bodhitharta said:
francisdesales
First of all Jewish Polygamy continued to the 11th century and you forget that Jesus understood that Married men additionally married the wives of their brothers if they died having no children. These were additional wives.
Please give me some historical citations that this was COMMON among Jewish men, please. Furthermore, since I "ignore the Bible", perhaps you might show me Scriptures verses from the New Testament that even implies that Jewish men had several wives simultaneously.
If a wife dies and a man marries another, that is not an additional wife, the bond is severed between them. Not sure where you get that idea that a man and woman remain married when one dies...
bodhitharta said:
Your quote about having One wife referred to bishops. The Quran does not alter the bible's position on Polygamy in any way.
I was not refering to bishops, but thanks for trying to read my mind. I refers to Jesus' words to the Pharisees. Jesus never mentions anything noted in Scriptures about bishops...
bodhitharta said:
The Quran actually says exactly what the bible says about polygamy.
No, it doesn't. Christ never implies that a man should have more than one wife. even divorces are not allowed - giving only one exception. He notes that God ALLOWED it because of the stubborn hearts of men, not because this was God's plan. Jesus presents the original plan of God.
But the Koran would have us believe that opposite, that it's better for men to have many wives and many simultaneous sexual partners - while the Bible states otherwise. It mentions one flesh, it mentions that a man and woman are to cleave to each other and that they don't share each other - they belong only to each other. The New Testament notes that a man is to give himself to his wife as Christ gave Himself to the Church (community). You can't do that with many wives...
Polygamy is a pagan reversion, not the plan of God for mankind. This reversion makes the Koran false and why I can never see it as the Word of God. It is the word of mankind pretending to be God's Word so that it can advance the political agenda of particular men who want to maintain control over people.
bodhitharta said:
Why is it you keep thinking God "evolves" like some animal? God commanded and assisted in the violence upon enemies.
That is the Jewish interpretation at the time to justify their take over of what is now Palestine. Christians don't buy into the idea that God commands and assists in the violence upon enemies, as if God puts aside His own commandments (like murdering). Does the Bible say "thou shall not murder", but now, God puts that aside so God can have one people wipe out another? For what purpose does God need to take over land or wipe out one race in favor of another? Are you telling me that God needs the Jews to eliminate the Ammorites et al in Palestine??? Baloney. God can easily cause a drought and these people would die off and then the Jews could move in without the necessity of mass murder and killing. This explanation is just a justification for those who have political machinations upon land.
This is not in keeping with a transcendant God who consistently has called to men to turn to Him. Using God as an excuse to politically and militarily expand is the root of many problems in history. And quite simply, it is not in keeping with a God who commands men to love others...
bodhitharta said:
Your whole belief in Salvation through Jesus relies on the violence of men, you would have to love those who you believe killed Jesus for if they had "turned the other cheek or tolerated Jesus" according to what you believe you would be condemned to hell, right?
So your whole belief is dependent on salvation through violence.
My belief in salvation through Jesus doesn't "rely on violence" at all. God can quite easily save us in any way He chooses. As it turns out, God foresaw that men would indeed kill the Christ, advancing their own political agendas for the sake of "god". Please. Too many political and religious leaders disguise their own agendas in the name of "god", and it is an injustice to the idea of a transcendant and loving God who created us in His image.
I fail to see this how this attempt to connect violence to the death of Christ makes violence some sort of "necessity". What a ridiculous twist of logic... Christ gave Himself up for our sake - but it certainly was not "necessary" for Him to die to show us how much God loves us.
Regards