Polygamy

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:43 am

Where is the biblical ban against polygamy?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:59 am

Accountable;1379834 wrote: Where is the biblical ban against polygamy?

Is it Biblical or just one of the strictures of the Church?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:08 am

I don't think there is a ban per se, but in Genesis 2:24--"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

This is very clear. It says "wife" not wives. It says 1 man and 1 woman. That is the Biblical definition of marriage.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:11 am

AnneBoleyn;1379836 wrote: I don't think there is a ban per se, but in Genesis 2:24--"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

This is very clear. It says "wife" not wives. It says 1 man and 1 woman. That is the Biblical definition of marriage.

But then in Exodus 21:10 whilst discussing the law it gives details of what should happen if a man has taken another wife showing that it was an accepted practice.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:24 am

Many people think that because some of the guys in the Bible took more than one wife, polygamy is justified, Though I think the Genesis 2:24 line trumps all that.

The closest to a ban would be Deuteronomy 17:17 which discusses how a King the people will select should behave.

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

In context, the King is not to multiply his worth, in any way, while King.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:45 am

Accountable asked if there is a biblical ban. There is no actual ban, it seems, at least not a punishable ban. The punishment comes through not living God's ideal life, which is a 2 person marriage. When you don't act according to these "rules" bad things happen. Having one spouse ensures that "bad" things are least likely to occur. i.e. in Samuel, when the season came for kings to war, David instead hangs out at the palace, meets Bathsheba, & a whole sticky mess begins. If David had followed the "rule" of kings warring at a certain season, he could have spared himself some misery. So, there is no ban, per se & you will have lessons to learn for breaking the ideal best.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:54 am

LarsMac;1379838 wrote: Many people think that because some of the guys in the Bible took more than one wife, polygamy is justified, Though I think the Genesis 2:24 line trumps all that.

The closest to a ban would be Deuteronomy 17:17 which discusses how a King the people will select should behave.

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

In context, the King is not to multiply his worth, in any way, while King.

I would have thought that the behavoiur expected of the King would differ in many ways vis-a-vis that of his subjects

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:05 am

AnneBoleyn;1379840 wrote: Accountable asked if there is a biblical ban. There is no actual ban, it seems, at least not a punishable ban. The punishment comes through not living God's ideal life, which is a 2 person marriage. When you don't act according to these "rules" bad things happen. Having one spouse ensures that "bad" things are least likely to occur. i.e. in Samuel, when the season came for kings to war, David instead hangs out at the palace, meets Bathsheba, & a whole sticky mess begins. If David had followed the "rule" of kings warring at a certain season, he could have spared himself some misery. So, there is no ban, per se & you will have lessons to learn for breaking the ideal best.
While I agree that having more wives is just asking for trouble
, I can't see how God was against it, seeings how he blessed Kings David, Soloman, and others so richly.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:06 am

Bryn Mawr;1379841 wrote: I would have thought that the behavoiur expected of the King would differ in many ways vis-a-vis that of his subjects
Jesus was King of the Jews. Shouldn't that be the template for how kings are expected to behave (biblically speaking?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:30 am

Accountable;1379843 wrote: Jesus was King of the Jews. Shouldn't that be the template for how kings are expected to behave (biblically speaking?

Herod was King of Judea and that would have been more the template people saw at the time.

Jesus never married at all - is that the template we should follow?

I think the Church has invented a lot of Christianity and not all of it comes from the whoile cloth.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:56 am

Accountable;1379834 wrote: Where is the biblical ban against polygamy?

Seriously dude, before you take on another one I would reconsider. I mean at your age, really?..LOL

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:22 am

YZGI;1379845 wrote: Seriously dude, before you take on another one I would reconsider. I mean at your age, really?..LOLIt's a kind gesture seeing how woman can achieve grace only through submissive behavior to a husband.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:19 pm

Ahso!;1379846 wrote: It's a kind gesture seeing how woman can achieve grace only through submissive behavior to a husband.

There's my little ray of sunshine.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:33 pm

YZGI;1379853 wrote: There's my little ray of sunshine.Someone needs to be. At your service.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:17 pm

YZGI;1379845 wrote: Seriously dude, before you take on another one I would reconsider. I mean at your age, really?..LOL:wah:

Ahso!;1379846 wrote: It's a kind gesture seeing how woman can achieve grace only through submissive behavior to a husband. Bad interpretation!

Bryn Mawr;1379844 wrote: Herod was King of Judea and that would have been more the template people saw at the time.

Jesus never married at all - is that the template we should follow?

I think the Church has invented a lot of Christianity and not all of it comes from the whoile cloth.I'm at another forum where a guy supposedly educated in apologetics or whatever you call it is trying to school us. Some of it the sources for their ideas seem somewhat ... um ... proctological? creative.

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:23 am

Well the bible contains directives for bishops and decons to be husbands of only one Wife.

1 Timothy 3

1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

So a Church leader should only have one wife.

1 Timothy 3

8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

So even lower level servants in the church should be husbands of just one wife.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:00 am

Accountable;1379859 wrote: :wah:

Bad interpretation!

I'm at another forum where a guy supposedly educated in apologetics or whatever you call it is trying to school us. Some of it the sources for their ideas seem somewhat ... um ... proctological? creative.

OK, I admit it, I had to look it up - I damn'd near wet myself when I did though :yh_rotfl

Very nice phrasing and so expressive of so much I see posted elsewhere

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:04 am

Adstar;1379870 wrote: Well the bible contains directives for bishops and decons to be husbands of only one Wife.

1 Timothy 3

1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

So a Church leader should only have one wife.

1 Timothy 3

8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

So even lower level servants in the church should be husbands of just one wife.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

So where did the Church get the principle of celibacy for its servants from?

My understanding has always been that one of the early monastic orders was founded by a mysoginist and it spread from the rules of that order.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:07 am

Adstar;1379870 wrote: Well the bible contains directives for bishops and decons to be husbands of only one Wife.

1 Timothy 3

1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

So a Church leader should only have one wife.

1 Timothy 3

8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

So even lower level servants in the church should be husbands of just one wife.

All Praise The Ancient Of DaysThat's pretty interesting that bishops can be married, since they come from the rank & file of priests, and priests are single & celebate. I'll raise this with my apologist buddy & see what it stirs up.

Good find!

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:19 am

Jesus was not & is not king of the Jews. The INRI was mocking him.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:49 am

AnneBoleyn;1379883 wrote: Jesus was not & is not king of the Jews. The INRI was mocking him.

Luke 1:26-38. I'm sure there are more references calling Him King. I just googled this one real quick.

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:53 am

Accountable;1379889 wrote: Luke 1:26-38. I'm sure there are more references calling Him King. I just googled this one real quick.

That surely is the King of Heaven and not the King of the Jews?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:55 am

Bryn Mawr;1379892 wrote: That surely is the King of Heaven and not the King of the Jews?There was a difference back then?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:03 am

Jesus was not & is not king of the Jews, despite whatever biblical verses you dredge up. To insist otherwise is to be anti-semitic. Surely that doesn't describe anyone here.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:06 am

Found it! (I think)

From 1 Corintians 7: 1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This is the ESV (English Standard Version) but they all say basically the same thing, except the NIV specifies "have" to mean only having sex, which would throw everything back gray again.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:10 am

AnneBoleyn;1379894 wrote: Jesus was not & is not king of the Jews, despite whatever biblical verses you dredge up. To insist otherwise is to be anti-semitic. Surely that doesn't describe anyone here.:-2

:-2

To quote biblical scripture is anti-Semitic??? LOL at your phrase "dredge up" as if I were trying to sling mud or something. I don't apologize for quoting the Holy Bible. If you find offense I'd suggest you investigate the source of the emotion rather than being mad at me.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:10 am

Accountable;1379893 wrote: There was a difference back then?

Too true there was - anyone claiming to be King of the Jews would be setting themself up in direct competition with the Roman Empire and would be swatted like the Maccabee were whereas claiming to be the King of Heaven was a spiritual matter and something that Rome would tolerate.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:14 am

Bryn Mawr;1379897 wrote: Too true there was - anyone claiming to be King of the Jews would be setting themself up in direct competition with the Roman Empire and would be swatted like the Maccabee were whereas claiming to be the King of Heaven was a spiritual matter and something that Rome would tolerate.
Jesus didn't make the claim, and I'm not certain that the Jewish People drew a distinction between politics and religion. Was King David not the King of the Jews? Though they had a different name at the time, it was still the same People, was it not?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:19 am

Accountable, the New Testament has been used for anti-semitic purposes for millenia. And I'm certainly not mad at you. I'm not offended, not at all.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:20 am

Accountable;1379895 wrote: Found it! (I think)

From 1 Corintians 7: This is the ESV (English Standard Version) but they all say basically the same thing, except the NIV specifies "have" to mean only having sex, which would throw everything back gray again.

Fair enough, it was Paul after the event but it is clear.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:25 am

Accountable;1379898 wrote: Jesus didn't make the claim, and I'm not certain that the Jewish People drew a distinction between politics and religion. Was King David not the King of the Jews? Though they had a different name at the time, it was still the same People, was it not?

David was King of the Jews in a secular sense whereas Jesus was not.

All people make the distinction between those who rule over their physical lives and those who rule over their spiritual lives especially when they are so different - with an external oppressor on the one hand and the traditional religion on the other you could not help but to differentiate.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:41 pm

AnneBoleyn;1379899 wrote: Accountable, the New Testament has been used for anti-semitic purposes for millenia. And I'm certainly not mad at you. I'm not offended, not at all.

Good. I'm glad to be wrong sometimes.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:54 pm

Bryn Mawr;1379901 wrote: David was King of the Jews in a secular sense whereas Jesus was not.

All people make the distinction between those who rule over their physical lives and those who rule over their spiritual lives especially when they are so different - with an external oppressor on the one hand and the traditional religion on the other you could not help but to differentiate.
Methinks your sweeping generalization has swept up too much. Is the king who enslaves you and your people your king, or the king of your oppressors? Prisoners of war still look to and are loyal to their own chain of command, regardless of who holds power over their physical lives. The spiritual leaders of Iran ARE the political leaders; one and the same. The only way I can see agreeing with your statement in the context of the Jews is if you claim (and show) that King David was an oppressor of the Jews.

If you're talking specifically of the Jews under Rome's thumb, I'm way out of my depth here (the reason you don't see me in such discussions much) but weren't the Jewish people foretold of a King who will come to take them out of bondage? Remember that Kings, All Kings well into the Renaissance, claimed that their authority came from God.

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:16 am

Bryn Mawr;1379876 wrote: So where did the Church get the principle of celibacy for its servants from?

My understanding has always been that one of the early monastic orders was founded by a mysoginist and it spread from the rules of that order.

Well remember most protestant denominations have married ministers. So when you talk about "the Church" i can only assume you are talking about the catholic religion?

The catholic religion had developed a lot of un-Biblical traditions down through the centuries because they believe the authority of the papacy outranks the bible. Clearly the scriptures that i provided allowed for bishops and deacons to be married. The tradition of celibacy in the catholic church i believe came from the fact that Paul was not married and remained celebrate. Although Paul did state he wished everyone was like him in this regard He also stated that the ability to be celibate was a gift from God. So Paul did not not suffer being celibate, it was a normal state of affairs for him. Of course once you go and make it mandatory then a lot of men who do not have this gift are forced to do something they cannot do and their unmet needs end up causing them and the catholic church a lot of problems of a sexual nature. There is also the point that making a celibate clergy in a conservative society will give a place for men to hide who have sexual problems with women and may have un-natural sexual desires. Sexual scandal has always plagued the catholic church.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:39 am

AnneBoleyn;1379883 wrote: Jesus was not & is not king of the Jews. The INRI was mocking him.

Well the majority of the Jews did not accept Jesus as their King/Messiah because He did not conform to their idea of what the Messiah should be and do.

In scriptures it was God who appointed Kings. Saul and David where both selected and given the OK by God.

So while the majority of the Jews and the elites of the Jews did not accept Jesus as their King, in biblical terms they where not the ones to decide who was and who was not to be King over them. In the bible it was God who decided these things.

So Christians believe that Jesus is the King of the Jews. Even though during his time on earth He was never accepted by the Jews as their King.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:41 am

Bryn Mawr;1379892 wrote: That surely is the King of Heaven and not the King of the Jews?

Jesus is called the King of Kings and Lord of Lords in the Bible so He is the King of all. That includes the Jews.

All Praise The Ancient of Days

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:42 am

AnneBoleyn;1379894 wrote: Jesus was not & is not king of the Jews, despite whatever biblical verses you dredge up. To insist otherwise is to be anti-semitic. Surely that doesn't describe anyone here.

How can it be seen as anti-semitic???? preposterous.

All Praise The Ancient of Days

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:50 am

Bryn Mawr;1379897 wrote: Too true there was - anyone claiming to be King of the Jews would be setting themself up in direct competition with the Roman Empire and would be swatted like the Maccabee were whereas claiming to be the King of Heaven was a spiritual matter and something that Rome would tolerate.

Not necessarily. The Jews had kings while under the rule of the roman Empire. The leader of the roman empire was called an emperor for a reason. It was a rank higher than King. King Herod was a King but a loyal vassal of the roman Emperor. So Jesus claim to be the King of the Jews would not necessarily be seen as a threat to Rome. Jesus did tell the Jews to pay their taxes to the Romans. Maybe the Romans would approve of a vassal King of Judah like that. Jesus never called for a revolution against Rome. His Kingdom was a spiritual one not a worldly one at that time.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:59 am

Accountable;1379898 wrote: Jesus didn't make the claim, and I'm not certain that the Jewish People drew a distinction between politics and religion. Was King David not the King of the Jews? Though they had a different name at the time, it was still the same People, was it not?

Jesus did make the claim when Pilate asked Him directly.

Mark 15

2 Then Pilate asked Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”He answered and said to him, “It is as you say.”

And this is a minor point David was king of Israel. The tribe of Judah and Benjamin alone with the tribe of the Levites became known as Jews. The Kingdom of Israel split into the northern 10 tribes and took the name Israel while the southern kingdom was named Judea. So Jews are only made up of the tribes that occupied the southern kingdom of Judea.

All Praise The Ancient of Days

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:09 am

All caught up now.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:43 am

Adstar;1380088 wrote: Not necessarily. The Jews had kings while under the rule of the roman Empire. The leader of the roman empire was called an emperor for a reason. It was a rank higher than King. King Herod was a King but a loyal vassal of the roman Emperor. So Jesus claim to be the King of the Jews would not necessarily be seen as a threat to Rome. Jesus did tell the Jews to pay their taxes to the Romans. Maybe the Romans would approve of a vassal King of Judah like that. Jesus never called for a revolution against Rome. His Kingdom was a spiritual one not a worldly one at that time.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

That is exactly what I was saying.

Where did Jesus claim to be King of the Jews in anything but a spiritual sense?

Had he set himself up as a secular King in opposition to King Herod then he would have been seen by Rome as being in revolt - King Herod was placed on the throne by Rome and disputing his rule would have been disputing Rome's right to determine how Judea was ruled.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:09 am

I disagree with Adstar. When Jesus answered Pilate: "Thou sayest", Jesus was neither confirming nor denying but said it is You who call me that. "It's you, it's YOU who say I am".

Adstar: "Jesus is called the King of Kings and Lord of Lords in the Bible so He is the King of all. That includes the Jews."

Preposterous. If you insist upon this You are an anti-semite who in past times would be the first calling for an inquisition.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:26 am

AnneBoleyn;1380106 wrote: I disagree with Adstar. When Jesus answered Pilate: "Thou sayest", Jesus was neither confirming nor denying but said it is You who call me that. "It's you, it's YOU who say I am".

Adstar: "Jesus is called the King of Kings and Lord of Lords in the Bible so He is the King of all. That includes the Jews."

Preposterous. If you insist upon this You are an anti-semite who in past times would be the first calling for an inquisition.
I don't understand this at all. Can you clarify?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:27 am

AnneBoleyn;1380106 wrote: I disagree with Adstar. When Jesus answered Pilate: "Thou sayest", Jesus was neither confirming nor denying but said it is You who call me that. "It's you, it's YOU who say I am".

Adstar: "Jesus is called the King of Kings and Lord of Lords in the Bible so He is the King of all. That includes the Jews."

Preposterous. If you insist upon this You are an anti-semite who in past times would be the first calling for an inquisition.

Why this insistence on calling people anti-Semitic?

People have a reading of the English words and Adstar's reading is within the mathematical logic of the words as written and is not, unless you can show differently, insulting or disparaging the Jews. Where then is it anti-Semitic?

Do you, for example, dispute that God is the God of all and therefore also the God of the Jews? Or do you limit God's domain to only being the God of Christians?

If God is the God of all and therefore the God of the Jews how is Jesus is the King of all and therefore the King of the Jews wrong?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:02 am

Bryn Mawr

Do you, for example, dispute that God is the God of all and therefore also the God of the Jews? Or do you limit God's domain to only being the God of Christians?

I dispute there is a God at all. Or, that there is a God who is such a half-wit as to leave out the majority of earth's population to only concentrate on what Christians believe is God. Adstar wasn't just being anti-Semite, he (or she) is behaving anti-Hindu/anti-Bhuddist etc., anything that does not conform to the Christian way. This attitude is what started religious killings, surely no one can dispute that? The Mormons have this bad habit of baptising dead people who aren't Christian. While this may be seen as silly, it also can be seen as demeaning or offensive, or Christian. I prefer silly, but I can understand offensive. Believe it or not, people not Christian don't give Jesus a second thought. Never think about him at all. Ever. Some Christians just can't stand that. It appears to me Adstar is this kind of Christian.

My point was in my last answer that, IMO, Jesus never called himself King. He admitted others did, did not run from it (not that he could have at that point), did not deny, did not confirm. That is the heart of my point.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:19 am

AnneBoleyn;1380115 wrote: Bryn Mawr

I dispute there is a God at all. Or, that there is a God who is such a half-wit as to leave out the majority of earth's population to only concentrate on what Christians believe is God. Adstar wasn't just being anti-Semite, he (or she) is behaving anti-Hindu/anti-Bhuddist etc., anything that does not conform to the Christian way. This attitude is what started religious killings, surely no one can dispute that? The Mormons have this bad habit of baptising dead people who aren't Christian. While this may be seen as silly, it also can be seen as demeaning or offensive, or Christian. I prefer silly, but I can understand offensive. Believe it or not, people not Christian don't give Jesus a second thought. Never think about him at all. Ever. Some Christians just can't stand that. It appears to me Adstar is this kind of Christian.

My point was in my last answer that, IMO, Jesus never called himself King. He admitted others did, did not run from it (not that he could have at that point), did not deny, did not confirm. That is the heart of my point.

So it is religion itself that you have a problem with?

Given that this discussion is taking place within the Christianity forum of this site, it is based on the assumptions of that religion, just as discussions within the Islam or Judaism forums are based on the assumptions of those religions. One of the assumptions common to all three is that there is a God who is the God of all. If your contention is that there is no God then make that statement - don't throw our accusations of anti-Senitism (which is a very serious charge) on the basis that Christian assumptions are being made in the Christian forum within the Garden.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:29 am

I don't know if it is my contention that there is no God, but it certainly is within the realm of possibility, many possibilities out there. How do you think anti-semitism began? Just as white people aren't always aware of negative racist thought within their own heart, cannot it be said that a Christian who sees Jewish refusal as a direct threat should be dealt with in some way? Especially in someone who wants Ancient Ways to be followed? Just a thought, Bryn Mawr. Maybe not in our modern sensibilities, but it can't be denied it did happen.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:40 am

AnneBoleyn;1380123 wrote: I don't know if it is my contention that there is no God, but it certainly is within the realm of possibility, many possibilities out there. How do you think anti-semitism began? Just as white people aren't always aware of negative racist thought within their own heart, cannot it be said that a Christian who sees Jewish refusal as a direct threat should be dealt with in some way? Especially in someone who wants Ancient Ways to be followed? Just a thought, Bryn Mawr. Maybe not in our modern sensibilities, but it can't be denied it did happen.

Which Jewish refusal would that be? What has been seen as a direct threat?

That what did happen?

There are many causes of anti-Semitism and many ways that it can be expressed but discussing whether Jesus was "King of the Jews" in the eyes of the Christian faith, whether it be in a spiritual, secular sense, say more about Christianity than anything else - it certainly does not attack Jews or Judaism.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:50 am

By refusal I meant refusing to be converted. Christians were historically easily offended, & that was the threat. What happened? You know from history what happened to Jews! Words lead to violence. "lead" is past, present, & as "leadS', future too. I'm only just disputing that Jesus called himself King. Forgive me for the distractions, my mind was wandering.

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:10 am

Accountable;1380090 wrote: All caught up now.

That's the good thing about forums. You can miss a day or two but still catch up. If i am contributing to a forum i like to visit it once a day. But in the busy times of the year, like now, your too exhausted by the end of the day.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days