn't imply that it's universally wrong, and for that matter doesn't even necessarily imply that it's wrong for that particular person.


(Story as Torah: Reading Old Testament Narrative Ethically. 31-33)

Even prior to the NT being written, there were Jews who recognized that polygamy is a sin and they often made their argument by "glossing" Genesis 2:14 with the word "two" instead of "they." This is justifiable since God only made Adam and Eve, but it's also obviously meant to be normative insertion of the narrator, explaining the institution of marriage. This is the background to Jesus' statement in Matthew 19 (and Mark 10) that "...the two shall become one flesh’... So they are no longer two but one flesh" (vss 5-6). In other words,
The significant point, as far as the Gospel text [Matthew 19] is concerned, is that this variant text is used very self-consciously, with the additional comment 'So they are no longer two but one' emphasizing the presence of the word 'two.'... This type of exegesis was common in early rabbinic Judaism and was later called gezerah shavah… This exegesis would have been obvious to any intelligent listener and was not normally accompanied by any kind of explanation when it occurred in rabbinic literature or in the Targums. The frist text, Genesis 1:27, was part of a standard proof for monogamy as seen in the Damascus Document... Both Mark and the Damascus Document cite exactly the same portion of Genesis 1:27, and they both precede the quotation with a very similar phrase. Mark refers to 'the beginning of creation'... while the Damascus Document used the phrase 'the foundation of creation'... they are semantically identical.... Jesus was making the point very strongly. He was saying not only that polygamy was immoral but that it was illegal.
(David Instone-Brewer. Divorce And Remarriage In The Bible. 137-138)
20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. 21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. 23 And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:20-24)
1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there. 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" 4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 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'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." 7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." 10 His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." 11 But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it." (Matthew 19:1-12)
1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there. 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" 4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 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'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." 7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." 10 His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." 11 But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it." (Mark 10:1-12)
Jesus said that "a man" and "his wife" are "two." The claim that reference to "a man" and "his wife" as "two" is a prohibition against polygamy is simply not in the text, nor is it implied.
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)
8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men--the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." (Mark 7:8)
"[A] man" and "his wife" are indeed "two." That doesn't imply that a man may not have more than one wife; he's referring to "the two [becoming] one flesh." Since this can only happen at any one time between one man and one woman, the only number of people it makes sense to refer to here is "two," regardless of how many wives the man in question may have. In context, the "two" people being referred to are not the total number of people in a marriage, but rather the total number of people "[becoming] one flesh."
 
Jan 18, 2011
1,117
5
0
#33
if that is truly the case then so be it he just usually gets outright ignored :/
People are often too impatient to follow arguments that aren't extremely simple. (Or arguments that contain unfamiliar vocabulary.)
 
Last edited:
Jan 18, 2011
1,117
5
0
#34
I am curious as to how polygamy got thrown in there with smoking and drinking... just waaaaaay different than those two
Two reasons. One, for the reason you mentioned: I thought it might be funny to throw polygamy in there, as if nobody would notice. And two, that there is actually at least one similarity between the three, which is that they are often perceived as sinful but I don't think scripture teaches that they are.
 
Jan 18, 2011
1,117
5
0
#35
Hi

Polygamy is not a sin.
I didn't say it's a sin. I said it's not a sin.

IT should not be lumped with the sins of drinking and smoking.
Scripture doesn't prohibit smoking or drinking. Your argument is that it doesn't prohibit polygamy (which I agree with), but the same argument is true for these.

I am not sure why Christians ignore the explicit statement God made in allowing polygamy and change the law to suit their own will.

God is quite clear on the subject of Polygamy.
Similarly], if [the master] marries another wife, he may not diminish [this one’s] allowance, clothing or conjugal rights.
Exodus 21:10

If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love
Deutoronomy 21:15
 
Jan 18, 2011
1,117
5
0
#37
Which is a worse sin? Smoking or finding fault with others?
Neither are sins in and of themselves. Finding fault in others, as you put it, is an entire topic in and of itself and is a more complex matter than simply being either sin or not sin. In some cases it can be a sin, in which case the latter would be worse, since smoking isn't a sin. Of course, smoking can be a sin too, in the case of addiction.

Which is a worse sin? Smoking, or people in chiurch only mixing with people on their own social level and barely speaking to others.
The latter, since smoking isn't a sin.

Which is worse? To smoke, or lack mercy, love and compassion
Same as above.

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. 4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. 13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13)

The more important issues are those of the heart. I have seen many Christians shake their heads at those who smoke and quote relevant Bible verses to them,.
There aren't any, except as it relates to addiction.

but they rarely speak to them otherwise.

I wonder whose 'sin' God considers the worst
 
Jan 18, 2011
1,117
5
0
#38
First of all you need to stop taking scripture and twisting them to fit your human understand.... and if you read the bible AND RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH... you will see that JESUS SAID IT IS NOT WHAT GOES IN THE BODY/MOUTH that defile a man it is what come out of the HEART that defiles of man... it is adultry, Idolotry, murders, etc... smoking is not a sin...
Correct, but addiction is.

if smoking is sin then so is food, your body is not made up of pork or beef, neither is it an fruit or veggy. nor is it pop.. maybe water.. but most of the things we put in our body will leave it as Jesus said. drinking is not a sin... these things you call sin is just like the Lord said....MAN MADE COMMANDMENTS!!! a cigarette does not have control over no one... it is not human it does not have life.. naturaly or spiritual.. they do not make you kill.... they as everything else you put in your body are of the elements of the earth God has created... coffee, sodas, certain foods, ( everyone have their own picks) television, I can go on and on about the things people use or do to enjoy themselves... will a man go to hell for being addicted to coffee, or cheetos, or doritos...
Yes. Addiction of any form is a sin.

if the only meat they will eat all day, every day is pork or beeef and the love it so much that they got to have it.... please use common sence here. everything is foreign to the body, everything but water and blood. the bible say do not drink to get drunk... it say do not get your neighbor drunk in order to take advantage of them.... never ever in the whole bible does it say that drinking is a sin, neither does it refer to smoking in any form of the way. this is of man and not God. What the Lord is talking about that is unfruitful is the sins of the heart. How is smoking an issue of self control for someone who like it and is not trying or do not want to stop......
It's not, unless they are addicted, in which case they don't have self-control.

are you serious??? If I like to eat and I try to go three days without food; and I can't then food has become sin to me??? NO!! it has not. cause I can't control the craving for food or water, weather it be televison, or vidoe games, for some people it could be excersing;
Food and water are essential to live. TV and video games are not.

i know people who the doctor told to stop drinking pops, and they could not cauuse they liked it too much...
Then they don't have self-control.

do pops defile the body, never heard no one say anything about the addistion to coffee....
Addiction to anything is a sin, including coffee, soda (caffeine). Caffeine is an addictive substance, as is nicotine, but some can drink soda without becoming addicted just as some are able to have an occasional smoke without being addicted. But that's of course at your own risk. Nicotine is be especially dangerous in this regard. For most people any smoking at all is probably a bad idea.

Wow you need to check with the Lord before you go taking scripture out of context... b4 you go saying God said something when he did not..... God said anything that is not of faith is sin and to him that it is sin then it is sin.... so if it is sin to you; that between you and God... but because man said it don't make it doctrine. so if you ever tried, or will try to fast.... hope you make it... cause the judgement you put out will be the judgement you get back..... cause if you can't control yourself and give up something ( what ever you love to do or have) for a day/s then that thing will become sin in your life... cause you can't control yourself and give it of. so stop making things God don't even wink at a camel for other to carry.... I pray you stick to the commandments of the lord and not those of man...
 

PBUH

Banned
Jan 24, 2011
273
0
0
#39
Hi Credo

I thought I'd cover your post bit by bit.

These verses (Ex. 21:10 and Deut. 21:15) provide restrictions on persons who have more than one wife, but they do not promote or support having more than one wife. You must understand the logical distinction between these two concepts. Consider that American has laws that provide restrictions on how much alcohol you can drink. But this does not itself mean that America promotes drinking alcohol.
I kind of agreed with your statement. Polygamy is only allowed in certain situations. . The only people that should be doing polygamy are the ones that have the resources and are able to treat all wives equally. It is a opinion of some scholars that the poor and starving are not allowed to practice polygamy.

The first wife is a marriage of love. After that it is a marriage of charity. If there are any single mothers or elderly women in the community with no support then marriage is an option to look after them and their children. In the time of prophet Muhammad pbuh, the disciples of the prophet would marry elderly widows to make sure they have the support they needed.

Another scenario where polygamy could be seen as a solution is to sponsor many orphans and marry multiple wives to look after them.

In the end polygamy is a tool God has provided that can be used to relieve the suffering in the community. It is not for someone to build themselves up a harem.
 

PBUH

Banned
Jan 24, 2011
273
0
0
#40
I think David Instone-Brewer. Divorce And Remarriage In The Bible. 137-138 follows the theme that polygamy is not seen as ideal.

No, it doesn't fit an ideal society. Rather, it is accommodated to a sinful, fallen society. Think about it. In an ideal society, would you need laws about people who sell themselves into slavery because of unmanageable debt?
In an ideal society there would not be a need for polygamy because everyone would have the resources to look after themselves. Having said that I do not think there is an ideal society on planet Earth. Money is not the only factor. While this sort of thing happens then polygamy is still a viable option.

Older Woman Dies Alone in Her Home and No One Notices


I haven't finished all your statements yet.