Biblical Christian Poly Living

It's amusing when one doubts the objectivity of a believer but feels a non believer doesn't offer similar bias.
 
How so? Are you saying you do this?
 
Loving this topic.

Thanks, Mags, for all the interesting pointers toward books and the history behind it all.

I've gone from being a questioning believer (Protestant roots, belonged to a youth group with evangelical ties in college, but never really "drank the Kool-Aid" (I always thought that treating people with kindness mattered more than abstaining from alcohol or anything like that) to being more of an agnostic, although I wouldn't call myself a full-fledged one yet. :)

Over the last couple years, I've realized that the deification of Jesus seems to have completely obscured his message, and seems to have turned much of modern-day Christianity (well, the evangelical stripes, for sure) into the rule-based Pharisees Jesus railed against in the first place. Lip service is paid to "treat people well," but really, it becomes, "if you don't believe, you're going to HELL" in the long run ("By faith alone are you saved"). Bah. I'll find out in the end, I suppose. :)

Anyhoo... I'm really enjoying the academics of this thread. I saved off some of the books you mentioned, Mags, and if I can find it in all these open tabs, I popped open one of those links as well. A little light Sunday morning reading. :)
 
Glad you like the topic, YouAreHere. I find it so fascinating, digging into the actual history of the Bible and the people who wrote it. As far as it relates to the topic of whether Yahweh or Jesus or the Spirit approve of polyamory.... well, rather than cherry pick a couple verses about marriage and relationships, I prefer to consider the source-- what was going on historically then? What were people's needs and issues? Israel was basically an occupied war zone for thousands of years, stuck between huge reigning empires: Egypt and Babylon, Persia and Greece, finally Rome. Then even the Roman Empire fell. So, how does what happened to the Biblical authors and early "Church Fathers" relate to us, now, in the 21st century, with our space exploration, jet planes, computers, smart phones and electric cars?

IMO, there is not much left in common except for basic physical needs like food and air and water, and need for human touch, and love.
 
Magdlyn said:
Glad you like the topic, YouAreHere. I find it so fascinating, digging into the actual history of the Bible and the people who wrote it. As far as it relates to the topic of whether Yahweh or Jesus or the Spirit approve of polyamory.... well, rather than cherry pick a couple verses about marriage and relationships, I prefer to consider the source-- what was going on historically then? What were people's needs and issues? Israel was basically an occupied war zone for thousands of years, stuck between huge reigning empires: Egypt and Babylon, Persia and Greece, finally Rome. Then even the Roman Empire fell. So, how does what happened to the Biblical authors and early "Church Fathers" relate to us, now, in the 21st century, with our space exploration, jet planes, computers and smart phones and electric cars?

IMO, there is not much left in common except for basic physical needs like food and air and water, and need for human touch, and love.
Click to expand...

And I think the invention of protected sex is a huge game-changer, as well. It's easier to see why premarital sex and sex outside your marriage would be things society wouldn't want happening at the time.
 
london said:
It's amusing when one doubts the objectivity of a believer but feels a non believer doesn't offer similar bias.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks they don't have biases has never studied psychology. EVERYONE is biased. EVERYONE has a personal agenda. At least that's the belief I am biased towards. :)
 
seakinganswers said:
And I think the invention of protected sex is a huge game changer as well. It's easier to see why premarital sex and sex outside your marriage would be things society wouldn't want happening at the time.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, in regards to male power and passing down personal wealth to only your biological offspring/sons. As I said earlier, prior to patriarchal rule, which had barely begun to take hold in OT days, there was more sexual freedom for women, since their children were considered to be her tribe's children, not her husband's property.
 
Magdlyn said:
Well, yes, in regards to male power and passing down personal wealth to only your biological offspring/sons. As I said earlier, prior to patriarchal rule, which had barely begun to take hold in OT days, there was more sexual freedom for women since their children were considered to be her tribe's children, not her husband's property.
Click to expand...

Also the very real threat of overpopulation destroying our planet makes the Biblical commandment "Be fruitful and multiply" completely obsolete. In my opinion, large families are doing a disservice to society, unless some of those children were adopted, like in my family growing up.
 
london said:
It's amusing when one doubts the objectivity of a believer but feels a non-believer doesn't offer similar bias.
Click to expand...

Curious if you are lumping agnostics and atheists together in the "non-believer" category. From my standpoint, atheists also "believe" something. They have "faith" in that they are convinced that God/dess does NOT exist.

I'm a "little a" agnostic. Big A agnostics (in my mind) don't know whether there is a higher being, and feel that that knowledge is, inherently, un-knowable. For myself, I don't know that that is true.

I, personally, don't know whether there is any sort of higher power. I don't know if that is "knowable" or not, and ultimately don't care, because it wouldn't change my life in any significant way whether there was or was not. I have never seen any evidence of a higher power, personally, and it wouldn't offend me if one (or more) existed.

If I had to subscribe to a doctrine, I'd pick secular Buddhism. I think that the world would be a better place if everyone just tried to be the BEST person they can. So...? I try, I fail sometimes, I forgive myself, I try again. I am responsible for MY decisions and their consequences, so I try to make the best decisions that I can with the limited information that I have at the time.

Magdlyn said:
Ultimately, All is One. But then we'd really have nothing to talk about, reducing it to that. If all is one, there is no gender, there is no individuality, we wouldn't be having any trouble trying to be polyamorous.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is what it is, which is why I love having religious conversations, but have no vested interest in the outcomes of such discussions. I'm just really interested in how other people's minds work.

What if existence works however I, personally, think it works? What if I am the only true soul in the universe? Makes no difference. The answer is STILL to be the best person that I can figure out how to be. If I am responsible for every evil on the planet, then I am also responsible for every joy.

(As an aside, if I could design the system, you would spend all of eternity reliving your life from the perspective of every person you had affected by your actions-- good OR bad, knowingly or NOT. That seems "fair" to me-- suffering as much as the victims of your choices, and enjoying every ecstasy from the perspective of the enjoyer.)
 
Last edited:
JaneQSmythe said:
Curious if you are lumping agnostics and atheists together in the "non-believer" category. From my standpoint, atheists also "believe" something. They have "faith" in that they are convinced that God/dess does NOT exist.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have done away with belief, faith and hope in my life. I find them useless concepts.
 
My post was about the fact that objectivity is questioned if the author is a Christian, but not if they are atheist.
 
Hey Mags, I second the thanks for the book links. This is a topic I've meant to read up on, but haven't yet gotten around to. It's nice to have some ideas of places to start. If you have any more suggestions I'd love to hear them.

Jane Q, I think secular Buddhism is a great term. :)
 
Hi Jane,

Unfortunately, with fundies who can't think for themselves, they wouldn't even believe God himself, if he appeared to them, so I just don't really have anything to do with them. Perhaps some day they'll wake up to the fact that they're missing God's joy in loving.

Jane wrote:
Unfortunately, I'm afraid this link wouldn't help me at all with my (converted fundie) sister, as the site doesn't condone polyandry. "A woman having multiple men is an offence to God. Intimacy is marriage and a woman with multiple men has multiple husbands and out of line with God's Word. Men sleeping with the same woman are committing fornication." And condemns polyamory outright. "Despite their protests to the contrary, polyamory or many loves is fornication. Sex is not to be used and abused with such godless liberalities," and "Polyamory is a wicked deception. Many loves or lovers based loosely on the concept that we are to love each other as Christ commanded is Bible abuse not adherence." Doh!)
Click to expand...

My view is that (as a former pastor) polyandry is just as valid as polygamy, since society no longer places women as property of men who need protection, and that even the New Testament teaches that we are equal.

Hugs :)
 
wildflowers said:
Hey Mags, I second the thanks for the book links. This is a topic I've meant to read up on, but haven't yet gotten around to. It's nice to have some ideas of places to start. If you have any more suggestions I'd love to hear them.
Click to expand...

Well, go ahead and read all Elaine Pagels' books,

Everything by Bart Ehrman, starting with Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why,

Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism by John Spong (retired Anglican bishop),

Then read the entire New Annotated Oxford Bible; it's full of essays, translates Hebrew and Greek properly, has tons of footnotes, admits when the scholars do not know the meaning of a Hebrew word, comments on Biblical writing styles, the politics of ancient times, tribal customs, shows evidence of who wrote each book of the Bible, and when, etc., etc.

Then read The Jesus Mysteries: Was the original Jesus a Pagan God? by Freke and Gandy.

Also I recommend The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by MacCoby, who proposed it was Paul that invented Christianity, not Jesus. After all, half the NT is attributed to Paul, and the books he didn't write that are attributed to him are evidence of his power and the respect he commanded.

I've read many other books on historical criticism, but those should hold you for a while.
 
No problem.

I was looking through my bookshelves and saw this one too, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Robert Price. Amazon printed this from the inside flap:

In THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN, Robert M. Price, a noted biblical scholar and a member of the Jesus Seminar, investigates the historical accuracy of Jesus as written in the New Testament stories. Beginning with the assumption that Jesus indeed walked the earth, Price discovers that the Bible provides no paint with which to draw a historically accurate portrait of such an important religious figure. Price juxtaposes Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John's accounts of Jesus' life, revealing both well-known and not-so-obvious contradictions in the Gospels.

In his introduction, Price defines and defends higher criticism of the Bible, a tool he uses to reconcile history with Scripture. Next, Price presents the sources the Gospel writers used to compose their works, as well as the territory already charted by biblical scholarship. Price's investigation follows a traditional life-of-Jesus outline, starting with Jesus' birth-- why is it celebrated on December 25? Was it really a virgin birth?

In chapter 4, Price analyzes Baptist and other Christian beliefs about Jesus and John the Baptist, proposing that the latter's role may not be historical. Price wrestles with the controversial question of miracles, setting the groundwork for judging the authenticity of these stories. Many miracle accounts, Price shows, have parallels in other Jewish and Hellenistic traditions, and each miracle story has a particular structure, which fits a general pattern. Does this mean that historians cannot judge any miracle stories as occurring historically?

After scrutinizing stories of Jesus as a man of the people, Price delves into the descriptions of the twelve disciples, analyzing each one, especially Simon Peter. In this thorough examination, Price draws parallels with other religious traditions. The next two chapters take this comparison a step further in a brief review of Buddhism. Finally, Price surveys the details of the accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, concluding that similarities in Christian and other religious traditions must mean a common origin-- one with no room for a historical Jesus.

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN belongs in the tradition of David Friedrich Strauss and Rudolf Bultmann, scrutinizing the Gospels concisely and in astonishing detail. Price takes a consistent, thorough-going critical look at the gospel tradition, discarding faith's mandates and delivering good reasons for every skeptical judgment of the Gospels' historical accuracy in depicting Jesus.

A prequel to Price's DECONSTRUCTING JESUS, THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN explains advanced scholarship on the historical Jesus in terms-- and with references to popular culture-- that any reader can understand.
 
Heh, red flag: the title "Jesus of Nazareth" is a misnomer. The original Greek calls Jesus a "Nazarene" (Nazirene, Nazirite), which was not indicative of his home town, but a type of religious vow. The same with Mary Magdalene-- she wasn't from Magdala. Magdalene might be a translation of the Hebrew word "migdal" (there were no vowels in Hebrew back then) which means tower (as in, tower of faith, probably).

Otherwise, that books sounds good.

Here's a link to the problem with "Nazareth."

http://www.thenazareneway.com/nazarene_or_nazareth.htm
 
Last edited:
Actually, the author discusses in 'Zealot' how Jesus was probably not from Nazereth. He was likely from that area but not the town itself, given what little we know about his social status. He also discusses the Essenes who (I believe this is true, but I could be wrong as I am typing from memory) were around after Jesus, and how some of their predecessors may have had an impact on Jesus.

I will check out the link. Lately I've been more interested in discussions of pagan and early Christian interactions, but that is not relevant to this thread.
 
Last edited:
This is what we have been searching for...

Hi,

We are Betsy and Jason, a Christian polyamorous married couple from MI. We have been together for 5 years and are very much in love. We have had a poly relationship with another female. We are interested in meeting other poly people as friends and more. We are specifically interested in meeting other married couples who share our beliefs and are looking to share love and intimacy. I (Betsy) am specifically looking for open comfortable experienced bi wives, as well as their sexy faithful husbands. Too often we run into swingers who don't understand what we're after. We share a very unique love for each other, and Christ, and can't wait to share it. Currently we share a 2-person inclusive marriage; bisexual female (24), hetero male (33). We are hopeful and open to expanding. We are open to discussing our beliefs in a non-hostile manner. We are non-denominational. We support LGBTQ and all races and ethnic backgrounds. Thank you for everything you are doing. We look forward to meeting you. God bless.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top