Marriage Faithfulness

 

Hi KFC,

I too have been thinking about marriage which as I'm sure you know was the very first institution that God set up in the Garden.  

She certainly did look very sad....but nonetheless, she was there by his side which many can't understand why. Marriage is  for better and for worse....for good times and for bad times. This was definitely the worse. Some marriages can withstand infidelties...I guess it depends upon the individual.  

It was reported that the man who replaced Spitzer admitted having several extra-marital affairs, and evidently his wife admitted having them too!  (:(

 

This is the exact type of attitude that justifies and perpetuates this myth that it is impossible to be monogamous so go ahead and do what you want. This is paramount to the myth that you don't have to be responsible for yourself anymore (actually the two and interrelated). Kinda sad when major publications can publish this type of stuff and there is no outcry to us being compared to dumb animals with no other thoughts than base instinct driving us.

Adultery is normal? "Making our own Morality 101" according to the NY Times. But you know I betcha they believe it...it's based on believing Godless Evolution Theory which goes if we evolved from animals; then why not act like animals, blah, blah, blah...

Hey Lula, do you ever post on an article that's not religiously or politically oriented?

You should go check out my newest blog entry, Memories of War and Catholic Sanctums, because you should contribute more to the community than just on religion and politic blogs. I'm beginning to think you're a one-trick pony.

[/blog pimping]

KFC, I agree with the premise of your article. I hold the family to be completely sacred. So does the church I belong to. For those who want to learn more about the importance of the family in Latter-Day Saint beliefs, check out The Family: A Proclamation to the World, which sums up quite nicely the basics of our beliefs about families and their importance in God's larger plan.

[/religion pimping]

And yay for Philippine dating ads on your blog! Gotta love advertisements. I know they pay the bills, but how many people on this site are clicking "Find a Philippine hottie" anyway?

Maybe I don't want to know how many people are, in fact, clicking on those ads.

it's all over the place as tho it's ok.  I'm glad they fixed their problems and were able to move on but the rest of the story isn't finished yet and once you go outside the bond of matrimony looking towards another it does irrepairable damage.  It can be fixed to a point but there will always be a weak point where it was sewn up. 

Yes, there is no cut and dry rule here.  There are way too many variables involved. 

I would't have blamed her if she was not there.  He didn't keep his end of the deal, why should she?   But in the end kudos to her.  She did what I couldn't have done. 

Yes, seems as tho they are trying to tell us something? 

Well you know SC I've always admired the Mormons and their love and faithfulness to their family as a whole.  They are a great example to the world that families matter and are quite successful when they stay together no matter what.   

My blog?  I didn't see them.  All I can see are side links advertising marriage repair. 

 

 This is an issue that hits me close to home.  I just wanted to say that I agree that the best thing you can do for your kids is to have a happy, healthy marital relationship.  It's not always easy but I think it's always worth the effort and prayers to keep a family together. 

I believe both but I don't think the one proves the other. In fact, they have nothing do with each other in the direct way you imply.

G-d is one, He doesn't have a partner (although some religions claim He does). He wants us to have a partner, ideally for life, but it has nothing to do with us being created in His image. Many animals have only one partner and keep that partner for life, if they can. It's not specific to mankind (and, in fact, mankind is a late arriver at the practice).

Traditionally, scripture has not been interpreted as G-d wanting a man to have "one" partner and four or more wives were and are legal in many jurisdictions where law is based on scripture.

In fact, monogamy was a Roman thing and only became part of Christianity as it moved away from Judaism. In Judaism polygamy was legal (and still is in Sephardic jurisdictions). Islam, another religion ultimately based on scripture also still features polygamy. (Islam does limit it to 4, as does Sephardic Judaism now.)

 

Either way, since monogamy and polygamy are both common in the animal kingdoms, saying that we are different from animals (which is true) does not dictate that we must follow the one or the other. Both are features we would share with certain animals but not with others.

The difference between mankind and animals is that we would practice one or the other not because nature makes us but because our law tells us to.

 

P.S.: Did you know that the adultery law only applied to women? Man couldn't commit adultery since they could freely add another woman to their list of wives. Hence the need for another commandment "Do not covet your neighbor's wife" to put some limit on this.

 

Marriage is supposed to be a picture of Jesus and the church.

Jesus' parents weren't even married.

 

No, that's not correct.  David committed adultery with Bathesheba.  He was an adulterer.  John the Baptist accused Herod of Adultery.  So not sure where you're getting your info from but adultery is one going outside the bounds of matrimony whether male or female.   It's quite clear from scripture both old and new that adultery is a two-way street. 

"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."   Lev 20:10

"Whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."  Matthew 5:31

"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."  Matthew 5:28

yes they were.

"When Joseph woke from sleep he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife.....Matthew 1:24

What does that have to do with anything, by the way?

(I ignore Christian changes to G-d's law.)

I am getting my info from the fact that Jewish law allows polygamy. A man could thus not commit adultery except by coveting the wife of another man, which is a separate commandment. (That is why both commandments exist. Otherwise one would be enough.)

As you quote, it is "with a wife of a neighbour" that is the problem, not the act of sleeping with a woman not his wife. Sleeping with a woman not one's wife was not and is illegal under Jewish law (except when declared so by the rabbis like in Europe).

Yes, sorry, you are right. Jesus' mother and Jesus' father were married.

It was claimed that G-d and Jesus want us to get married, one husband, one wife, monogamous, and that this is clear from the Bible.

It is therefor relevant whether

a) G-d actually says anything like that when He addresses the subject of marriage. (He does not as He allows polygamy and does not insist on monogamy.)

G-d sent His messenger (if Jesus was such) in a way that would support monogamous relations and normal family life. (He did not as, assuming Jesus was in any way special, G-d apparently decided to father a son into an existing family.)

If Jesus wants us to do what he says, and His father supports it, I find it very relevant to know whether Jesus' own family lives that way.

 

Leauki,

I think you misunderstand.  God NEVER allows poloygamy. Then or now.  Men did take more than one wife but this was never part of God's plan.  Everytime they did, they ran into trouble.  So, no it's not allowed in God's plan at all.  In fact he does address monogamy right from the get go in Gen 2:4 when he said:

"Therefore a man shall leave his Father and his Mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh." 

One man for one wife.  Later in the NT when Paul addressed the qualifications of a Pastor, he said the husband of one wife.  Nowhere in scripture did God say it was ok to have more than one wife. 

Well it could be Jewish law outside of scripture but it's not based on the Torah.  The Torah is clear, anyone wandering outside of marriage is an adulterer. 

The Jews,  had a low regard for women and they went outside the law to do so.  They interpreted Moses' law or twisted it to belittle the women.  Jesus, on the other hand, did just the opposite.  He treated them kindly and with respect.  That's why he was so loved by the Jewish women.  I'm sure this just ticked the leaders off more than we know.  Jesus was a woman's liberator well before woman's lib got here. 

This is an example of man's tradition usurping the word of God. 

 

I do not accept the Christian Bible as "G-d's law". And Jewish (as well as Islamic) law has always allowed polygamy. It was customary to allow it in the middle east (although Islam limits the number of wives to four).

In fact the Mormons also understood scripture that way. The matter is not as clear as you claim it is. Or rather it is, but it does not support your interpretation. If G-d had wanted the law to be like you said, He could have simply said "and don't marry a second wife", but He didn't.

You can read any number of Jewish treatises on G-d's law and you will find that it was always interpreted as allowing polygamy, by people of the same culture and language as those the law was written for. Monogamy was a Indo-European thing that came to Christiany when pagens converted to the new sect and brought their own customs.

All the religions based on scripture apart from Christianity still allow polgygamy.

 

I assume Abraham was an adulterer since he had two wives? And if he hadn't, did he not commit adultery?

The Torah does not say what you say it does.

KFC, that is simply ignorant anti-Semitism and I find it sad to see you repeat it. Jews did and do not have low regard for women. In fact you will find that Sarah is as revered as Abraham, that G-d was said to have a female presence (spiritual, always spiritual!) as well as a male presence, and at the very moment the Jewish festival of Purim reminds us of Esther who saved the Jewish people in Persia. There were female prophets and Jewish law allowed for women to own property thousands of years before any Christian country or law featured such an arrangement.

I find it upsetting that I even have to tell you this.

(BTW there is no Jewish source that says that Jewish women liked Jesus. Jesus' own followers probably wrote that they did. What does that prove?)

It is indeed. But it is the pagan tradition usurping Jewish law.

King David had six wives. King Shlomo had numerous wives.

Perhaps you are confusing the Bible with the Quran?

"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, then only one."

I'm not sure about the New Testament but as far as I know the Quran is the only holy book of the Abrahamic religions to advocate monogamy in any way or form.

I think it is great that you feel so strongly about marriage and monogamy. I do to, in perfect accordance with Ashkenazi Jewish law, if I may so so. But your repeated attempts to make something you happen to believe in part of G-d's plan is, in my opinion, not the correct way to deal with holy scripture.

I also think you should study scripture more, especially commentary written by scholars who understood the Tora in its own language and within the context of Semitic tribal culture. It might also help to study Islam to an extent because it also grew out of the same cultural framework and knowing it will allow you extrapolate better what a given statement in the Bible originally meant.

Also understand that Jewish belief says that with the Tanakh came an oral tradition, which was finally written down in the first millenium CE. Much of the Tora simply doesn't make sense without those explanations. And you will find many, many contradictions in the Bible, some of which are explained in the oral tradition, and some of which are not (yet).

Any saga that combines the legends of as many peoples as existed (and to an extent still exist) in the middle east will be very complicated and can only be understood with study of the languages and cultures of the peoples whose legends they were. Some of it is forever lost, but the Jews and Aramaeans and Arabs are still with us, as is the Christian tradition (which was heavily influenced by completely and utterly non-Semitic culture from Europe). If you study the lot, you can, perhaps, find out where it came from.

I personally believe that a conservative Jewish interpretation is the most correct, with orthodox interpretations being what was regarded strict in the past and now. Islam and Christianity are both changes, with Islam closer to the Semitic roots of the Bible but further (now and at the moment) from the spiritual meaning of it than Christianity.

 

Great debate, however it's pretty much accepted that you can only have one partner, male or female, by this I mean a man can only have one wife and vice versa. It's a mute point as the Christian doctrines in this day and age all agree on this. So do most other religions and cultures.

Yet it is true that this was not always the case. Even Martin Luther allowed poligamy, even though the christian church of the day did not allow it, he made this decision based on the same arguments some of you have put forward, going back to Abraham, who had several wives.

The reality is though that the law itself does make sense as all of God's Laws do, if you play around on you wife or husband they will be hurt as will your children, and the partner of the other person and their children, if they have one. So you are commiting multiple sins, firstly the adultry, decption, and the hurt you cause those affected. That's the wonderful thing about sin, it is very rarely singular.

Ugh, I think when it comes to adultery I'll just stick to the "in your heart" variety. Heh, because the LAST thing on planet earth I want is another woman...   

I never heard this before.  Do you have something on this I can look up to verify?  I've got his whole collection of sermons (just got them) and haven't really dug into too  much of his writings although I do know he only had one wife. 

 

Ok, but I gave you Moses law.  Go ahead and read it in Hebrew if you wish.  You'll find it reads the same. 

It was made very clear.   Again, I used Moses writing to show you this. 

and that's due to the hardness of man's heart, not on the scriptures. 

Do you know who the first polygamist was? 

yes, and that's why the mess today.  Ishmael is still fighting Isaac to this day.  This would not have happened if Abraham waited on God's promise instead of taking Hagar as his second wife.   His children are still paying the price today.

Have you checked Jewish historian Josephus?  He wrote in the first century. 

Have you read the book of Matthew written especially by a Jew to the Jews?  There's two sources right there. 

Islam came hundreds of years after Christianity.  Christianity was Jewish in nature.  The early church was entierely Jewish.  The whole New Testament (Christian scriptures) was written by Jews with the exception of Luke who was a Gentile Doctor.   The revelation of God both New and Old was entrusted to the Jews. 

Yes, it was. But it doesn't say monogamy.

Arabs and Jews have not traditionally fought each other more than any other two peoples have fought each other or either of the two. You are looking at the last hundred years. What you see is Arabs who follow Arab nationalism rather than the word of G-d.

Your theory for why Arabs and Jews are fighting is good and close to scripture, but lacks evidence. Arab nationalism is a philosophy imported from Europe. The Quran quite clearly states that the land of Israel belongs to the children of Israel. The emnity you see between the children of Isaac and the children of Ishmael is not a result of Abraham's two wives.

In fact, what tells you that he was not supposed to have two wives and two sons? How do you know that Ishmael was not supposed to bring knowledge of the god of Abraham to the Arabs? (Note that Ishmael is not the ancesor of all Arabs but only the cultural ancestor of current Arabs.)

Abraham did not commit adultery and G-d did not punish him for it. And David and Shlomo were never punished by G-d for adultery either.

Again, if G-d had wanted such a law, he would have said so. You keep referring to the idea that He has, but in fact the Bible says the opposite.

 

San Chonino posts:

I should do alot of things SC, but there are only so many hours in the day...
Thanks for recommending your blog...I'll try to check it out in the next few days.