A Biblical Affirmation of Homosexuality

[cnorman18]

Bruce W. Lowe wrote “A Letter to Louise� in 2002, at the age of 94. I heard about this, and when I looked at it, I thought it the most remarkable document I have read on the subject of Christianity vis-à-vis homosexuality. It’s an eloquent and scholarly treatise, from a conservative Baptist minister, and is widely circulated on the Internet among gay and lesbian Christians and their supporters.

A Letter to Louise; A Biblical Affirmation of Homosexuality

From my own perspective as a former Methodist minister, I think that this is an important document that ought to be required reading for Christians who are concerned with homosexual issues. I think that one day, it will be regarded as a foundational document, the beginning of a sea change in the Christian faith analogous to eventual Christian opposition to slavery and segregation.

Let's all hope so.

[Amos]

You didn't answer this: If he wasn't defining marriage for them, then what was he doing? Are you going to seriously contend that Jesus did not define marriage in Matthew 19 in order to show the Pharisees that divorce for any cause is not allowed?

Let me rephrase my statement. Jesus was not formally defining marriage in a way which would be intended for verbatim use for all eternity.

He was asked whether divorce was acceptable, no? He responded that God created men and women and that men were supposed to cling to their wives and not separate what God has joined.

Alright now, in that time period, so far as we know, they had no conception of homosexuality as an entity, only as an action. he did not condemn them, or even address them, since they did not, as a concept, exist at the time.

Thus, God not specifically endorsing homosexual marriage no more rules it out than God not specifically endorsing the use of computers rules out internet debates.

Jesus went back to the beginning to describe the nature of marriage as God created it. I can't find anything else in scripture that modifies Jesus' definition. I'll stick with that.

When God said that a man should cling to his wife, that rules out any other marriage arrangement. Jesus specifically endorsed marriage as God created it, between a man and a woman. They had no right to divorce their mates for any cause, and we have no right to try to make it more "inclusive" by redefining it to include same sex couples.

God's silence doesn't give us authority for a practice.

Really? Better get off that computer then, because God didn't say you could use it.

And I wouldn't cook with a stove either, or drive, or ride a bike, or read books, or eat popsicles...

Did God ever command us to eat?

The computer, at the present time, is an expedient to help me "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3). I have generic authority from the command to "contend earnestly," meaning I can keep that commandment in any number of ways. I could write letters, print booklets, preach sermons, etc. If God had said, "only discuss religious topics in face to face conversations," then I would have specific authority for that, and all other forms of religious debate would be precluded.

You have erected a straw man, but flail away.

A straw man? you're the one who said that God's silence doesn't give us permission for a practice.

is anything we do in pursuit of fulfilling a command of God acceptable, and anything done for any reason other than fulfilling a command of God which is not expressly permitted in the bible a sin?

My comment was made regarding an area where God has legislated. We are obviously dealing with matters of religious import. You have expanded the argument ridiculously so you can deal with that argument instead of the one under consideration.

God has also legislated which foods we may eat.
He never did approve tangelos - they didn't exist yet. Does that mean we can't eat them?

He didn't in the New Testament, but He did in the Old Testament.

For example, He said in Leviticus 11:3, "Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud - that you may eat." That excludes any animal that doesn't have cloven hooves and chew the cud. In the following verses, He gives some examples of things they couldn't eat. The way you approach the scriptures, whatever wasn't specifically listed in the passage, whether it had cloven hooves and chewed the cud or not, was fair game. If you lived under the Law of Moses and ate whatever animals were not listed, even if they didn't chew and cud and have cloven hooves, you would have been breaking the Law.

I can't find any prohibitions against fruits and vegetables.

[Abraxas]

You didn't answer this: If he wasn't defining marriage for them, then what was he doing? Are you going to seriously contend that Jesus did not define marriage in Matthew 19 in order to show the Pharisees that divorce for any cause is not allowed?

Let me rephrase my statement. Jesus was not formally defining marriage in a way which would be intended for verbatim use for all eternity.

He was asked whether divorce was acceptable, no? He responded that God created men and women and that men were supposed to cling to their wives and not separate what God has joined.

Alright now, in that time period, so far as we know, they had no conception of homosexuality as an entity, only as an action. he did not condemn them, or even address them, since they did not, as a concept, exist at the time.

Thus, God not specifically endorsing homosexual marriage no more rules it out than God not specifically endorsing the use of computers rules out internet debates.

Jesus went back to the beginning to describe the nature of marriage as God created it. I can't find anything else in scripture that modifies Jesus' definition. I'll stick with that.

When God said that a man should cling to his wife, that rules out any other marriage arrangement. Jesus specifically endorsed marriage as God created it, between a man and a woman. They had no right to divorce their mates for any cause, and we have no right to try to make it more "inclusive" by redefining it to include same sex couples.

Except that is not true. In a multitude of places in the Bible, polygamy is explicitly endorsed. If the Bible is to be considered an internally consistant document and it is to be held that Jesus came to affirm the old covenant, not merely replace it, then we must accept at the very least when Jesus was speaking there he was not intending to provide an all inclusive list of every variety of acceptable marriage. If he was, then earlier laws in the Bible cease to make sense, such as how to divide inheritance among sons through multiple (living) wives.

A better reading of that passage, to me, is in direct response to the question that caused him to give the answer. He was asked, can a man divorce his wife and thus Jesus was replying within the parameters already established by the questioner, not replying to all forms of marriage including the already endorsed polygamy, and, potentially, homosexuality.

[Amos]

You didn't answer this: If he wasn't defining marriage for them, then what was he doing? Are you going to seriously contend that Jesus did not define marriage in Matthew 19 in order to show the Pharisees that divorce for any cause is not allowed?

Let me rephrase my statement. Jesus was not formally defining marriage in a way which would be intended for verbatim use for all eternity.

He was asked whether divorce was acceptable, no? He responded that God created men and women and that men were supposed to cling to their wives and not separate what God has joined.

Alright now, in that time period, so far as we know, they had no conception of homosexuality as an entity, only as an action. he did not condemn them, or even address them, since they did not, as a concept, exist at the time.

Thus, God not specifically endorsing homosexual marriage no more rules it out than God not specifically endorsing the use of computers rules out internet debates.

Jesus went back to the beginning to describe the nature of marriage as God created it. I can't find anything else in scripture that modifies Jesus' definition. I'll stick with that.

When God said that a man should cling to his wife, that rules out any other marriage arrangement. Jesus specifically endorsed marriage as God created it, between a man and a woman. They had no right to divorce their mates for any cause, and we have no right to try to make it more "inclusive" by redefining it to include same sex couples.

Except that is not true. In a multitude of places in the Bible, polygamy is explicitly endorsed. If the Bible is to be considered an internally consistant document and it is to be held that Jesus came to affirm the old covenant, not merely replace it, then we must accept at the very least when Jesus was speaking there he was not intending to provide an all inclusive list of every variety of acceptable marriage. If he was, then earlier laws in the Bible cease to make sense, such as how to divide inheritance among sons through multiple (living) wives.

A better reading of that passage, to me, is in direct response to the question that caused him to give the answer. He was asked, can a man divorce his wife and thus Jesus was replying within the parameters already established by the questioner, not replying to all forms of marriage including the already endorsed polygamy, and, potentially, homosexuality.

From one of my earlier posts: Polygamy is beside the point. Those regulations were given by Moses to govern a theocracy. Moses also gave regulations for divorce that Jesus said were "from the beginning...not so", given "because of the hardness of your (the Jews, awl) hearts." (Matthew 19:8) Provisions had to be made to deal with these sinful behaviors.

Please show me a passage that explicitly endorses polygamy. The regulation of it does not equate to an endorsement of it.

Who is holding that Jesus did not come to replace the old law? The first covenant has been made obsolete and has been replaced by the New (Hebrews 8:13, 9:15).

[cnorman18]

With better scientific understanding of DNA/genetics, we'll be able to genetically engineer humans in our likeness and then implant women or mature them through lab control conditions. I believe scientists have already started on small scales by tampering with embryos to facilitate certain biological outcomes, eye color, and maybe up to or including even the sex of the infant. Then there's also cloning. I don't see why it's inconceivable that we also can't isolate the "sexuality (esp. gay) gene" and modify it, that is, assuming that genetics dominant cause for sexuality to begin with.

I don’t see that any of that has any relation or relevance to the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

Whether or not homosexuality is a sin is not a question for me going by my understanding of the Bible. The relevancy of my comment is if or what can we do to help those who struggle with a sexuality that may drive them to those abominable acts that God mentions so that way they won't be "sinning" anymore. I'm positing genetic modification as one potential option. I also wonder why couldn't an omnipotent God who does miracles, change the sexuality of these people Himself.

Going off of personal accounts, I wouldn't say that homosexuality is unchangeable, because some people have gone to gay to bi, which I believe is possible rather than going from gay to straight.

As someone once said, the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence."

There are different types of evidence, and anecdotal evidence is one type. That is, unless these anecdotals are all proven false. My theory is that these so called ex-gays are not really straight have transitioned themselves to being bi.

Also, even if you're gay, that doesn't mean you have to act on it, and we do have the ability to control our actions to that extent, although not perfectly.

If you read the article, then you read the bit about how abstinence can be harmful. More below.

I do remember those were covered in points #4 and #8, I believe. While celibacy may cause harm "psychologically", but it is God you should be telling that to since He still doesn't allow same-sex acts but calls it a sin. My comment was about how to avoid sinning, which is the only factor that the Bible considers as being good with God, NOT psychological health.

And will God bring all of those people who committed same-sex acts back to life, like the ones who were killed or cut off by the community who were following instructions that God revealed to Moses?

Do you know what "cut off" means in the context of Jewish law? That would be amazing, since no one else claims to. It certainly wasn’t a death penalty; it seems to have something to do with a permanent loss of ritual purity. Some think it may mean that one will not inherit the Next Life; others that one’s heritage as a Jew was forfeit and one would be banished from the community - though that seems not to have happened. No one knows for sure.

In any case, that question makes no sense. We aren’t talking about what God did or does or might do - we’re talking about how humans judge homosexuality in relation to the topics of sin and redemption TODAY.

Your point is fine except that Leviticus 20:13 mentions that a person who commits same-sex acts is to be put to death. Cutting off someone means discontinuing relations with them, and banning them from the group is one way, but of course as Leviticus 20:13 suggests, ending their physical existence is another way.

Two. All people are created in the image of God. The homosexuality of gays and lesbians, created by God, is good and not evil.

This is vague. If I'm created in the image of God, then why couldn't ALL sinful acts be justified as being Godly rather than just the sinful act of of same-sex behavior? There are diseases that are genetic, people born with missing limbs among other handicaps, why would a god who has the "nature" of being loving and all-good produce humans in this way if being "created" in the image of God means that how humans would be is just a reflection of what or how God is?

This is the kind of remark that makes me doubt whether you actually read the article. In context, it isn’t vague at all; the concept is discussed in detail, and at great length. I fail to see why I should repeat it here if you've read it, as you claim.

The explanation provided in the article was insufficient in reconciling how an act being called a sin in the Bible equates to being created in God's image. God is PERFECT makes NO mistake, He is loving, and all-good. I fail to see how this is manifested in humans who make mistakes, sin, and in a world full of NATURAL evils, including hereditary diseases, handicaps, and I suppose if being "created" in the image of God means what you say, then all of these issues that causes SUFFERING in people is a reflection on a PERFECT, LOVING, and ALL-GOOD God. I highly doubt that.

Four. Several passages in the Bible speak of same-gender sex. In every instance, the Bible is talking about heterosexuals who, filled with lust, have become sex perverts. The Bible says nothing about innate homosexuality as we know it today or about people who are homosexuals.

Actually, this is an assumption because the Bible doesn't specify if it's referring to "inborn" homosexuality (sexuality has not even been conclusively proven to be inborn, but to be a product of many factors and some of these factors don't and can't take place until AFTER birth). It may be referring to BOTH homosexuals and bisexuals, or people who are just curious or all three - banning the behavior altogether. Besides, I have to ask, why would God treat "inborn" homosexuals one way, and "inborn" bisexuals or even anyone who wants to engage in same-sex acts, another way?

Once more; the essay makes this very clear, and you don't appear to be familiar with the argument. The existence of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice and/or a sexual orientation was unknown at the time the Bible was written. There could be no references to such things, because there is no indication whatever that any consciousness of homosexuality, as we understand it today, even existed back then. The fact that only homosexual ACTS are referred to in Scripture is an enormous clue.

Unknown to who? Didn't an OMNISCIENT GOD reveal the commandments, including the very one that speaks about homosexuality, to Moses? Have you ever considered that homosexuality is NOT inborn and if it was that an all-knowing God would've factored that into his moral constructs? Going by the Bible, I believe that God and the Israelites of that time believed that homosexuality was a CHOICE, and if so that wouldn't be the first time that God (according to the Bible) disagrees with the current scientific understanding. As far as the same-sex "acts" goes, that just goes to show that God doesn't want you to act on all feelings regardless of if it's bad for you psychologically or not. But then again, all gay men can have sex with women though, so it's not like they can't have sex at all but that's an issue for gays to take up with God and bible-believers.

I agree. Part of this is homophobia and to call it like it is, part of the reason is also RELIGION like the Bible. IN the OT, God mentioned that people who engage in same-sex acts were to be cut off and that the act was an abomination. Call the behavior an abomination. In Romans 1, same-sex behavior at least among males was referred to in the context as "unnatural" and a "VILE passion". I guess feminists can cheer that God was not as hard on lesbians!

As I pointed out to rsvp, Romans 1 was discussed in the article. That passage doesn’t seem to be about sexual practices that are cursed by God, but about people who turn away from God; unnatural sex was given as an example of that. The issue was lust, not gender.

It clearly talks about sexual practices in the context of being "vile" passions, which if you factor in the OT you know that these sexual relations are wrong.

Romans 3: 20 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The LAW of God in the OT clearly states that homosexuality is detestable, an abomination, or a sin for short. Having that knowledge, then I would say those same-sex acts talked about in Romans 1 are a SiN, whether they are brought up in the context of not mentioning them as a sin per se (although notice they are not talked about as being good acts neither) but for other reasons.

Otherwise, I don't necessarily see the real issue as being what they believe is right and wrong because I have no rational proof for a biblical god or what it revealed, but rather I'd focus on how they express that it's wrong, and even if it is, that doesn't mean they should treat them like dirt, just as they wouldn't a heterosexual who commits adultery, and all of these generation of people who engage in pre-marital sex or fornication.

Oops. The article makes it quite clear that, in the author’s opinion (and mine), the Bible doesn’t support the idea that homosexuality is itself sinful, or even that loving homosexual acts between committed same-sex couples are sinful. It simply has nothing to say about either. That's rather the point of the essay.

Just for the record, the article also explains that there is nothing in the Bible that forbids premarital sex, aka "fornication." That is a later Christian innovation, and it is not Scriptural. The surprise of some who have looked into that question is mentioned in the essay.

The author of the article makes a distinction between same-sex acts based on "lust" compared to same-sex acts out of love. Hmmm, the Bible doesn't make that distinction in any of those commandments. It just simply says if you sleep with a man as you do with a woman, it's detestable and you should die. I also wonder how would the Israelites have been able to judge the difference between sex out of love and sex out of lust? The Bible mentions NO ONE can know the heart but God but yet God entrusts fellow humans with making that distinction?
It's pointless even asking this because the Bible does NOT specify or give an exception to same-sex acts being okay if it's done without "lust".

You probably mean live without sex from the gender they want, otherwise, they can have sex with women. There are obviously women out there who are willing to marry gay men - just ask all of these "ex-gay" Christians out there who tout their heterosexual marriage as being one evidence for their sexuality change.

Even if you didn’t agree with the argument in the article, it would be nice if you’d respond to it instead of ignoring it. Why would you say "You probably mean..." if you'd actually read it, anyway? Don't you know what the author meant? He certainly made it clear enough.

I’d hate to repeat a charge you’ve denied, but so far I’ve seen no evidence that you’ve read this article at all, in spite of what you said. You haven’t even acknowledged the good reverend’s arguments, let alone refuted them.

True, I shouldn't send you to debate with an article; but I fail to see why I should repeat the points made there if you've already read them, either.

You and the article. Because you and the article did not factor in that these gay guys don't have to refrain from sex altogether just because they're gay. They can have sex with women. Address that, rather than trying to defend your newfound Baptist hero, at all costs.

Legally-speaking, you're probably correct. The only thing against that is probably considering the voters and their vote on the issue, and in some states, the majority vote has been against same-sex marriage.

Rights aren’t determined by the majority. If that were true, we’d still have slavery here. Segregation was legal, but it wasn’t right either.

In some cases they are through the voting process. Prop 8 is one example.

Well, I'm glad you finally read it. I have to note that your only apparent response to the point that homosexuality, as a sexual orientation as opposed to an isolated act, was unknown in Biblical times boils down to "It's wrong because I assume it is wrong," but I never expected anything different. New ideas are generally rejected by conservatives, even if they're right.

At any rate, I don't see a lot of point in pursuing this any further. I don't necessarily agree with Lowe's reasoning, even though I do agree with his conclusions - for instance, I don't accept that Scripture is the absolute authority here in the first place. I just think it's interesting, and heartening, to see that one who DOES so believe can still find the same truth in Scripture that many Jews have - that compassion and justice trump sin as the central concern of those who profess to serve God.

For myself, I'm not a Christian, I don't believe in the absolute authority of the Hebrew Bible, and I don't recognize the authority of Jesus or the NT to any degree whatever. I was impressed with this essay because I think it represents a new, deeply Christian, and deeply moral approach to this issue - unusual considering its source. One would expect an elderly Baptist minister to hold views more like yourself.

I think it's significant that this kind of charitable thinking is beginning to spread among conservative Christians - the kind of thinking that does not single out gays for special status because of their "sinfulness," as Samaritans were singled out in first-century society because of their heresy. Jesus's position on such bigotry was clear. In Jewish terms, worshiping at another place with a different Torah, as Samaritans did, was a far more heinous sin than homosexual acts; nevertheless, Jesus chose a Samaritan as an example of the kind of behavior he taught. If he had had the attitudes presented here, he would have made the Samaritan the victim of the beating and marked all those who passed by on the other side as righteous, because the Samaritan was not worthy of compassion or concern.

I suppose Jews have an advantage on this sort of thing. We are taught that if one sees something one knows beyond question to be wrong in the Torah, there are only two possibilities: either one does not understand the Torah properly, which is very much the most common circumstance - or the Torah is wrong. The third alternative, the fundamentalist alternative - overruling our own intelligence, best judgment and moral sense (which we do not believe to be corrupt or "fallen") in favor of rigid dogmatism - is not available to us. God did not give us brains and moral awareness so that we might ignore and discard them, and we further believe that God has entrusted US, us humans, with determining what is right and wrong. That is not a privilege; it is a responsibility.

So I guess we can agree to disagree. Peace to you; I think you are wrong here, but I respect your beliefs anyway.

Oh, and "newfound Baptist hero" was a cheap and gratuituous insult. Unnecessary.

[Polygamist]

Amos,

Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible. If it were, God would not be worried about regulating it or give instructions on how to manage polygamy but rather he'd be saying to leave it followed by punishments.

[Abraxas]

You didn't answer this: If he wasn't defining marriage for them, then what was he doing? Are you going to seriously contend that Jesus did not define marriage in Matthew 19 in order to show the Pharisees that divorce for any cause is not allowed?

Let me rephrase my statement. Jesus was not formally defining marriage in a way which would be intended for verbatim use for all eternity.

He was asked whether divorce was acceptable, no? He responded that God created men and women and that men were supposed to cling to their wives and not separate what God has joined.

Alright now, in that time period, so far as we know, they had no conception of homosexuality as an entity, only as an action. he did not condemn them, or even address them, since they did not, as a concept, exist at the time.

Thus, God not specifically endorsing homosexual marriage no more rules it out than God not specifically endorsing the use of computers rules out internet debates.

Jesus went back to the beginning to describe the nature of marriage as God created it. I can't find anything else in scripture that modifies Jesus' definition. I'll stick with that.

When God said that a man should cling to his wife, that rules out any other marriage arrangement. Jesus specifically endorsed marriage as God created it, between a man and a woman. They had no right to divorce their mates for any cause, and we have no right to try to make it more "inclusive" by redefining it to include same sex couples.

Except that is not true. In a multitude of places in the Bible, polygamy is explicitly endorsed. If the Bible is to be considered an internally consistant document and it is to be held that Jesus came to affirm the old covenant, not merely replace it, then we must accept at the very least when Jesus was speaking there he was not intending to provide an all inclusive list of every variety of acceptable marriage. If he was, then earlier laws in the Bible cease to make sense, such as how to divide inheritance among sons through multiple (living) wives.

A better reading of that passage, to me, is in direct response to the question that caused him to give the answer. He was asked, can a man divorce his wife and thus Jesus was replying within the parameters already established by the questioner, not replying to all forms of marriage including the already endorsed polygamy, and, potentially, homosexuality.

From one of my earlier posts: Polygamy is beside the point. Those regulations were given by Moses to govern a theocracy. Moses also gave regulations for divorce that Jesus said were "from the beginning...not so", given "because of the hardness of your (the Jews, awl) hearts." (Matthew 19:8) Provisions had to be made to deal with these sinful behaviors.

Please show me a passage that explicitly endorses polygamy. The regulation of it does not equate to an endorsement of it.

It does, actually. It gives explicit statement, as I referenced earlier in the thread, wherein one could marry multiple women and not committing sin, not falling outside of God's law. If a Holy Law tells you how you can do something without sin and without penalty, that is an endorsement of the behavior so long as it meets the guidelines.

As such, since the Bible allows for polygamy, Jesus' speech there cannot be considered a definition of marriage or a comprehensive list of all forms of it, but can be instead considered the answer of a specific question put forward to him about one man and one woman.

Who is holding that Jesus did not come to replace the old law? The first covenant has been made obsolete and has been replaced by the New (Hebrews 8:13, 9:15).

Not what Jesus said:

Matthew 5:17-20: “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

[Amos]

Except that is not true. In a multitude of places in the Bible, polygamy is explicitly endorsed. If the Bible is to be considered an internally consistant document and it is to be held that Jesus came to affirm the old covenant, not merely replace it, then we must accept at the very least when Jesus was speaking there he was not intending to provide an all inclusive list of every variety of acceptable marriage. If he was, then earlier laws in the Bible cease to make sense, such as how to divide inheritance among sons through multiple (living) wives.

A better reading of that passage, to me, is in direct response to the question that caused him to give the answer. He was asked, can a man divorce his wife and thus Jesus was replying within the parameters already established by the questioner, not replying to all forms of marriage including the already endorsed polygamy, and, potentially, homosexuality.

From one of my earlier posts: Polygamy is beside the point. Those regulations were given by Moses to govern a theocracy. Moses also gave regulations for divorce that Jesus said were "from the beginning...not so", given "because of the hardness of your (the Jews, awl) hearts." (Matthew 19:8) Provisions had to be made to deal with these sinful behaviors.

Please show me a passage that explicitly endorses polygamy. The regulation of it does not equate to an endorsement of it.

It does, actually. It gives explicit statement, as I referenced earlier in the thread, wherein one could marry multiple women and not committing sin, not falling outside of God's law. If a Holy Law tells you how you can do something without sin and without penalty, that is an endorsement of the behavior so long as it meets the guidelines.

As such, since the Bible allows for polygamy, Jesus' speech there cannot be considered a definition of marriage or a comprehensive list of all forms of it, but can be instead considered the answer of a specific question put forward to him about one man and one woman.

I asked for a passage that explicitly endorses polygamy. You still haven't provided it. You have asserted that there is such a passage. Surely you can cite it. Also, please cite a book, chapter and verse that tells one how to engage in polygamy without engaging in sin. The fact that it is recorded that polygamy took place doesn't condone it.

The regulations regarding polygamy don't amount to an endorsement. Those regulations were given by Moses to govern a theocracy. Moses also gave regulations for divorce that Jesus said were "from the beginning...not so", given "because of the hardness of your (the Jews, awl) hearts." (Matthew 19:8) Provisions had to be made to deal with these sinful behaviors.

Who is holding that Jesus did not come to replace the old law? The first covenant has been made obsolete and has been replaced by the New (Hebrews 8:13, 9:15).

Not what Jesus said:

Matthew 5:17-20: “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

The passage you have cited says Jesus came to fulfill the Law and that none of it would pass away until all things were accomplished. He fulfilled the Law and it has been done away. (John 17:4, 19:30, Galatians chapters 3-5, Ephesians 2:11-22, Colossians 2:11-17, The Epistle to the Hebrews).

[Polygamist]

As such, since the Bible allows for polygamy, Jesus' speech there cannot be considered a definition of marriage or a comprehensive list of all forms of it, but can be instead considered the answer of a specific question put forward to him about one man and one woman.

I asked for a passage that explicitly endorses polygamy. You still haven't provided it. You have asserted that there is such a passage. Surely you can cite it. Also, please cite a book, chapter and verse that tells one how to engage in polygamy without engaging in sin. The fact that it is recorded that polygamy took place doesn't condone it.

You are begging the question, because what me and Abraxas are trying to say is that the Bible NEVER calls polygamy a sin to begin with. So all the while there's no explicit statement of the likes mentioning, "polygamy is moral, therefore do it and enjoy yourself", that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to infer that it is not sinful or immoral. If God was Holy, and with all of His tendecies in the OT to punish sexual sin, adultery, etc, why wouldn't He do that for polygamy? Why would He instead give instructions on how to manage polygamous relationships rather than saying to get out of it or die? Better yet, would someone lose their salvation or go to Hell for practicing polygamy, especially considering God giving guidelines on how to practice it?

Who is holding that Jesus did not come to replace the old law? The first covenant has been made obsolete and has been replaced by the New (Hebrews 8:13, 9:15).

Not what Jesus said:

Matthew 5:17-20: “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

The passage you have cited says Jesus came to fulfill the Law and that none of it would pass away until all things were accomplished. He fulfilled the Law and it has been done away. (John 17:4, 19:30, Galatians chapters 3-5, Ephesians 2:11-22, Colossians 2:11-17, The Epistle to the Hebrews).

I don't know if all things have been accomplished or all of what that would entail, but I do know that not all of the OT laws are obsolete, but rather how we look to them as a guide to keep us in line is obsolete which speaks more to the system of the covenant as a whole rather than its individual parts. Otherwise, some individual parts of the OT are still very relevant to the NT. For instance, not to commit adultery, not to lie, idolatry, etc. The Apostle Paul mentions that we know what sin is "by the law" and sin is a concept that spans across the OT to the NT.

Romans 3:20 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (NKJV)

Romans 7:7 7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

[Abraxas]

I asked for a passage that explicitly endorses polygamy. You still haven't provided it. You have asserted that there is such a passage. Surely you can cite it.

As I said, I posted it earlier in the thread. For your convenience I will repost them.

Exodus 21:10:
If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

Deuteronomy 21:15:
If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

Also, please cite a book, chapter and verse that tells one how to engage in polygamy without engaging in sin. The fact that it is recorded that polygamy took place doesn't condone it.

See above.

Further, much of the polygamy came from a divine commandment, namely Deuteronomy 24:5-25:10.

5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me." 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," 9 his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line." 10 That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

Please note the above applies to married men as well as unwed men.

The regulations regarding polygamy don't amount to an endorsement. Those regulations were given by Moses to govern a theocracy.

This is false. The Bible is very explicit about what it condemns, about what is sin, what distances one from God. When such an event is encountered, it says things like "it is an abomination" or specify a penalty. The fact that it does neither of those things, and then goes further to tell you exactly how to do it and what your obligations are counts as an endorsement of the practice. What you are effectively arguing is God sent down laws to the effect of "well, what you are doing is still terrible and I will still send you to hell for it, but if you are going to do it, follow these divine laws on the topic." It makes no sense for the God that outright condemns other behavior and practices, explicitly stating them to be bad, to suddenly on the topic of polygamy not condemn it, and indeed provide rules for how to do it, but then count is as a sin.

Moses also gave regulations for divorce that Jesus said were "from the beginning...not so", given "because of the hardness of your (the Jews, awl) hearts." (Matthew 19:8) Provisions had to be made to deal with these sinful behaviors.

Again, not what it says. A reference to Deuteronomy 24, in which Moses allowed divorce for "indecency". You will note later on in that same section, Jesus too permits divorce for adultery.

Further, you take the passage:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

To mean the permit to divorce did not exist from the beginning, rather than their hearts not being hard from the beginning. This could just as easily mean that divorce came about because their hearts were hard they were unfaithful. Instead of being contradictory to Moses, given later statements he was there to uphold the law, not change it, was that it was God's will that they not act in an unfaithful fashion that causes divorce.

Put another way, Moses permitted it because they had already broken the marriage through indecency born of hardened hearts, and Jesus was stating that no man, including them, should break that which God has joined together through that type of behavior.

Not what Jesus said:

Matthew 5:17-20: “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

The passage you have cited says Jesus came to fulfill the Law and that none of it would pass away until all things were accomplished. He fulfilled the Law and it has been done away. (John 17:4, 19:30, Galatians chapters 3-5, Ephesians 2:11-22, Colossians 2:11-17, The Epistle to the Hebrews).

That is not what the passage says. It says very clearly the law will not change until Heaven and Earth pass away, and, the fact that we are here having this debate to begin with is fairly solid evidence earth, has not, in fact, passed away.

It is well established at this point the Bible does not, as you suggest, limit marriage to one man and one woman. In order to be internally consistent, we must accept the Bible allows for alternative marital arrangements to those specified in the Matthew passage you were quoting.

[rsvp]

Romans 7:7 7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[/quote]

Romans 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter


Context. We have been delivered from the law. We now serve in the newness of the spirit.


Romans 8:1
[ Free from Indwelling Sin ] There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.


To walk acording to the spirit in Christ Jesus. So the question becomes how do we get into Christ so that we may worship and serve in newness of the spirit.



Romans 6:3
Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

This verse and, and there are more, shows that we are baptized into Christ.


Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

You cannot be justified by the Law because it has been done away with.