Is it still adultery?nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:But I get it. Your church view is that two people can be absolutely miserable and hate each others guts but as long as they only sleep with each other (though let's be fair they probably aren't having sex at all) that's a better marriage than two people who love each other but sleep with other people.LIB,MR BEARS said:nein51 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:a gun shot to the left knee cap it better or worse than a gun shot to the right knee cap? And…go!nein51 said:OsoCoreyell said:
That's not marriage.
Two married people who love each other but sleep with other people is better or worse than two married people who are completely committed to each other but the man beats the woman in front of their kids? And…go!
Two married people who love each other but sleep with other people openly are more or less married than the people in your church this very morning who are sleeping with other people but keeping it a secret? And…go!
He said it's not marriage. I'm just trying to ascertain if a good marriage where people sleep with other people is worse than a bad marriage where they don't.
Yours is a false equivalency.
However, I realize this is a Baylor forum where even the very most liberal members are not going to have a positive outlook on an open marriage.
A paraphrase: There is no right or wrong. Everyone will do what is right in their own eyes.
If a person loves his or her spouse they won't cheat on them. That's not love. Infidelity is betrayal.
It's not cheating if all parties consent. That's what an open marriage is. It's not cheating on your partner.
Open Marriage
37,350 Views |
404 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by historian
he is strictly wanting a secular response. He, like many others want to live by what is right in his own eyes.Coke Bear said:Is it still adultery?nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:But I get it. Your church view is that two people can be absolutely miserable and hate each others guts but as long as they only sleep with each other (though let's be fair they probably aren't having sex at all) that's a better marriage than two people who love each other but sleep with other people.LIB,MR BEARS said:nein51 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:a gun shot to the left knee cap it better or worse than a gun shot to the right knee cap? And…go!nein51 said:OsoCoreyell said:
That's not marriage.
Two married people who love each other but sleep with other people is better or worse than two married people who are completely committed to each other but the man beats the woman in front of their kids? And…go!
Two married people who love each other but sleep with other people openly are more or less married than the people in your church this very morning who are sleeping with other people but keeping it a secret? And…go!
He said it's not marriage. I'm just trying to ascertain if a good marriage where people sleep with other people is worse than a bad marriage where they don't.
Yours is a false equivalency.
However, I realize this is a Baylor forum where even the very most liberal members are not going to have a positive outlook on an open marriage.
A paraphrase: There is no right or wrong. Everyone will do what is right in their own eyes.
If a person loves his or her spouse they won't cheat on them. That's not love. Infidelity is betrayal.
It's not cheating if all parties consent. That's what an open marriage is. It's not cheating on your partner.
Coke Bear said:Is it still adultery?nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:But I get it. Your church view is that two people can be absolutely miserable and hate each others guts but as long as they only sleep with each other (though let's be fair they probably aren't having sex at all) that's a better marriage than two people who love each other but sleep with other people.LIB,MR BEARS said:nein51 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:a gun shot to the left knee cap it better or worse than a gun shot to the right knee cap? And…go!nein51 said:OsoCoreyell said:
That's not marriage.
Two married people who love each other but sleep with other people is better or worse than two married people who are completely committed to each other but the man beats the woman in front of their kids? And…go!
Two married people who love each other but sleep with other people openly are more or less married than the people in your church this very morning who are sleeping with other people but keeping it a secret? And…go!
He said it's not marriage. I'm just trying to ascertain if a good marriage where people sleep with other people is worse than a bad marriage where they don't.
Yours is a false equivalency.
However, I realize this is a Baylor forum where even the very most liberal members are not going to have a positive outlook on an open marriage.
A paraphrase: There is no right or wrong. Everyone will do what is right in their own eyes.
If a person loves his or her spouse they won't cheat on them. That's not love. Infidelity is betrayal.
It's not cheating if all parties consent. That's what an open marriage is. It's not cheating on your partner.
I have no idea. By definition it surely is.
LIB,MR BEARS said:he is strictly wanting a secular response. He, like many others want to live by what is right in his own eyes.Coke Bear said:Is it still adultery?nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:But I get it. Your church view is that two people can be absolutely miserable and hate each others guts but as long as they only sleep with each other (though let's be fair they probably aren't having sex at all) that's a better marriage than two people who love each other but sleep with other people.LIB,MR BEARS said:nein51 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:a gun shot to the left knee cap it better or worse than a gun shot to the right knee cap? And…go!nein51 said:OsoCoreyell said:
That's not marriage.
Two married people who love each other but sleep with other people is better or worse than two married people who are completely committed to each other but the man beats the woman in front of their kids? And…go!
Two married people who love each other but sleep with other people openly are more or less married than the people in your church this very morning who are sleeping with other people but keeping it a secret? And…go!
He said it's not marriage. I'm just trying to ascertain if a good marriage where people sleep with other people is worse than a bad marriage where they don't.
Yours is a false equivalency.
However, I realize this is a Baylor forum where even the very most liberal members are not going to have a positive outlook on an open marriage.
A paraphrase: There is no right or wrong. Everyone will do what is right in their own eyes.
If a person loves his or her spouse they won't cheat on them. That's not love. Infidelity is betrayal.
It's not cheating if all parties consent. That's what an open marriage is. It's not cheating on your partner.
Yes, can't make it more clear that there is no biblical justification for open marriage. It doesn't exist. There's no possible way to live biblically in an open marriage. I could not have been any clearer.
However, 69% of the world's population doesn't adhere to your book so they truly don't care what it says. Just like you probably eat bacon and it's strictly forbidden in the Koran (and the Torah).
I use outstanding Biblical theologians. Try reading Victor Paul Furnish's [url=https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Teaching-Paul-Selected-Issues/dp/0687271819][/url]Quote:
Yes, educate yourself.
47, who do you use for your homoerotic classes? Is it at the public library or an elementary school?
The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues
[url=https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Teaching-Paul-Selected-Issues/dp/0687271819][/url]
Waco1947 ,la
it is not your place to judge and put your values on anyone else. period.
nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:But I get it. Your church view is that two people can be absolutely miserable and hate each others guts but as long as they only sleep with each other (though let's be fair they probably aren't having sex at all) that's a better marriage than two people who love each other but sleep with other people.LIB,MR BEARS said:nein51 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:a gun shot to the left knee cap it better or worse than a gun shot to the right knee cap? And…go!nein51 said:OsoCoreyell said:
That's not marriage.
Two married people who love each other but sleep with other people is better or worse than two married people who are completely committed to each other but the man beats the woman in front of their kids? And…go!
Two married people who love each other but sleep with other people openly are more or less married than the people in your church this very morning who are sleeping with other people but keeping it a secret? And…go!
He said it's not marriage. I'm just trying to ascertain if a good marriage where people sleep with other people is worse than a bad marriage where they don't.
Yours is a false equivalency.
However, I realize this is a Baylor forum where even the very most liberal members are not going to have a positive outlook on an open marriage.
A paraphrase: There is no right or wrong. Everyone will do what is right in their own eyes.
If a person loves his or her spouse they won't cheat on them. That's not love. Infidelity is betrayal.
It's not cheating if all parties consent. That's what an open marriage is. It's not cheating on your partner.
Yes it is, by God's standard. No other standard matters. Man is always trying to find ways to bend the rules or get away with breaking them. That's only adding lies & deception to the list of sins.
nein51 said:Coke Bear said:Is it still adultery?nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:But I get it. Your church view is that two people can be absolutely miserable and hate each others guts but as long as they only sleep with each other (though let's be fair they probably aren't having sex at all) that's a better marriage than two people who love each other but sleep with other people.LIB,MR BEARS said:nein51 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:a gun shot to the left knee cap it better or worse than a gun shot to the right knee cap? And…go!nein51 said:OsoCoreyell said:
That's not marriage.
Two married people who love each other but sleep with other people is better or worse than two married people who are completely committed to each other but the man beats the woman in front of their kids? And…go!
Two married people who love each other but sleep with other people openly are more or less married than the people in your church this very morning who are sleeping with other people but keeping it a secret? And…go!
He said it's not marriage. I'm just trying to ascertain if a good marriage where people sleep with other people is worse than a bad marriage where they don't.
Yours is a false equivalency.
However, I realize this is a Baylor forum where even the very most liberal members are not going to have a positive outlook on an open marriage.
A paraphrase: There is no right or wrong. Everyone will do what is right in their own eyes.
If a person loves his or her spouse they won't cheat on them. That's not love. Infidelity is betrayal.
It's not cheating if all parties consent. That's what an open marriage is. It's not cheating on your partner.
I have no idea. By definition it surely is.
Exactly. The commandment does not say, "Do not commit adultery, unless your spouse is ok with it." That's adding more perversion to the offense.
Valid point. However, none of those faiths will save someone in the end.
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
Or just read the writings of Paul himself.
That is God's job. But we must be firm in stating and upholding moral standards as God established them. We do not create our own morality.
historian said:
Valid point. However, none of those faiths will save someone in the end.
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
That's one hell of a bet you're placing because I assure you Jews and Muslims and Buddhists disagree.
But, again, and I cannot possibly be any more clear; you're not going to find a biblical justification for open marriages. So I'm not sure why it keeps coming up in this topic.
If your starting position is "the Bible says it's wrong" then you're not going to be convinced otherwise…the flip side is "I don't believe in your Bible, what now?"
Historian is providing the orthodox Christian position, which is supported by Scripture.nein51 said:historian said:
Valid point. However, none of those faiths will save someone in the end.
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
That's one hell of a bet you're placing because I assure you Jews and Muslims and Buddhists disagree.
But, again, and I cannot possibly be any more clear; you're not going to find a biblical justification for open marriages. So I'm not sure why it keeps coming up in this topic.
If your starting position is "the Bible says it's wrong" then you're not going to be convinced otherwise…the flip side is "I don't believe in your Bible, what now?"
It may surprise you to learn that Christians follow different scriptures than Jews, Muslims or Buddhists, who each have their own doctrines and documentation.
So far as I know, however, one thing Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists all have in common, is that they do not consider 'open marriages' to be moral in any way.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Then I can only pray that you will find Jesus and avoid hell. Those are the only two options for anyone.
I am fully aware that the other major religions have their own doctrines and texts. It is quite interesting how often they agree, including the topic you cite. But Mohammad, Buddha, and every other religious leader of the past is still dead. Jesus Christ is the only founder of a religion who rose from the grave. He's the only human history who did not remain dead. Others were resurrected but Lazarus, et al later died again. Not Jesus.
Agreed. I was simply reminding Nein that, scriptures aside, he's not going to find a serious faith that advocates open marriage.historian said:
I am fully aware that the other major religions have their own doctrines and texts. It is quite interesting how often they agree, including the topic you cite. But Mohammad, Buddha, and every other religious leader of the past is still dead. Jesus Christ is the only founder of a religion who rose from the grave. He's the only human history who did not remain dead. Others were resurrected but Lazarus, et al later died again. Not Jesus.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:Agreed. I was simply reminding Nein that, scriptures aside, he's not going to find a serious faith that advocates open marriage.historian said:
I am fully aware that the other major religions have their own doctrines and texts. It is quite interesting how often they agree, including the topic you cite. But Mohammad, Buddha, and every other religious leader of the past is still dead. Jesus Christ is the only founder of a religion who rose from the grave. He's the only human history who did not remain dead. Others were resurrected but Lazarus, et al later died again. Not Jesus.
I have probably said no fewer than 10 times in this thread you won't find biblical justification for open marriage. I literally couldn't be any clearer.
You will find it in Islam, the Mormon church and the Jewish faith (though not in recent times).
Abraham, Jacob and David all had multiple wives though I think you would make the argument that's more polygamy than an open marriage.
I don't think anyone of modern Judeo-Christian faith is going to advocate for open marriage.
Oldbear83 said:Historian is providing the orthodox Christian position, which is supported by Scripture.nein51 said:historian said:
Valid point. However, none of those faiths will save someone in the end.
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
That's one hell of a bet you're placing because I assure you Jews and Muslims and Buddhists disagree.
But, again, and I cannot possibly be any more clear; you're not going to find a biblical justification for open marriages. So I'm not sure why it keeps coming up in this topic.
If your starting position is "the Bible says it's wrong" then you're not going to be convinced otherwise…the flip side is "I don't believe in your Bible, what now?"
It may surprise you to learn that Christians follow different scriptures than Jews, Muslims or Buddhists, who each have their own doctrines and documentation.
So far as I know, however, one thing Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists all have in common, is that they do not consider 'open marriages' to be moral in any way.
Islam loses its right to morality claims when its founder was banging an 8 yr old.
nein51 said:Oldbear83 said:Historian is providing the orthodox Christian position, which is supported by Scripture.nein51 said:historian said:
Valid point. However, none of those faiths will save someone in the end.
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
That's one hell of a bet you're placing because I assure you Jews and Muslims and Buddhists disagree.
But, again, and I cannot possibly be any more clear; you're not going to find a biblical justification for open marriages. So I'm not sure why it keeps coming up in this topic.
If your starting position is "the Bible says it's wrong" then you're not going to be convinced otherwise…the flip side is "I don't believe in your Bible, what now?"
It may surprise you to learn that Christians follow different scriptures than Jews, Muslims or Buddhists, who each have their own doctrines and documentation.
So far as I know, however, one thing Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists all have in common, is that they do not consider 'open marriages' to be moral in any way.
Islam loses its right to morality claims when its founder was banging an 8 yr old.
If we are all doing what is right in our own eyes, why is banging an 8 yr old wrong? What is your basis now of right and wrong?
It's opinion. It's preference. If all are in agreement, it's not wrong…. and this is consistent with your standard throughout this thread.
LIB,MR BEARS said:nein51 said:Oldbear83 said:Historian is providing the orthodox Christian position, which is supported by Scripture.nein51 said:historian said:
Valid point. However, none of those faiths will save someone in the end.
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
That's one hell of a bet you're placing because I assure you Jews and Muslims and Buddhists disagree.
But, again, and I cannot possibly be any more clear; you're not going to find a biblical justification for open marriages. So I'm not sure why it keeps coming up in this topic.
If your starting position is "the Bible says it's wrong" then you're not going to be convinced otherwise…the flip side is "I don't believe in your Bible, what now?"
It may surprise you to learn that Christians follow different scriptures than Jews, Muslims or Buddhists, who each have their own doctrines and documentation.
So far as I know, however, one thing Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists all have in common, is that they do not consider 'open marriages' to be moral in any way.
Islam loses its right to morality claims when its founder was banging an 8 yr old.
If we are all doing what is right in our own eyes, why is banging an 8 yr old wrong? What is your basis now of right and wrong?
It's opinion. It's preference. If all are in agreement, it's not wrong…. and this is consistent with your standard throughout this thread.
That line of thought is crazy but you do you. If you can't see the difference between 3 adults having sex and the leader of a religion having sex with an 8 year old that's a you problem.
And stop wasting your keystrokes; you're not going to convert me. You don't get extra praise time in heaven for having this conversation.
I'm trying to understand your reasoning. Consent has been a consistent theme FROM YOU throughout this thread.nein51 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:nein51 said:Oldbear83 said:Historian is providing the orthodox Christian position, which is supported by Scripture.nein51 said:historian said:
Valid point. However, none of those faiths will save someone in the end.
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
That's one hell of a bet you're placing because I assure you Jews and Muslims and Buddhists disagree.
But, again, and I cannot possibly be any more clear; you're not going to find a biblical justification for open marriages. So I'm not sure why it keeps coming up in this topic.
If your starting position is "the Bible says it's wrong" then you're not going to be convinced otherwise…the flip side is "I don't believe in your Bible, what now?"
It may surprise you to learn that Christians follow different scriptures than Jews, Muslims or Buddhists, who each have their own doctrines and documentation.
So far as I know, however, one thing Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists all have in common, is that they do not consider 'open marriages' to be moral in any way.
Islam loses its right to morality claims when its founder was banging an 8 yr old.
If we are all doing what is right in our own eyes, why is banging an 8 yr old wrong? What is your basis now of right and wrong?
It's opinion. It's preference. If all are in agreement, it's not wrong…. and this is consistent with your standard throughout this thread.
That line of thought is crazy but you do you. If you can't see the difference between 3 adults having sex and the leader of a religion having sex with an 8 year old that's a you problem.
And stop wasting your keystrokes; you're not going to convert me. You don't get extra praise time in heaven for having this conversation.
Why is it different now?
You're telling 24.1% of the world that their religious leader is wrong. You're dismissing 1.9 billion people over something you've demonstrated you can't defend.
Why would you think I'm trying to convert you. I've taken the Christian view and now I'm taking a Muslim view. All I want from you is to tell me why your view is so inconsistent. Personally, I don't think you can.
Open Marriage means the dude or chick doesn't like their mate so they go looking for someone while they sleep with you until they find someone. They all end up in divorce. It's not a marriage. Complete stupidity
nein51 said:Oldbear83 said:Agreed. I was simply reminding Nein that, scriptures aside, he's not going to find a serious faith that advocates open marriage.historian said:
I am fully aware that the other major religions have their own doctrines and texts. It is quite interesting how often they agree, including the topic you cite. But Mohammad, Buddha, and every other religious leader of the past is still dead. Jesus Christ is the only founder of a religion who rose from the grave. He's the only human history who did not remain dead. Others were resurrected but Lazarus, et al later died again. Not Jesus.
I have probably said no fewer than 10 times in this thread you won't find biblical justification for open marriage. I literally couldn't be any clearer.
You will find it in Islam, the Mormon church and the Jewish faith (though not in recent times).
Abraham, Jacob and David all had multiple wives though I think you would make the argument that's more polygamy than an open marriage.
I don't think anyone of modern Judeo-Christian faith is going to advocate for open marriage.
You did say repeatedly that there is no biblical argument for open marriage, aka trying to legitimize adultery. Polygamy is not the same thing since the additional women were wives, not mistresses. Abraham, Jacob, David, & Solomon did have multiple wives and their stories offer great arguments for monogamy. Each one made somewhat of a mess of their families, partly because of their many wives. Jacob arguably was the least messy and yet he had a favorite son, hated by his brothers, with huge ramifications.
nein51 said:Oldbear83 said:Historian is providing the orthodox Christian position, which is supported by Scripture.nein51 said:historian said:
Valid point. However, none of those faiths will save someone in the end.
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
That's one hell of a bet you're placing because I assure you Jews and Muslims and Buddhists disagree.
But, again, and I cannot possibly be any more clear; you're not going to find a biblical justification for open marriages. So I'm not sure why it keeps coming up in this topic.
If your starting position is "the Bible says it's wrong" then you're not going to be convinced otherwise…the flip side is "I don't believe in your Bible, what now?"
It may surprise you to learn that Christians follow different scriptures than Jews, Muslims or Buddhists, who each have their own doctrines and documentation.
So far as I know, however, one thing Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists all have in common, is that they do not consider 'open marriages' to be moral in any way.
Islam loses its right to morality claims when its founder was banging an 8 yr old.
And the "religion of peace" was founded on the basis of conquest, mass murder, & excessive violence in general. This began with Muhammad himself and continues today, although many modern Muslims are not Islamofascist butchers.
The whole idea of open marriage is crazy. It makes no sense on any level except pure hedonism which can never be justified morally, practically, or in any other way.
unless you are a Democrat, in which case anyone who disagrees with you is a racist or a bigot or a this-or-that-aphobe.......joseywales said:
it is not your place to judge and put your values on anyone else. period.
More fascist projection
historian said:
Or just read the writings of Paul himself. I have but good scholarship means studying the historical- critical of Paul.
Waco1947 ,la
Waco, just admit your definition of 'Christian' is just about the opposite of every historical example.Waco1947 said:historian said:
Or just read the writings of Paul himself. I have but good scholarship means studying the historical- critical of Paul.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
nein51 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:from what I posted, give me an example.Robert Wilson said:
That's so reductionist it is just plain silly, and it well illustrates why people who have had to leave a bad/toxic/abusive relationship would not feel comfortable coming back to church.
Here it is again regarding abuse.
"yes, I said start. It may lead to divorce and I'd be good with that but my opinion doesn't carry a great deal of weight in God's economy"
Neither you nor nein have chosen to address mental illness, a subject that nein opened the door to with an earlier statement but now, will not address.
What do you want to address? Ask a direct question
Here are several direct questions that you bypassed previously.
How is a mental illness different than cancer?
How is a mental illness like bipolar disorder different than dementia, a disorder of the brain? The causes of both are not fully understood. Does bipolar disorder get the nein51 exemption? Bipolar disorder can be hard.
If you lose a leg or your eyesight to diabetes and she views you as not being the man she married, does that give her the nein51 exemption? The effects of diabetes can be hard.
Is addiction a life-style choice or a disease? Does one get the exemption while the other dos not. Addiction is hard on everyone connected. Heck, with an addicted son, the father wouldn't even need to look down the road each day waiting on His son's return. He could apply the exemption, shut the gate and turn his back. Is nein good with that?
Is a chemical imbalance worthy of divorce and brain plaque is not? How does nein51 rule here?
Indeed, life is hard.
Divorce, like water, seeks the path of least resistance.
Who said life should be easy? Was it nein?
Waco1947 said:historian said:
Or just read the writings of Paul himself. I have but good scholarship means studying the historical- critical of Paul.
Paul loved egg roll and although not a big fan of everything in columns 1 and 2, he didn't ask for substitutions.
Not if the "scholars" are misinterpreting scripture to mean something other than what it says. Progressives love to interpret scripture to mean the opposite of what it really means by taking a passage out of full context in a failed attempt to justify all sorts of immorality, perversion, and false doctrines.
An excellent explanation of progressive Christians and their distortion of scripture:
https://stream.org/progressive-christianity-is-a-suicide-cult 'Progressive' Christianity Is a Suicide Cult
https://stream.org/progressive-christianity-is-a-suicide-cult 'Progressive' Christianity Is a Suicide Cult
LIB,MR BEARS said:Waco1947 said:historian said:
Or just read the writings of Paul himself. I have but good scholarship means studying the historical- critical of Paul.
Paul loved egg roll and although not a big fan of everything in columns 1 and 2, he didn't ask for substitutions. So, are you unable to make a coherent argument?
Waco1947 ,la
You've repeatedly shown that you treat the Bible like a Chinese menu, picking and choosing as you please. I really don't feel the need to point this out, AGAIN.Waco1947 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Waco1947 said:historian said:
Or just read the writings of Paul himself. I have but good scholarship means studying the historical- critical of Paul.
Paul loved egg roll and although not a big fan of everything in columns 1 and 2, he didn't ask for substitutions. So, are you unable to make a coherent argument?
You do you. The fact that your church failed and was absorbed by another that does a better job with scripture, I see as a good thing.