Biblical Christian Poly Living

[JaneQSmythe]

When I outed myself to my brother, he regurgitated the teachings of man and condemned me. He's now had a change of heart and mind, and now defends my choices, and has sent me this link that got him studying God's word and not simply accepting what the church teaches.
>
http://www.biblepolygamy.com/

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 is out of line with God's Word. Men sleeping with the same woman are committing fornication."

It 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."
"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!

Only monogamists and polygynists need apply. Non-polygynist polygamists, polyandrists and polyamorists are fornicators, all of them.

JaneQ

P.S. Not that this actually bothers me in the slightest. I'm agnostic and not particularly interested in Xtian doctrine. I love my birth family, but they don't rule my decisions. Even the fundie component would love me if they knew. I just don't push their buttons, a decision that LGBT folks have made for a very long time.

 

[loveboston]

Protest Ants

Little bugs who have their place, but are often considered to be pests.

Amazing how anyone can hear Christ's words not to judge or condemn and then turn quickly to a place in the Bible that allows us to contradict and disobey God.

We are commanded to love one another as much as we love ourselves.

Working out the details between two people who are passionately in love with each other is a complicated matter.

Some of us call that fun.

Others don't know what the hell we're talking about. Hmm...

"You are my disciples if you do what I command. This is my command: love one another."

I am a former protest ant but I continue the journey to learn how to love others the way I would like to be loved.

Practice, practice, practice.

Way fun...

 

[kdt26417]

It says something to be able to establish that God didn't just "tolerate" polygamy in the Bible, He actually promoted it. Still the fact remains that polygamy in this context = patriarchal polygyny, which makes me part of a sinful family (an MFM V). This is why, while being interested in the Bible, I cannot in good conscience rely on it as the gold standard for what my code of morality should be. Instead, I adhere to the code that, "It's all about consent." But in so doing, I think I wander off topic, so I'll not belabor that point.

 

[loveboston]

Monogomy

I prefer to allow Jesus to interpret the Bible and to understand why it is that those who claimed to follow Him seemed to miss His point.

Money is the bad guy. Inanimate, non-human material created by people. A very cruel god.

People are nice. Animals are nice. Trees are wonderful. The ocean is spectacular. I don't like snow all that much, but I don't see any reference to cold weather in Christ's words.

What I do see is Love. Loving people, animals, trees, the ocean and even snow is good.

Loving money is stupid. I honestly don't know of anyone who has had a wonderful, intimate, loving, sensual experience with money.

I do know multiple people who have had and are having wonderful, intimate, loving, sensual relationships with people.

I draw the line with animals and trees. I do like my cat, but I resist her flirtations.

 

[seakinganswers]

I prefer to allow Jesus to interpret the Bible and to understand why it is that those who claimed to follow Him seemed to miss His point.

Money is the bad guy. An inanimate, non-human material created by people. A very cruel god.

People are nice. Animals are nice. Trees are wonderful. The ocean is spectacular. I don't like snow all that much, but I don't see any reference to cold weather in Christ's words.

What I do see is Love. Loving people, animals, trees, the ocean and even snow is good.

Loving money is stupid. I honestly don't know of anyone who has had a wonderful, intimate, loving, sensual experience with money.

I do know multiple people who have had and are having wonderful, intimate, loving, sensual relationships with people.

I draw the line with animals and trees. I do like my cat, but I resist her flirtations.

I don't pay as much attention to the details of the laws in the Bible. In my opinion, anything that creates more love is of God and anything that creates less is not and will only leave you spinning your wheels. That's also pretty much a summation of how Jesus saw it, according to the scriptures, too.

 

[Magdlyn]

Yahweh El (euphemistically translated Lord God) in the OT was the Hebrews' war god/fire god. Much or most of the OT is myth, with a mere trace of fact. The laws the Hebrews established (mythologically attributed to Moses' sojourn on the mountain with Yahweh) were for the Hebrews only, as any Jew will tell you today.

Much later, Jews and Gentiles came up with this Jesus idea based on Jewish myths about a Messiah/anointed one, and Pagan Greek ideas of a dying and rising vegetation god, who dies and reappears with the seasons. A syncretism. Jesus is made to speak words of love and unity, as opposed to the xenophobic tribal ideas of earlier centuries which no longer made sense in the first century CE. He was also made to speak entirely contradictory words of "bringing a sword," to fight off Roman rule.

If you want to live your lives based on stuff people made up 2000-3200 years ago, I ask, why? Why not live life as our current era, with our science and technology and psychological understandings, allows us to do?

 

[seakinganswers]

Yahweh El (euphemistically translated Lord God) in the OT was the Hebrews' war god/fire god. Much or most of the OT is myth, with a mere trace of fact. The laws the Hebrews established (mythologically attributed to Moses' sojourn on the mountain with Yahweh) were for the Hebrews only, as any Jew will tell you today.

Much later, Jews and Gentiles came up with this Jesus idea based on Jewish myths about a Messiah/anointed one, and Pagan Greek ideas of a dying and rising vegetation god, who dies and reappears with the seasons. A syncretism. Jesus is made to speak words of love and unity, as opposed to the xenophobic tribal ideas of earlier centuries which no longer made sense in the first century CE. He was also made to speak entirely contradictory words of "bringing a sword," to fight off Roman rule.

If you want to live your lives based on stuff people made up 2000-3200 years ago, I ask, why? Why not live life, as our current era with our science and technology and psychological understandings, allows us to do?

While some of this us true, there are a lot of falsehoods and misrepresentations in what you're saying. The OT was orally passed down tradition, so by the time it was finally written, whatever truth that was in it might be few and far between. The NT was, however written mostly by the people that were experiencing it firsthand. It took them a couple hundred years to finally compile the manuscripts and several councils to decide what would be considered absolute truth based on these, and what wouldn't. Honestly, that's part of where you can have distortions. The Bible itself preaches that no human is perfect, yet the Bible, that a bunch of imperfect humans with their own agendas got together to decide on, is somehow perfect?

But believing in the perfection of the Bible is not necessary to believing in the general concept. And there is tons if wisdom in it. For instance, those "contradictions" are hardly what people think they are. The world is full if them. Anyone, religious or not, could find them to be true in their lives.

The sword you talk about was NOT for the Romans. That's what the religious leaders of the day thought the Messiah came to do. So Jesus used a metaphor of a sword that would be used instead to "fight" against hate, bigotry, greed, deception and basically everything that threatens to tear down humanity.

But, of course, Christians very quickly took his entire message and turned it into this battle for people's souls that says anyone who doesn't conform to our beliefs is going to this mythical hell that somehow closely resembles the Greek and Roman mythology of the time as a burning place for all eternity. Most likely that was picked up from the Greeks as the church spread to the Gentiles.

 

[Magdlyn]

The NT was, however written mostly by the people that were experiencing it firsthand.

Actually, the earliest books (actually letters) were written by Paul, who converted after the supposed death of Jesus. The later books were written anonymously, and it took a while for apostles' names to become associated with them, to give them "authority." Of course, the Gospel of Thomas and of Mary (Magdalene) were eventually considered heretical, since they didn't line up with the Roman agenda.

There is no evidence that any of the books were actually written by people who followed Jesus on earth. There is plenty of "tradition" around it, but no evidence. Many scholars today think the gospels are just as much myth as the books that didn't make it into the canon.

I find the argument that none of the books were written until during or after the destruction of Jerusalem (in 70 CE) compelling. Once the Temple was destroyed, the Hebrews no longer had their sacrifices as a way to worship God, so a Jesus, a savior in the sky, figure was invented and took hold of the popular imagination.

But, of course, Christians very quickly took his entire message and turned it into this battle for people's souls that says anyone who doesn't conform to our beliefs is going to this mythical hell that somehow closely resembles the Greek and Roman mythology of the time as a burning place for all eternity. Most likely that was picked up from the Greeks as the church spread to the Gentiles.

A lot was picked up from the Greeks. The myth of Jesus was of a god more Greek than Jewish. Galilee, where Jesus was supposed to come from, was at the time, extremely Hellenistic (Greek). Many early Christian writers scoffed at the idea that Christianity owed anything to Jewish culture, and fought against the Hebrew Scriptures being included in the Christian canon at all. Gnostic writers didn't think "The Father" Jesus talked about was Yahweh at all, but a higher god.

 

[london]

The earliest gospel is said to have been written about twenty five years after the death of Jesus. The existence of Jesus Christ as a bloke who lived and was crucified isn't disputed by many historians. His existence does not warrant much debate; it's the Son Of God thing that is more than a little debatable.

 

[loveboston]

1st Hand

Of course I'm giving 1st hand testimony.

His Spirit lives in me.

His Spirit is Love.

Even for people who would crucify me for loving whomever allows me to.

 

[Magdlyn]

The earliest gospel is said to have been written about twenty five years after the death of Jesus.

"Said" by whom? This article, which is actually quite conservative as historical criticism goes, disputes your claim. The article is based on research from the 1980 and '90s. Much work has been done since then which places the Gospels much later.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1988/who-wrote-the-bible-part-4

The existence of Jesus Christ as a bloke who lived and was crucified isn't disputed by many historians.

hehe Yeah, Christian historians.

His existence does not warrant much debate; it's the Son Of God thing that is more than a little debatable.

There is actually much debate about whether Jesus ever existed as a historical person, and wasn't just one of thousands of dying and rising gods of ancient times, starting, as far as historical documentation goes, with Osiris, going on to Tammuz, Attis, Dionysus and so many others. Even the early Brits had one: John Barleycorn.

Of course, Jesus can't be the son of Yahweh, because in Jewish tradition, Yahweh never manifests materially. In fact, the Goddess Ishtar of Babylon (which had great influence when the OT was being written), was the undying mourning lover of her dying and rising husband, Tammuz. You can see vestiges of Her and Her Lover in Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene.

Some extra-Biblical evidence exists that the goddess of Israel, Asherah, was considered a consort of Yahweh. You can however, read in the Hebrew Scriptures the hatred the Biblical authors had for this female deity. I consider the entire Old Testament to be a diatribe against worship of a female deity (the only exception being the Song of Songs).

In Judaism, the idea that Yahweh El would mate with a young woman and impregnate her is the deepest heresy, just plain ridiculous. However, in Greek and Roman culture of that time, gods mated with human women, who gave birth to demi-gods, all the time.

So, look at the big picture, and you can see how Jesus is just one more of these seasonal corn gods, who accrued a "healer/savior [Greek: soter] type" persona over time.

 

[seakinganswers]

Just out of curiosity, would you also question whether Moses, Muhammed, Buddha, etc., existed at all? I've also assumed they were real people that were just possibly made to be more than they really were, as opposed to make-believe people.

 

[seakinganswers]

Also, do you think the fact that humans have always made up or corrupted the original story means that God doesn't exist? Corruption doesn't really prove that something doesn't exist, especially when the overall theme of Christianity, in my opinion, is that we are all selfish, and corrupt pretty much everything we get our hands on.

 

[seakinganswers]

I wouldn't say that Jesus was made up by Jews. Most of them don't believe in him to this day. And the story as it's presented in the current Bible doesn't exactly paint Jews in the best light. It's possible the Romans did it, as a way to control the population, but even that doesn't hold water, because, at first, the Romans persecuted the early Christian church, until the emperors finally "converted" and started using it to control people. So they didn't make it up, either. I always assumed it was the Romans who corrupted it into what we know today as a system where people burn in hell for all eternity if they don't believe.

Also, I don't think the other books that didn't make it in the Bible were considered heretical. They were just not considered to be the perfect word of God. And thanks to Martin Luther, who took books out of the Catholic Bible he thought told the wrong story, too.

All of this is reason enough for me to say as a Christian that the Bible is imperfect. It's currently the best book we have, so I read it. But I try to look at the overall theme, and see how it compares to my worldview, science, philosophy, and psychology. The hardest part is being raised in a evangelical Christian home, trying to take off the glasses I've always worn, and reading the Scripture as if I am reading it for the first time. It's almost impossible.

 

[Magdlyn]

Just out of curiosity, would you also question whether Moses, Muhammed, Buddha, etc., existed at all? I've also assumed they were real people that were just possibly made to be more than they really were, as opposed to make-believe people.

I know Moses is a myth, as there is absolutely no extra-biblical evidence he ever existed or that the exodus happened. About the others, I pass, since I have not made an in-depth study.

Also, do you think the fact that humans have always made up or corrupted the original story means that God doesn't exist? Corruption doesn't really prove that something doesn't exist, especially when the overall theme of Christianity, in my opinion, is that we are all selfish and corrupt pretty much everything we get our hands on.

Corrupted WHAT original story? I think humans are storytellers and myth-makers. We had little to no science back in pre-Greek days, and then we destroyed much of Greek science in around 400 AD. Without science, all we have are myths and fairy tales and superstition. And hallucinations from fasting and drugs!

I wouldn't say that Jesus was made up by Jews. Most of them don't believe in him to this day.

Right. The story was made up by people who might have been Judean by birth, but were heavily influenced by the presiding culture of the day, which was all Greek, all over the Mediterranean region.

And the story, as it's presented in the current Bible, doesn't exactly paint Jews in the best light. It's possible the Romans did it, as a way to control the population, but even that doesn't hold water because, at first, the Romans persecuted the early Christian church.

Actually, since Roman culture was polytheistic, the early Christians were not as persecuted as modern myths would have us believe. There was some persecution, but it was not continuous.

... until the emperors finally "converted" and started using it to control people. So they didn't make it up either. I always assumed it was the Romans who corrupted it into what we know today as a system where people burn in hell for all eternity if they don't believe.

It wasn't corrupted. Early Christians had no accepted dogma, so there were many Christian tales about "Christ" and salvation that you'd probably find very foreign, e.g., "Thunder, Perfect Mind," and "The Shepherd of Hermas."

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Also, I don't think the other books that didn't make it in the Bible were considered heretical.

Oh yes, they were. Do some research.

All of this is reason enough for me to say as a Christian that the Bible is imperfect. It's currently the best book we have, so I read it.

Huh, "best"? Try reading the Gnostic writings, Apocrypha, early Kabbalah. I find them to be much more enlightening. A good collection is The Other Bible. Also read Elaine Pagels' commentary in her book The Gnostic Gospels. Also, read anything you can by Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman and Reverend John Spong.

...But I try to see the overall theme and see how it compares to my worldview, science, philosophy, and psychology. The hardest part is being raised in a evangelical Christian home, then trying to take off the glasses I've always had on, and read the Scripture as if you are reading it for the first time. It's almost impossible.

I was raised in a nearly fundamentalist Lutheran church. I made a study of Biblical historical criticism for 7 years in later adulthood and finally felt I found the key to why Christianity just never made sense to me!

 

[seakinganswers]

I'll try to make some times to read those. Do you consider yourself to be gnostic or atheist? Or undecided?

 

[Magdlyn]

Forgot to comment on this:

View Post
Also, do you think the fact that humans have always made up or corrupted the original story means that God doesn't exist?

Define "God." Do I believe in the Christian God, the Trinity? No. But "corruption" has nothing to do with it. I find other gods, or should I say goddesses, more appealing. However, I do not "believe" in them as actual supernatural beings, rather as psychological archetypes, as Jung thought of them. I also see the Holy Spirit, coming down as a dove, as a goddess, which the gnostics called Sophia (wisdom). (She was also represented by the Marys in the Gospels, i.e., Mary, the mother; Mary Magdalene, the consort; and finally, Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha.) A dove was a very common goddess avatar back in those days, known to all.

I reserve the right to post on Christian-oriented threads such as this, since I have done more Bible study than most Christians. If that sounds arrogant, so be it.

 

[Magdlyn]

I'll try to make some times to read those. Do you consider yourself to be gnostic or atheist? Or undecided?

I can't really religiously categorize myself. I guess I could say I am a Seeker and a Friend of God. If there is anything god-oriented about me, it's similar to what loveboston said: "His Spirit lives in me. His Spirit is Love." Only I wouldn't gender it as male, that's for sure.

 

[seakinganswers]

I can't really religiously categorize myself. I guess I could say I am a Seeker and a Friend of God. If there is anything god-oriented about me, it's similar to what loveboston said: "His Spirit lives in me. His Spirit is Love." Only I wouldn't gender it as male, that's for sure.

I could care less if God is male or female. Wouldn't be surprised at all if he is neither. And I wasn't asking about the "Christian" God. I personally believe we are all worshipping the same god. He or she just may have manifested himself differently to different people, and when he does, most people find a way to corrupt the story to fit their agenda.

I consider myself Christian, but I don't believe in hell. My Christian viewpoint would look VERY different from the traditional narrative, and I think, for the most part, scripture actually backs up my views, even though I don't believe in the perfection of them.

 

[Magdlyn]

I could care less if god is male or female. Wouldn't be surprised at all if he is neither. And I wasn't asking about the "Christian" God. I personally believe we are all worshipping the same god.

Ultimately, All is One. But we'd have nothing to talk about it we reduced it to that. If all is one, there is no gender, there is no individuality, and we wouldn't be having any trouble trying to be polyamorous.

However, there is the sacred sexuality concept, heiros gamos, yin yang. That's another topic altogether. The gnostics did address it, but it's avoided in the canonical Bible (except again, in the Song of Songs, which is pretty damn hot).