Fiannan

Maureen states to Please: Oh now come on, you don't make judgements Maureen? You've made a couple towards Mr. Luther. Now let's see, you would be fine with one of your kids joining a polygamist sect and setting a goal of having 12 kids? Let's say the other one decides to join a free love commune down by Mt. Shasta, that would get your blessings as well? Everyone makes judgements. The scriptures warn us to base those judgements on scripture and not personal preferences.

Maybe a "metrosexual" guy might go for it!

Maureen, if you set no standard based on scripture (than cannot change) then you support moral relativism. If that is typical of the Christian world today (it seems it is) then no wonder Islam will soon dominate the Lutheran sections of Europe. At least in Islam society doesn't decide God's word as interpreted by their scriptures.

I answered that, I would not want a multiple male situation. But if you wanted it, go right ahead.

And again I will answer, if I were sterile I would not only be open to the idea of my wife getting sperm donation, I would encourage it. That being said, I will repeat that the idea of a woman married to multiple men makes no sence biologically nor is there any precident in Chritian, Jewish or Islamic scripture. So it would not even be an issue. If, on the other hand, God commanded it then I guess that would change things, but I would not suspect God would do such a departure from the norm.

Laws get passed due to political pressure. The Comstock Laws were the result of activism from the Protestant community due to the overwhelming attitude that family limitation was immoral. It's akin to laws today being passed against gay marriage as most Protestants and Catholics are opposed to two guys getting married. I have laready provided quotes from Luther, Calvin and Wesley that demonstrate that the "founding fathers" of Protestantism believed the Bible opposed birth control and that the section dealing with Onan has always been interpreted as the sin of Onan is refusing to bring forth children as God commanded. Jewish tradition has always been that the first commandment of God is to "Be fruitful, and multiply..." and the notion that anyone would avoid children was traditionally seen as immoral. In fact, while it is circumstantial evidence, one of the best evidences that Jesus was probably married is that a 30 year old calling himself a rabbi in the 1st. Century would have been extremely radical if he were unmarried (he would have surely been questioned by the Pharasies for such a thing). Now your showing that "modern" Protestant leaders have taken a different stand on birth control doesn't convince me at all. Maybe they like the philosophies of man a bit too much (might explain the higher incidence of divorce among Protestants than one might expect as they have changed their stand on divorce as well). I would not be surprised if 50 years from now Protestant leaders were to water down doctrine so much that men could marry each others in churches and those opposed to it would be seen as aberations (you can see that attitude in Holland and Sweden today).

Strawberry Fields, if you and your husband are into having another man in the relationship then nothing is really stopping you. I read an article in my local newspaper about such a relationship (one woman, two men). Doesn't seem to be the biological thing though as most men I know would not be for this and hardly any cultures condone it. One wonders the underlying biological foundation that is involved here. If you ask most men, I believe, you would find that if their wife came home and said they'd had a weekend fling the man would be furious, unless she said it was with another woman. I have tried to figure that one out (lesbian sex is not even condemned in the Old Testament and in the New it is associated with not wanting to have children). Maybe it has to do with a man not wanting to raise another man's child -- no danger of that with another woman. I do know one LDS couple in which the woman seems a bit TOO positive to the "dream" of her husband having another wife if the Church allowed it again (a few other comments make me wonder on that one). Certainly gives one something to ponder if you are into issues relating to human psychology.

You know nothing of the Comstock Laws, do you? Here is your religious heritage -- one that current Protestants for the most part ignore: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%...aret_sanger.htm I don't know but if birth control was made illegal by Protestants then doesn't that imply that Protestants were in favor of large families?

Maureen, to say that Onan was slain for not following the marriage law would be akin to saying the sin of abortion does not involve taking a human life but rather allowing someone you are not married to to penetrate your vagina. Traditionally Christians and Jews have seen the sin of Onan as involving contracpetion (not reproducing with his dead brother's wife). Some have extended this onto masterbation but only as it is a substitute for regular sex -- which holds the possibility of reproduction. I could care lass about "more modern" interpretations of this scripture as most Protestants have done their best to offer the world a version of Christianity that is one of the best endorsements to convert to Islam -- as Islam seems to at least stand for more of the original teachings of God than much of what passes for Christianity today. Please show me what churches in the Christian world prior to the 1930s supported family limitation (what we would see it as today -- 0, 1 or two kids max). My contention is that God's word never changed, only man's attempt to water it down with the philosophies of man (humanism). In Europe and some of America you already see the attempt to water down marriage to justify two men getting married -- and many liberal "Christian" leaders in Europe think they should be given church weddings! I guess once you start compromising on the purposes of sex, marriage in general and any number of commandments it's okay to just go to any number of trendy philosophies and incorporate them into religion.

Dizzysmiles, interesting question. Very, very few societies have ever accepted such a thing. May be due to simple biology -- women cannot carry many children during their lives. However, one gentleman I know who is a hyper Darwinian said that if his wife decided to bring home another woman to share (with both) that might allow him to do his work undisturbed occasionally. Then from a Darwinistic perspective... So jealosy might not be a big deal for many men in such circumstances.

But was what Luther said about birth control supported by the scriptures (Bible) or not? And if they were not, then why has Christianity upheld this view until more recently? Now I know that many Christian leaders have tried to water down Chritianity's teachings on the family until what passes today as Christian would have been considered Unitarian or even in conformity to Margaret Sanger's views on humanism and family limitation back a few generations ago but...who do you believe I guess is the most important question. A couple more quotes from the Catholic website: http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp I know there have been some that believe that Onan was punished for masterbation but that is far from the truth as what he did was perform withdrawal (a common form of birth control). And if you carefully read Romans Chapter One the condemnation of homosexuality does exist, but the root of lesbian and homosexual temptations appears to be materialism, secularism and wanting to avoid having families. Sound like any society you have heard of?

When I quoted Reformation leader Martin Luther on polygamy: Strawberry Fields responded: Strawberry Fields, et al, when I joined the Church I knew there had been polygamy in the past. But like many people I believed (quite wrongly) that polygamy was contrary to the scriptures but for some reason God mandated it -- just as He tested Abraham with commanding him to sacrifice Isaac. So like many uninformed (historically/scripturally) I let polygamy lie in my "state of denial" -- or at best I could use another classic defense mechanism (rationalization). One day I cracked open a book with talks given on polygamy. I cannot remember if it was one of the Pratts, or Brigham Young but in the talk he said the scriiptures contained no condemnation of polygamy -- just like what Martin Luther (the founder of Protestantism) siad in the quote I used in this thread. I decided to investigate and found that polygamy is not condemned. In an ironic sense, the only church that could actually forbid you to have more than one wife is the LDS Church as prophets have revealed that this is not the time for it. In Ethiopia and Turkey there are Christians who practice polygamy -- not because of the influence of Islamic cultures but because of different Christian origins. I am not looking for any justification to practice polygamy as I would not want to lose my membership as LDS. However, if I were not LDS the only thing that might stand in my way would be the preferences of my wife and myself. When LDS people at least acknowledge that the period that was polygamist was not some sort of strange or deviant thing in which we need to make apologies for then I think the testimonies we can share with others will be stronger and more sincere.

When looking up Luther's condemnation of birth control I found this comment on polygamy: "I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. " Martin Luther Interesting.

Maureen asked a while back: Here's one: ""[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." " How's that for a quote from a church leader? Oh wait, Maureen, this wasn't a Mormon leader -- it was the founder of YOUR church MARTIN LUTHER! http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Amy,if you like country and rap have you heard any of Big and Rich -- a fusion of rap and country?

Anyone care to read up on what life and death was like in 1918? Do a bit of research on the internet -- it was quite a plague that took the life of millions.

Hey, don't complain too much (no wait, do complain and then vote for conservatives). In Sweden they tax you on a 9 dollar per gallon of gas 7 dollars! There are also comparable energy taxes for electricity. Yet if you DO go solar there is a special tax on developing an alternative source of energy! That's what you get when the socialists need the Green party to have a ruling coalition yet the Greens only have 4% of the legislators in the parliament.

Just some examples: Creed is really good as is Evanescence (both Christian crossover rock). Metallica (depends on the songs but great ergogenic music for running/mountain biking. What type of music do you like -- fast (techno), energetic (rock, some gothic), soft music, music from the US, UK, Germany, Sweden or Russia?

Any thoughts on the Parable of the 10 Virgins in the New Testament? Here is one Islamic interpretation: http://muslim-canada.org/sex.htm

Interesting points you bring up. I have heard the objections to certain forms of birth control as abortifacians but have not studied it in detail. And yes, I do love children and see a big family as a gift to each of my kids.

You know, what's interesting is where in the Bible (Old Testament) polygamy was not only tolerated, but regulated and mandated. In the Mosaic Law (remember, that was after Jacob) a man could not marry two sisters. A married man caught with a virgin had to marry her too and could not divorce her, and if a man died before having children his wife was to be taken as a wife of his brother. Sounds like the God of the Bible didn't condemn polygamy.

But Strawberry Fields, if polygamy did come back in your lifetime it doesn't mean your husband would be required to take another wife. No couple would be condemned if they decided on monogamy. Even in Muslim nations the rate of polygamist families is only around 5 - 10%.

So as long as you agree with the leaders of the Church then everything is okay?

Opinions? My opinions are not out of step with the LDS religion in the least. All I have said is that if members in any way look down on polygamy then at best they live in denial and at worse suffer a severe case of cognitive dissonance. There is nothing immoral about polygamy. However, at the present time the stand of the Church is that it should be avoided -- and from what I understand at a later date it will be allowed. In a sense this is the stand of Judaism in which rabbies in the Middle Ages instituted a rule banning polygamy in Europe because of the threat of harassment and destruction from their Christian neighbors. And my wife and I discuss all issues openly.

Strawberry Fields, do you consider polygamy immoral or animalistic? Just curious.