I'm not at all sure that the English word 'witch' is the wrong way to translate the Hebrew. I've heard this poisoning thing before, but I wonder where people get this idea from; there's nothing in the Hebrew about poison.
Polyamory and Christianity
- Thread starter jasminegld
- Start date
I'm not at all sure that the English word 'witch' is the wrong way to translate the Hebrew. I've heard this poisoning thing before, but I wonder where people get this idea from; there's nothing in the Hebrew about poison.
I'm going by what I've read Hebraic scholars have written on the subject. The threat of a sorceress was the harm she could do, as far as "potions," i.e., herbal concoctions. Healing or killing/harming was supposed to be the provenance of YHWH and his priests, not coming from others, especially women!
Actually, El Shaddai could be tranlated as God of the Breast, however, culturally this really should be translated as God of the Mountain. There are many cultural parallels of thinking of a mountain as a breast, including the Grand Tetons.
There are a lot of pre-monotheistic, polytheistic remnants in Jewish religion, too many to get into fully here. For example, the period when one counts the Omer may be related to weeping for Tammuz, who is a god of the grain that dies when the grain is cut and resurrects when it springs up again to become a new crop, and has since been reinterpreted to be a time when a plague fell upon the people because they were quarreling with each other over foolish issues.
Every religion that has been around a while is going to have many layers to it, and I love every single layer of my religion!
I live the history of religion too, Athena. With my especial interest in goddess-based religions, I really enjoyed The Hebrew Goddess and When God Was a Woman. Have you read either?
I get a kick out of one of the months of the Jewish calendar being named Tammuz, and when men are named Asher, after one of Jacob's sons, who was in turn, named for Asherah. And the famous story of Esther (Ishtar) and Molokai (Marduk), etc.
I know shaddai has also been translated as mountain. And breasts are metaphorical mountains. We can agree, it shouldn't be literally translated Almighty.
I get a kick out of one of the months of the Jewish calendar being named Tammuz, and when men are named Asher, after one of Jacob's sons, who was in turn, named for Asherah. And the famous story of Esther (Ishtar) and Molokai (Marduk), etc.
I know shaddai has also been translated as mountain. And breasts are metaphorical mountains. We can agree, it shouldn't be literally translated Almighty.
sage
New member
I'm something of a proud mama at the moment. My daughter, who is quite conservatively Christian, is finally opening up more of a dialogue about polyamory (she even read and commented on my blog).
One point she makes that I do wonder about is this: she believes that the need to love more than one person is somehow about not being connected to god. She puts it alongside a number of other things that divert us from a spiritual path.
I think that there can be a spiritual aspect of most things we do, and polyamory can be a spiritual experience. But I also wonder if the compromising of oneself in order to be with another, e.g., as in a poly/mono relationship, can also be used as a spiritual experience in the same way as other sacrifices or hardships?
One point she makes that I do wonder about is this: she believes that the need to love more than one person is somehow about not being connected to god. She puts it alongside a number of other things that divert us from a spiritual path.
I think that there can be a spiritual aspect of most things we do, and polyamory can be a spiritual experience. But I also wonder if the compromising of oneself in order to be with another, e.g., as in a poly/mono relationship, can also be used as a spiritual experience in the same way as other sacrifices or hardships?
Good for you, proud mama. And good for your daughter, to be open enough to learn about an idea many conservative Christians would shun as anathema.
One good book that explores the concept of multiple loves from a scriptural Christian viewpoint is Divine Sex: Liberating Sex from Religious Tradition. It's a scholarly work writtten by a person raised in a conservative Christian environment who undertook a systematic examination of the Bible in the hopes of determining what it really says concerning a great many sexual matters. I found it to be very interesting and enlightening.
One good book that explores the concept of multiple loves from a scriptural Christian viewpoint is Divine Sex: Liberating Sex from Religious Tradition. It's a scholarly work writtten by a person raised in a conservative Christian environment who undertook a systematic examination of the Bible in the hopes of determining what it really says concerning a great many sexual matters. I found it to be very interesting and enlightening.
catbird
New member
Thank you Magdlyn! I sincerely apologize it's been so long. I got a new machine here and lost my password to the forum.
Yes evil sorceresses sounds right. Those people were superstitious primitives, even if some were literate. Okay, let me be PC here: pretty much all people were superstitious primitives back then. If I had lived then, I would be too. I think superstitious primitivism is wonderful! Anybody pissed off?
Blended fibers and mixed marriage. New idea for me. Yep, that sounds right too.
Okay, IMNSHO: umm... in my not so happy opinion?
IndieSolo
Active member
Not so humble!
jasminegld
New member
John 21: 20-23
20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them.
21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?"
22 Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!"
23 So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"
The point of this passage is that Jesus's call to Peter was different than his call to the other disciple, and it was not Peter's business to sort out the other disciple's call. It was Peter's business to follow his own call, and be about his own spiritual work. In terms of a poly person with a conservative Christian family member, the conservative Christian family member may have new challenges to their own faith because they learned of the relative's poly relationship. The family member has their own call related to their own spiritual path. Like Peter, they can look around and fixate on other people. It's easier than doing one's own work.
That which contributes to or diverts us from our spiritual path is highly personal and often impossible to explain in words. And it's not subject to other people's evaluations. Jesus said so.
Jasmine
Last edited:
catbird
New member
Yup. Accurate. We each were made unique. Yet we keep thinking that Christians can be one or united in faith, when clearly we weren't wired that way. And there is such strong pressure to conform in society for the sake, I suppose, of security, when it sort of seems to be a fool's folly.
brainfreezy
New member
This theme is repeated multiple times throughout the Bible. I immediately thought of (horrible paraphrasing here) finding a speck in your brother's eye, when there is a log in your own. I think when Christians remember that it is about one's personal *individual* walk with Christ, you can easily separate artificial doctrine from essential articles of faith. Finding fault in others is so much easier than working on one's own problems that it often pushes to the point of projecting. I think that theme is in there so frequently because God knew we needed to be reminded constantly to look at yourself first, then help others with love and acceptance, and without judgement.
catbird
New member
The NT seems to be divided re: love, acceptance and lack of judgement. Paul in 1 Corinthians seems really clear that Christians should not judge each other, but not a page later he starts in judging others himself. The difference seems to be that it's okay for him because he is a church leader, but it's not okay for others because they are just church members.
I get the impression that maybe those people in history were as human as we are, or that their definition of judgment was something else.
brainfreezy
New member
Well, at risk of sounding blasphemous, Paul was a little crazy, with a religous fever not even Peter could match. I don't think he gets a pass just for being a church leader, but he was probably the world's first overzealous convert. Remember, most of the others converted with little guilt, but Paul had a lot of baggage to atone for, at least in his mind, for persecuting Christians before his conversion experience. His faith may have changed, but the personality didn't, it would seem. Also, I'm wary of anyone that didn't learn firsthand from Jesus Himself and claims having had a vision or heard a disembodied voice. Not saying it wasn't genuine. I just take Paul with a huge grain of salt.
My attitude towards Paul is, "Thanks for the bacon, but dude, lay off the gays."
My attitude towards Paul is, "Thanks for the bacon, but dude, lay off the gays."
SNeacail
New member
I think we also seem to forget that Paul was writing letters to other church leaders. He was addressing very specific issues within a specific group of people. While Paul's response was recorded, we don't have a true account of what was actually going on.
Paul was a traveling preacher. How many so-called "great preachers" have been around over the centuries? While many of them had a lot of insight and good hearts, they were all still very influenced by tradition, culture and the prejudices of the time. Why is it assumed that Paul is any different than any other so called "great preacher," just because some monk centuries later decided to copy his letters into a book?
Paul was a traveling preacher. How many so-called "great preachers" have been around over the centuries? While many of them had a lot of insight and good hearts, they were all still very influenced by tradition, culture and the prejudices of the time. Why is it assumed that Paul is any different than any other so called "great preacher," just because some monk centuries later decided to copy his letters into a book?
jasminegld
New member
When we talk with conservative Christian family and friends, it doesn't do any good to criticize Paul's credential's or any other part of the Bible. It's more effective to understand the religious concerns of the person we're talking with and speak to those concerns in religious language.
When a person struggles to reconcile polyamory with one's own religious faith, again, it doesn't do any good to criticize that faith's Scripture or prophets or major leaders. That's merely distraction from the real issues. Rather, the primary task is to dig out what is at the foundation of one's own faith, spend some time with this foundation, and figure out where polyamory fits into it.
When a person struggles to reconcile polyamory with one's own religious faith, again, it doesn't do any good to criticize that faith's Scripture or prophets or major leaders. That's merely distraction from the real issues. Rather, the primary task is to dig out what is at the foundation of one's own faith, spend some time with this foundation, and figure out where polyamory fits into it.
SNeacail
New member
This holds true, no matter the topic. As a Christian raised in a super-conservative home, I tend to argue such points as a matter of course, probably too often for everyone's comfort.
jasminegld
New member
This holds true no matter the topic. As a Christian, raise in a super conservative home, I tend to argue such points as a matter of course. Probably too often for everyone's comfort.
I'm generally happy to have such conversations myself. I have a number of responses to your points floating around in my mind.
However, this message board is about polyamory. So I'd prefer to talk about, and encourage others to talk about, the way polyamory and religion impact each other.
catbird
New member
Hello brainfreezy! Glad to make your acquaintance. You make very good points here. Just two small questions.Well, at risk of sounding blasphemous, Paul was a little crazy, with a religous fever not even Peter could match. I don't think he gets a pass just for being a church leader, but he was probably the world's first overzealous convert. Remember, most of the others converted with little guilt, but Paul had a lot of baggage to atone for, at least in his mind, for persecuting Christians before his conversion experience. His faith may have changed, but the personality didn't, it would seem. Also, I'm wary of anyone that didn't learn firsthand from Jesus Himself and claims having had a vision or heard a disembodied voice. Not saying it wasn't genuine, I just take Paul with a huge grain of salt.
My attitude towards Paul is "Thanks for the bacon, but dude, lay off the gays."
First, what does 'thanks for the bacon' mean?
Second, yes, there is much about Paul that causes doubt. And a believer has to decide about having faith in the Bible. Lots of stuff can't be proven or established, or logically considered as being factual or maybe truthful. So is it? Well, that's a matter of faith, and faith might be a good thing or might not.
Believing all things isn't categorically wonderful. We're dealing with an ancient culture, having as much to do with life today as a culture from Mars might. Needs to be dealt with realistically.
Jesus is about truth, eh? Truth and realism amount to the same thing.
Jumping in to say, Paul declared all foods clean, whereas for centuries before, "Jews" had been avoiding eating pork because of what was said in the Torah (Leviticus).
New Christian thought was, it was more important what came out of your mouth than what went in. However, Jewish Christians were still commanded to avoid eating meats that Gentiles had offered to a Greek deity before cooking and eating it.
LovingRadiance
Active member
Have any of you read Divine Sex: Liberating Sex From Religious Tradition by Philo Thelos?
I ask, because I'm reading it right now. It's not at all what I thought it would be based on the title. The writer was a pastor in a Christian church for 36 years. His purpose in the book is to show what the Bible itself actually teaches regarding sex, instead of what the church has decided is correct.
I'm only half way through the book, and let me tell you what, it's very interesting.
The section I'm in right now is about "adultery," and what the term in Hebrew meant (which is not sex with partners other than your spouse, something I already knew). It's very very intriguing, as it basically comes out that the Bible doesn't teach anything against multiple lovers when you are married, or multiple marriages, for that matter.
It might be something you would find interesting to read if this is a topic you are trying to reconcile for yourselves also. I know it's been eye-opening for me, and not in a bad way.
Nowhere does the author in any way twist the words that are written, in fact, he seems to be dead set in his faith in Jesus as the savior and in his confidence in the Bible being the perfect word of God. He quotes the Bible fully, not partially, so no manipulation of pieces and parts for convenience.
Well worth the read. He also gives a lot of information in the back on where to get additional information about studying the Bible, the languages and the history.
I ask, because I'm reading it right now. It's not at all what I thought it would be based on the title. The writer was a pastor in a Christian church for 36 years. His purpose in the book is to show what the Bible itself actually teaches regarding sex, instead of what the church has decided is correct.
I'm only half way through the book, and let me tell you what, it's very interesting.
The section I'm in right now is about "adultery," and what the term in Hebrew meant (which is not sex with partners other than your spouse, something I already knew). It's very very intriguing, as it basically comes out that the Bible doesn't teach anything against multiple lovers when you are married, or multiple marriages, for that matter.
It might be something you would find interesting to read if this is a topic you are trying to reconcile for yourselves also. I know it's been eye-opening for me, and not in a bad way.
Nowhere does the author in any way twist the words that are written, in fact, he seems to be dead set in his faith in Jesus as the savior and in his confidence in the Bible being the perfect word of God. He quotes the Bible fully, not partially, so no manipulation of pieces and parts for convenience.
Well worth the read. He also gives a lot of information in the back on where to get additional information about studying the Bible, the languages and the history.