Why Don't Christians Follow the Bible?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sexual sins are not cultural.

I disagree. Sexual attitudes, such as what constitutes "sexual sin" is very much cultural. You can see this in the fact that what is considered "sexual sin" has changed over time and is different from place to place.

Homosexuals are welcome to attend church services but churches are sanctuaries from sin and their sinful practices should not be tolerated on church grounds.

So no gay sex in the pews - got it. How about straight sex with one's spouse?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sexual sins are not cultural.

Curious then that God tolerates polygamy and harems in the Old Testament.

Homosexuals are welcome to attend church services but churches are sanctuaries from sin and their sinful practices should not be tolerated on church grounds.

No one should be there then.

 

[Autodidact]

Sexual sins are not cultural.

Hold it right there. Other than maybe food customs, I can't think of anything more cultural than sexual sins. Every culture permits certain forms of sexual bonding and expression and prohibits others, and they're all different.

To use an example that I'm sure you will want to agree with, polygamy is clearly sanctioned and practiced throughout biblical times, so much so that even Jesus cited it in a parable, with no condemnation. Nevertheless, for purely cultural reasons, I'm sure you're against it. Now, unless you want to agree that sexual sins are cultural, you have no basis--none--on which to reject polygamy.

I find the notion that the Creator of the heavens, who spread billions of billions of stars across billions of miles, cares deeply about how two people, two of several billion of a single species that is on of hundred million or so species on one planet of hundreds of billions of stars among hundreds of billions of galaxies, express their physical love for one another.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So no gay sex in the pews - got it. How about straight sex with one's spouse?

Honey, we're going to that church on Sunday! :disco:

 

[Autodidact]

Sexual sins are not cultural. God has already expressed the principle that woman is intended to mate with man. The prohibition against homosexuality is an expression of the fact that the act is in opposition to God's intention.

Don't you love it when people just declare something as fact, almost as if they were God, rather than supporting their assertion with a shred of evidence?

A Christian is not required to stone a homosexual. The Christian position should always be to love the sinner.

Why not? Your God has commanded you to do so, and, according to you, that commandment is not cultural. Deliberately disobeying the clear and stated commandment of your God? Other Christians must try to love you in spite of your constant sinning.

Christian churches are under no obligation to welcome into fellowship those who do not wish to repent their sin. Homosexuals are welcome to attend church services but churches are sanctuaries from sin and their sinful practices should not be tolerated on church grounds.

Well honestly, sex in church--that's kind of kinky! Anyway, the sin that needs repenting here is that of anyone who fails to stone a homosexual to death. If you would take care of your own sins, there wouldn't be any homosexuals to bother your sanctuary. Are you also careful to make sure that no many whose genitals have been injured is allowed in the sanctuary? Because, remember, it's not cultural. Does you church allow women to speak? Now that would be sinning in church.

 

[Sonic247]

Well monogamy was God's design, because he said "two will be one," and every word of God will stand, it's just that culturally poligamy may be seen of as more of a sin then it actually is. But going from my own opinion that means nothing poligamy is much harder if a man has two wifes they will likely be jealous of eachother and have to struggle even more than usual wondering "does my husband love me." In the Bible we can see this conflict between Leah and Rachel, and between there children.

 

[Autodidact]

Which is a worse sin, being gay, or lying about it? How about lying to your spouse, your family, your friends, and every member of your congregation every day, including when you stand in the sanctuary preaching against the sin of homosexuality? Maybe Christians should worry a little more about the sin of hypocrisy, which seems rife among their ministers, and less about how two people express their intimate feelings for one another.

 

[Autodidact]

Well monogamy was God's design, because he said "two will be one," and every word of God will stand, it's just that culturally poligamy may be seen of as more of a sin then it actually is. But going from my own opinion that means nothing poligamy is much harder if a man has two wifes they will likely be jealous of eachother and have to struggle even more than usual wondering "does my husband love me." In the Bible we can see this conflict between Leah and Rachel, and between there children.

Monogamy is God's design? Where do you get that from? Cuz Abraham, the guy who got the message from God in the first place, was a polygamist. So were Jacob, David,Solomon (the wise) and others.
Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8: And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things(2 Sam. 12).
Matthew:
25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]25:2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. 25:3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: 25:4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 25:5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept...

Clearly, Jesus didn't have a problem with it.

 

[ChristineES]

I remember a woman telling me that the Music director (and a married man) of a Church used to look at her and flirt with her all through the service. That is a blatant sin right there in Church! I used to also hear women and even men gossiping right before or after services, another blatant sin. People sin right in Church, people who call themselves followers of Y'shua (aka Jesus).
I am not sure why I am posting this, but I felt moved to.

 

[Autodidact]

btw the discussion about polygamy serves as an excellent example of how Christians do and don't follow the Bible. Whatever your position on these matters of cultural relativity and inerrancy, this is a good example to explore. No one can doubt that:
Polygamy is practiced in the OT, and seems to have existed in NT times as well.
Polygamy is never prohibited. (And remember, this is a God who knows how to prohibit. The OT alone contains 613 commandments, and none of them against polygamy.)
Jesus did not condemn it.
The Bible does regulate polygamy.

Nevertheless, most modern Christians will assert that it is prohibited, and proceed to do what they call exegesis (or, if intellectual, hermeneutics) to show why it is NOT Biblical.

My understanding is that this was completely cultural. The ANE people did practice polygamy, and the Romans did not. When Christianity became the official Roman religion, Church leaders decided to go with the Roman, monogamous model, and decreed monogamy for Christians. It is not, however, required in the Bible.

 

[ChristineES]

Actually somewhere in the NT, they do talk about polygamy. I can't remember which verse or even which book but I do remember someone saying it is better to have only one wife, although I don't believe it was outlawed.

 

[Autodidact]

Might you have been thinking of 1 Timothy 3:
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money...

So it could be construed that at that time polygamy was not held in high esteem. OTOH it also implies that it was practiced, not prohibited.

 

[ChristineES]

Might you have been thinking of 1 Timothy 3:
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money...

So it could be construed that at that time polygamy was not held in high esteem. OTOH it also implies that it was practiced, not prohibited.

That was one of them, thank you.

I think in regards of polygamy, this is just my opinion, so don't quote me: Back in the early years, there were a lot less people on the earth, since they wanted to "fill" the earth, if a man had more wives, he could have more children. When the earth was sufficiently filled, then the man did not need to have as many children. So in this case at least, it was a cultural thing.

 

[Autodidact]

That was one of them, thank you.

I think in regards of polygamy, this is just my opinion, so don't quote me: Back in the early years, there were a lot less people on the earth, since they wanted to "fill" the earth, if a man had more wives, he could have more children. When the earth was sufficiently filled, then the man did not need to have as many children. So in this case at least, it was a cultural thing.

But if you think about it genetically, polygamy does not increase the number of offspring. Each woman is capable of having the same number of children, regardless of how many women per each man. What I'm saying is, the woman is the limiting factor on number of offspring.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think in regards of polygamy, this is just my opinion, so don't quote me: Back in the early years, there were a lot less people on the earth, since they wanted to "fill" the earth, if a man had more wives, he could have more children. When the earth was sufficiently filled, then the man did not need to have as many children. So in this case at least, it was a cultural thing.

For that rationalization to work, you wouldn't just need a lot less people, you'd need a significant discrepancy in the proportion of men and women.

The rate-limiting step in procreation is pregnancy. An individual woman can have the same number of children over her lifetime whether she's a man's only wife or one wife of several.

A woman in a mongamous marriage could conceivably (no pun intended) have a child as often as every nine months as long as she and her husband are able to have children; polygamy wouldn't speed the process up at all. Polygamy would only change the population growth rate if there weren't enough men (or fertile men, at least) to go around.

 

[ChristineES]

I was thinking more along the grounds that if a man had 5 wives, he could get each one pregnant around the same time. It would be a real time saver, because if he had one wife, he could only have one child. That rate of women having children would stay the same, as you have both pointed out. Men in those days wanted a lot of sons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Men in those days wanted a lot of sons.

So if the ratio of men to women was roughly 1-to-1, you'd have one guy with five wives and four guys with none. The majority of the men have any sons at all.

 

[ChristineES]

So if the ratio of men to women was roughly 1-to-1, you'd have one guy with five wives and four guys with none. The majority of the men have any sons at all.

True, very true.
btw, what does Lapsed Atheist mean?

 

[ChristineES]

What if the ratio of men to women was something like 1 man to 5 women? Then my scenario would work, then, maybe.

 

[Autodidact]

Well I hate to get too biological, but a single man could potentially impregnate a whole heap of women, so I think you'd need a pretty big female/male ratio before polygamy would increase population.