historian said:

---

Historical criticism is a weak method for people to try to reinterpret scripture for their own personal reasons. It fails because it's irrelevant. Some people might be fooled by such nonsense. Not those who have faith in God.

God's rules are never dependent on human behaviors anywhere or anytime. He is God and He makes the rules by which the universe is ultimately governed. At some point, we all will be held to account for our sins.

You're just looking for an excuse to replace scripture with your own ideas. It's a lame attempt and a complete failure. There is no higher authority than God and His word.

---

Surely, Leviticus needs historical context, particularly around slaves and women.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Or just read the writings of Paul himself.

---

Historical Criticism

Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport.

---

This is like saying since bank robberies in the wild west were always associated with the use of guns, someone who wrote during that time that it's "wrong to rob banks" must have only meant that it's wrong to do with it guns; otherwise, robbing banks in of itself is completely okay. So, if I understand your analogy then you are backing up my understanding that our Bible was written within a a historical context and one must use that historical time to interpret a text of Scripture

---

---

You cannot be serious. He gave an absurd analogy to point out the absurdity of your logic.

I hope you're warming up before you make these wild stretches.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Or just read the writings of Paul himself.

---

Historical Criticism

Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport.

---

This is like saying since bank robberies in the wild west were always associated with the use of guns, someone who wrote during that time that it's "wrong to rob banks" must have only meant that it's wrong to do with it guns; otherwise, robbing banks in of itself is completely okay. So, if I understand your analogy then you are backing up my understanding that our Bible was written within a a historical context and one must use that historical time to interpret a text of Scripture

---

---

You cannot be serious. He gave an absurd analogy to point out the absurdity of your logic.

I hope you're warming up before you make these wild stretches.

---

Surely, Leviticus needs historical context, particularly around slaves and women.

No Waco, try as often as you do, it is not right to claim that the Bible's teaching must be altered to serve the mood of the moment.

Very much the opposite. Scripture shows the base for our beliefs and understanding, and it is for us to change our assumptions to be right with God.

Trolls gonna troll.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Or just read the writings of Paul himself.

---

Historical Criticism

Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport.

---

This is like saying since bank robberies in the wild west were always associated with the use of guns, someone who wrote during that time that it's "wrong to rob banks" must have only meant that it's wrong to do with it guns; otherwise, robbing banks in of itself is completely okay. So, if I understand your analogy then you are backing up my understanding that our Bible was written within a a historical context and one must use that historical time to interpret a text of Scripture

---

---

You cannot be serious. He gave an absurd analogy to point out the absurdity of your logic.

I hope you're warming up before you make these wild stretches.

---

Surely, Leviticus needs historical context, particularly around slaves and women.

---

Already answered:

Very much the opposite. Scripture shows the base for our beliefs and understanding, and it is for us to change our assumptions to be right with God.

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Or just read the writings of Paul himself.

---

Historical Criticism

Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport.

---

This is like saying since bank robberies in the wild west were always associated with the use of guns, someone who wrote during that time that it's "wrong to rob banks" must have only meant that it's wrong to do with it guns; otherwise, robbing banks in of itself is completely okay. So, if I understand your analogy then you are backing up my understanding that our Bible was written within a a historical context and one must use that historical time to interpret a text of Scripture

---

---

You cannot be serious. He gave an absurd analogy to point out the absurdity of your logic.

I hope you're warming up before you make these wild stretches.

---

Surely, Leviticus needs historical context, particularly around slaves and women.

---

---

You want to go down some rabbit trail that you think is easier to argue your point. No thanks . Stick to the topic rather than changing it.

TexasScientist said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.

From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.

Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.

---

It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?

I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.

---

Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.

Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.

As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.

Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.

Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.

---

I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.

---

My argument stands firm, you're playing make believe with definitions. You argued exactly how I said you would. Perverts don't think that they're perverts. But guess what they're still perverts.
Swingers by definition always try to bring others into their circles. Sexual perversions will always try to bring in new conquests.

Absolutely, Christians are to shun sexual perversions. It's a cancer for believers. Outside of telling them about the truth of Christ, they should stay far away from their practices. One can both love people while condemning practices.
Also, it affects others, Society is lessened by perversions. Don't care what Swingers think, they're living a depraved lifestyle. They know this. You know this. You just don't care. Pretend all you want, doesn't change reality.

You're not a serious poster. Weak arguments.

---

It's a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your particular version of Christianity that you have been reinforced to believe. For example, having more than one wife has been acceptable over time in Judaism, and in Christianity. It depends upon the flavor of the times, and who is advocating it, or condemning it. Organized societies determine what is right or wrong based upon whatever beliefs they collectively determine to be of value.

---

Polyamory and polygamy are completely different. If you want a perma-roommate and multiple sex partners marriage isn't the venue. Truth is, if the pursuit of outside sexual gratification is what's missing in your marriage or even in an unmarried union, you aren't in a healthy relationship.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Or just read the writings of Paul himself.

---

Historical Criticism

Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport.

---

This is like saying since bank robberies in the wild west were always associated with the use of guns, someone who wrote during that time that it's "wrong to rob banks" must have only meant that it's wrong to do with it guns; otherwise, robbing banks in of itself is completely okay. So, if I understand your analogy then you are backing up my understanding that our Bible was written within a a historical context and one must use that historical time to interpret a text of Scripture

---

---

You cannot be serious. He gave an absurd analogy to point out the absurdity of your logic.

I hope you're warming up before you make these wild stretches.

---

Surely, Leviticus needs historical context, particularly around slaves and women.

---

---

You want to go down some rabbit trail that you think is easier to argue your point. No thanks . Stick to the topic rather than changing it.

---

The topic is historical form criticism. You are ducking because you know Leviticus needs Historical context.

Whatever historical context might be useful, nothing justifies changing the meaning of God's word so that something prohibited, such as sexual perversion, becomes permissible. Nothing.

historian said:

---

Whatever historical context might be useful, nothing justifies changing the meaning of God's word so that something prohibited, such as sexual perversion, becomes permissible. Nothing.

---

Except when your "perversion" is simply ignorance of human sexuality

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Whatever historical context might be useful, nothing justifies changing the meaning of God's word so that something prohibited, such as sexual perversion, becomes permissible. Nothing.

---

Except when your "perversion" is simply ignorance of human sexuality

---

That's a great description of the perverts who ignore God's commandments about human sexuality!

historian said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Whatever historical context might be useful, nothing justifies changing the meaning of God's word so that something prohibited, such as sexual perversion, becomes permissible. Nothing.

---

Except when your "perversion" is simply ignorance of human sexuality

---

That's a great description of the perverts who ignore God's commandments about human sexuality!

It's a great depiction of a sexual bigot

---

historian said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Whatever historical context might be useful, nothing justifies changing the meaning of God's word so that something prohibited, such as sexual perversion, becomes permissible. Nothing.

---

Except when your "perversion" is simply ignorance of human sexuality

---

That's a great description of the perverts who ignore God's commandments about human sexuality!

---

Absolutely

They twist and / ignore God's Word in the vain attempt to make themselves feel better.

The last recourse of one losing a rational argument is to insult. For Leftists, that often involves variations on charges of racism. Usually when they use such labels they are doing it in a bigoted way themselves completely oblivious to the irony or their own hypocrisy.

W47 hates traditional Christianity and the entirety of church history. He insults those who don't bend the knee to progressivism.

I've noticed that. Leftists in general tend to behave that way but there are exceptions.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Or just read the writings of Paul himself.

---

Historical Criticism

Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport.

---

This is like saying since bank robberies in the wild west were always associated with the use of guns, someone who wrote during that time that it's "wrong to rob banks" must have only meant that it's wrong to do with it guns; otherwise, robbing banks in of itself is completely okay. So, if I understand your analogy then you are backing up my understanding that our Bible was written within a a historical context and one must use that historical time to interpret a text of Scripture

---

---

Historical context in biblical interpretation is a valid concept, but you thoroughly embarrass yourself in the way that you employ it. Your point got logically dismantled as it always does, and instead of dealing with that rationally and with intellectual honesty, you resort to your usual defense mechanisms and double down on stupidity. It's why you're the joke of the forum, and sadly, it really didn't have to be this way if only you'd shown some semblance of a person that one can have an honest, rational discussion with. But with responses like yours above, it's clear this isn't the case.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

W47 hates traditional Christianity and the entirety of church history. He insults those who don't bend the knee to progressivism.

---

I don't "hate" traditional Christianity. It is founded an old theism that the advent of process philosophy means a new way of thinking.

What insults? I am very critical of your thoughts and ideas but not you. Meanwhile you are free with your insults of my faith.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Or just read the writings of Paul himself.

---

---

This is like saying since bank robberies in the wild west were always associated with the use of guns, someone who wrote during that time that it's "wrong to rob banks" must have only meant that it's wrong to do with it guns; otherwise, robbing banks in of itself is completely okay. So, if I understand your analogy then you are backing up my understanding that our Bible was written within a a historical context and one must use that historical time to interpret a text of Scripture

---

---

Historical context in biblical interpretation is a valid concept, but you thoroughly embarrass yourself in the way that you employ it. Why the insult?

Your point got logically dismantled as it always does, and instead of dealing with that rationally and with intellectual honesty, you resort to your usual defense mechanisms and double down on stupidity. It's why you're the joke of the forum, and sadly, it really didn't have to be this way if only you'd shown some semblance of a person that one can have an honest, rational discussion with. But with responses like yours above, it's clear this isn't the case.

---

This is rational with a historical understandings.
Historical Criticism

Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport.

Rather than deal with what I actually say which you apparently don't read you simple insult me.
Deal with the historicla context of homoerotic behavior in Paul's time. It is factual.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Or just read the writings of Paul himself.

---

---

This is like saying since bank robberies in the wild west were always associated with the use of guns, someone who wrote during that time that it's "wrong to rob banks" must have only meant that it's wrong to do with it guns; otherwise, robbing banks in of itself is completely okay. So, if I understand your analogy then you are backing up my understanding that our Bible was written within a a historical context and one must use that historical time to interpret a text of Scripture

---

---

Historical context in biblical interpretation is a valid concept, but you thoroughly embarrass yourself in the way that you employ it. Why the insult?

Your point got logically dismantled as it always does, and instead of dealing with that rationally and with intellectual honesty, you resort to your usual defense mechanisms and double down on stupidity. It's why you're the joke of the forum, and sadly, it really didn't have to be this way if only you'd shown some semblance of a person that one can have an honest, rational discussion with. But with responses like yours above, it's clear this isn't the case.

---

This is rational with a historical understandings.
Historical Criticism

Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport.

Rather than deal with what I actually say which you apparently don't read you simple insult me.
Deal with the historicla context of homoerotic behavior in Paul's time. It is factual.

---

I didn't deal with what YOU said?

I clearly did. YOU are the one who didn't deal with what I said. That's why you were mocked, and deservedly so because this is your modus operandi.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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.

---

from what I posted, give me an example.

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.

---

I'm not going all the way down this rabbit hole, because the depth of it cannot be fully plumbed, but a surface skim suffices. There is no way to understand the circumstances presented when you're married to someone with, say, bipolar disorder (one example). The verbal, emotional, mental, and maybe physical abuse. The damage and lifetime toll that takes on everyone (including children, who are developmentally damaged, permanently scarred, and left with an uphill battle to form good relationships of their own one day). Christian counseling has no framework for it, doesn't understand the depth of it and certainly can't fix it (nor can anything, really). One problem is that well-meaning Christian counselors or friends lean so hard against divorce and tend to believe that if we just try a little harder, find the right tool, etc, everything can be solved. That's simply not true, and further is often in practice dangerous and damaging. God may be good in the midst of suffering. He may help the other spouse avoid making reciprocal mistakes that most people would make. But there are no overall happy endings except release from the situation for everyone else. The Christian community often does more damage than good in these types of circumstances, leaves the spouse feeling either ostracized/awkward/alone because no one really understands it, and at a bare minimum doesn't / can't really help. Sometimes you just need a good psychologist and a lawyer, bonus if they also happens to be Christians (but not at the expense of being a true blue mental health / legal professional).

Robert Wilson said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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.

---

from what I posted, give me an example.

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.

---

I'm not going all the way down this rabbit hole, because the depth of it cannot be fully plumbed, but a surface skim suffices. There is no way to understand the circumstances presented when you're married to someone with, say, bipolar disorder (one example). The verbal, emotional, mental, and maybe physical abuse. The damage and lifetime toll that takes on everyone (including children, who are developmentally damaged, permanently scarred, and left with an uphill battle to form good relationships of their own one day). Christian counseling has no framework for it, doesn't understand the depth of it and certainly can't fix it (nor can anything, really). One problem is that well-meaning Christian counselors or friends lean so hard against divorce and tend to believe that if we just try a little harder, find the right tool, etc, everything can be solved. That's simply not true, and further is often in practice dangerous and damaging. God may be good in the midst of suffering. He may help the other spouse avoid making reciprocal mistakes that most people would make. But there are no overall happy endings except release from the situation for everyone else. The Christian community often does more damage than good in these types of circumstances, leaves the spouse feeling either ostracized/awkward/alone because no one really understands it, and at a bare minimum doesn't / can't really help. Sometimes you just need a good psychologist and a lawyer, bonus if they also happens to be Christians (but not at the expense of being a true blue mental health / legal professional).

---

Here is where we differ; you said "just try a little harder, find the right tool, etc, everything can be solved." Not for a minute do I believe everything can be solved and your thinking that me and others like me are working towards "overall happy endings" is where you are wrong.

Switch gears for a moment and think of a young couple having their first child. They've dreamed of the new child and their new life. Hope springs eternal for them. During birth the cord wraps around the babies neck and cuts off the oxygen supply. The baby lives but, irreparable damage is done. The child stands zero chance at developing much beyond a 3yr old intellectually. The parents didn't sign up for this. It was no part of there plan at all. Are they both good if they bail on the marriage and on the young, handicapped child? You and I both know that many marriages don't survive the pressures of ailing children.

Is it easier to understand what a covenant is when an ailing child is involved versus an ailing spouse? Are both situations equally fair to bailout? Is one fair and the other not? Why?

How is bipolar in a spouse different than a damaged brain in a child? Should one get a stronger commitment than the other? Why?

Words mean things and "covenant" is not a vague word. It's not a flexible word like male, female and marriage have become.
A contract is a mutually beneficial relationship while a covenant is something you fulfill. A contract exchanges one good for another while a covenant is giving oneself to the other.

To be clear, I'm not asking any woman to stick around and get beat. I would suggest separation and demand that the offending spouse get help. Involve law enforcement whenever and however. If they refuse or are not committed to the plan of help, then make the separation permanent.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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.

---

from what I posted, give me an example.

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.

---

I'm not going all the way down this rabbit hole, because the depth of it cannot be fully plumbed, but a surface skim suffices. There is no way to understand the circumstances presented when you're married to someone with, say, bipolar disorder (one example). The verbal, emotional, mental, and maybe physical abuse. The damage and lifetime toll that takes on everyone (including children, who are developmentally damaged, permanently scarred, and left with an uphill battle to form good relationships of their own one day). Christian counseling has no framework for it, doesn't understand the depth of it and certainly can't fix it (nor can anything, really). One problem is that well-meaning Christian counselors or friends lean so hard against divorce and tend to believe that if we just try a little harder, find the right tool, etc, everything can be solved. That's simply not true, and further is often in practice dangerous and damaging. God may be good in the midst of suffering. He may help the other spouse avoid making reciprocal mistakes that most people would make. But there are no overall happy endings except release from the situation for everyone else. The Christian community often does more damage than good in these types of circumstances, leaves the spouse feeling either ostracized/awkward/alone because no one really understands it, and at a bare minimum doesn't / can't really help. Sometimes you just need a good psychologist and a lawyer, bonus if they also happens to be Christians (but not at the expense of being a true blue mental health / legal professional).

---

How is bipolar in a spouse different than a damaged brain in a child?

---

Vaya con dios, sir

Robert Wilson said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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.

---

from what I posted, give me an example.

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.

---

I'm not going all the way down this rabbit hole, because the depth of it cannot be fully plumbed, but a surface skim suffices. There is no way to understand the circumstances presented when you're married to someone with, say, bipolar disorder (one example). The verbal, emotional, mental, and maybe physical abuse. The damage and lifetime toll that takes on everyone (including children, who are developmentally damaged, permanently scarred, and left with an uphill battle to form good relationships of their own one day). Christian counseling has no framework for it, doesn't understand the depth of it and certainly can't fix it (nor can anything, really). One problem is that well-meaning Christian counselors or friends lean so hard against divorce and tend to believe that if we just try a little harder, find the right tool, etc, everything can be solved. That's simply not true, and further is often in practice dangerous and damaging. God may be good in the midst of suffering. He may help the other spouse avoid making reciprocal mistakes that most people would make. But there are no overall happy endings except release from the situation for everyone else. The Christian community often does more damage than good in these types of circumstances, leaves the spouse feeling either ostracized/awkward/alone because no one really understands it, and at a bare minimum doesn't / can't really help. Sometimes you just need a good psychologist and a lawyer, bonus if they also happens to be Christians (but not at the expense of being a true blue mental health / legal professional).

---

How is bipolar in a spouse different than a damaged brain in a child?

---

Vaya con dios, sir

---

Life can be hard

So can discussions…. for some

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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.

---

from what I posted, give me an example.

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.

---

I'm not going all the way down this rabbit hole, because the depth of it cannot be fully plumbed, but a surface skim suffices. There is no way to understand the circumstances presented when you're married to someone with, say, bipolar disorder (one example). The verbal, emotional, mental, and maybe physical abuse. The damage and lifetime toll that takes on everyone (including children, who are developmentally damaged, permanently scarred, and left with an uphill battle to form good relationships of their own one day). Christian counseling has no framework for it, doesn't understand the depth of it and certainly can't fix it (nor can anything, really). One problem is that well-meaning Christian counselors or friends lean so hard against divorce and tend to believe that if we just try a little harder, find the right tool, etc, everything can be solved. That's simply not true, and further is often in practice dangerous and damaging. God may be good in the midst of suffering. He may help the other spouse avoid making reciprocal mistakes that most people would make. But there are no overall happy endings except release from the situation for everyone else. The Christian community often does more damage than good in these types of circumstances, leaves the spouse feeling either ostracized/awkward/alone because no one really understands it, and at a bare minimum doesn't / can't really help. Sometimes you just need a good psychologist and a lawyer, bonus if they also happens to be Christians (but not at the expense of being a true blue mental health / legal professional).

---

How is bipolar in a spouse different than a damaged brain in a child?

---

Vaya con dios, sir

---

Life can be hard

So can discussions…. for some

---

The amount of time it would take is better spent elsewhere

Robert Wilson said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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.

---

from what I posted, give me an example.

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.

---

I'm not going all the way down this rabbit hole, because the depth of it cannot be fully plumbed, but a surface skim suffices. There is no way to understand the circumstances presented when you're married to someone with, say, bipolar disorder (one example). The verbal, emotional, mental, and maybe physical abuse. The damage and lifetime toll that takes on everyone (including children, who are developmentally damaged, permanently scarred, and left with an uphill battle to form good relationships of their own one day). Christian counseling has no framework for it, doesn't understand the depth of it and certainly can't fix it (nor can anything, really). One problem is that well-meaning Christian counselors or friends lean so hard against divorce and tend to believe that if we just try a little harder, find the right tool, etc, everything can be solved. That's simply not true, and further is often in practice dangerous and damaging. God may be good in the midst of suffering. He may help the other spouse avoid making reciprocal mistakes that most people would make. But there are no overall happy endings except release from the situation for everyone else. The Christian community often does more damage than good in these types of circumstances, leaves the spouse feeling either ostracized/awkward/alone because no one really understands it, and at a bare minimum doesn't / can't really help. Sometimes you just need a good psychologist and a lawyer, bonus if they also happens to be Christians (but not at the expense of being a true blue mental health / legal professional).

---

How is bipolar in a spouse different than a damaged brain in a child?

---

Vaya con dios, sir

---

Life can be hard

So can discussions…. for some

---

The amount of time it would take is better spent elsewhere

---

one of the cool thing about these boards is my post will still be here. You're not on any time restraints to reply. The post will be waiting

"I didn't deal with what YOU said?

I clearly did. YOU are the one who didn't deal with what I said. That's why you were mocked, and deservedly so because this is your modus operandi.

Ah, no you did not with the idea of historical criticism of Scripture. You simply resorted to more personal attack.
These ideas are probably brand new to you. There are form, literary, historical context, and textual criticisms. All these are taught at Truett , Dallas Theological, Perkins, Yale, and Southwestern theological seminaries. I am not alone and stand within these traditions of studying Scripture.

Waco, no one seriously believes your theological credentials here.

Your arguments are emotional, inconsistent with established norms, and I notice you have not once cited an actual academic source from a well-regarded School of Theology to support your claims.

Pretending your views are in line with Schools of Theology are not fooling anyone, sir.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.

From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.

Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.

---

It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?

I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.

---

Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.

Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.

As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.

Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.

Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.

---

I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.

---

Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)

Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.

---

Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.

---

No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.

Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.

---

He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.

---

Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.

But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.

That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.

Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.

---

If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.

---

Some of them, yes.

Here's a test I use to check churches:

1. Does the church help their congregation find jobs?

2. Does the church help homeless or people in poverty?

3. Does the church offer resources for people facing abuse?

Any genuine church should be able to answer 'yes' to two of the three.

If a church does not meet any of those criteria, they do not know Christ as He taught us to act.

---

I would guess most churches don't meet that standard.

---

Actually, about 70-75% of churches in a nominal denomination will meet that standard.

It's the ones that have their own TV shows and 'pastors' who couldn't name most of their members that fail the test.

---

I don't think most churches have a serious and effective programs for the homeless, impoverished, abused, or unemployed. They may give token amounts to some causes.

---

Catholic Charities provides tens of millions in aid to US homeless every year.

Food banks, homeless shelters, job placement, and help in acquiring medical services .

What do you atheists do ?

---

TX Scientist isn't a serious poster, he's a kid trying hard to discuss topics with adults.
Christians and their Christian organizations are the most charitable people in the country. Anyone who has been involved with Christian churches know this. Catholics and Evangelicals care for their communities, they build hospitals, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, clothing giveaways, and more, the list is endless.

Atheists are self proclaimed meat bags. They are the least charitable, most selfish, and most miserable people in our country.

TX sci guy is constantly embarrassing his Baylor education, well that's if he ever graduated from BU.

---

I'm calling total BS on you. I do not know Texas Scientist personally, buy what I have gathered over years is the he is smart, pragmatic , and thoughtful in his posts. You sir, are nothing but a right wing whack job. Your post are beyond the pale many times. Carry on with your version of who you think people must be. Get out more, son. The world is a big place. They ain't all Baptists.

Perhaps he is a thoughtful poster, he's just not demonstrated it in this thread.

Waco1947 said:

---

"I didn't deal with what YOU said?

I clearly did. YOU are the one who didn't deal with what I said. That's why you were mocked, and deservedly so because this is your modus operandi.

Ah, no you did not with the idea of historical criticism of Scripture. You simply resorted to more personal attack.
These ideas are probably brand new to you. There are form, literary, historical context, and textual criticisms. All these are taught at Truett , Dallas Theological, Perkins, Yale, and Southwestern theological seminaries. I am not alone and stand within these traditions of studying Scripture.

---

Ah, yes I did. I specifically said that biblical interpretation in historical context is a valid concept, but the way you were implementing it was laughably moronic. I gave you an analogy to illustrate the point, which you completely dodged, as you always do when you can't argue the point.

I shouldn't have to rehash and retype the argument that just took place. If you consistently play this game of denial, dodging, and redirecting as you usually do, then you deservedly get mocked. If you don't like getting mocked, then there's a real simple solution - start manning up to the points being made against yours like an intellectually honest person for once instead of resorting to your stupid games and defense tactics and crying foul when you get called out for it. Then, just maybe, you wouldn't have the very bad reputation that you have on this forum and people will start taking you seriously.

Waco1947 said:

---

"I didn't deal with what YOU said?

I clearly did. YOU are the one who didn't deal with what I said. That's why you were mocked, and deservedly so because this is your modus operandi.

Ah, no you did not with the idea of historical criticism of Scripture. You simply resorted to more personal attack.
These ideas are probably brand new to you. There are form, literary, historical context, and textual criticisms. All these are taught at Truett , Dallas Theological, Perkins, Yale, and Southwestern theological seminaries. I am not alone and stand within these traditions of studying Scripture.

---

The Christians on this thread are well aware of Historical Criticism with respect to slavery, women, children, etc. This is been accepted by most for millennia.

Most of us have been familiar with the arsenokoitai and malakoi and their meaning in scripture for many years.

What we do NOT and will NOT accept is the "historical criticism" that states Paul was referring to "exploitive relationships" This is a FALSE eisegesis that "scholars" in the last few decades have attempted to justify the disordered desire of same-sex attraction, which is contrary to the Natural Law.

Here is an article from Catholic Answers that debunks your "exploitive behavior" theory.

and, more important, clearly contrary to God's law.