Muslim questions about Christianity

[Garudaman]

So according to you, when a husband takes a second wife, HIS NEW WIFE ALSO marries the first wife?

no, but his second wife become family of his first wife!

Agreeing that her husband does something, is not the same as doing it yourself

so, the standard is based on who do it? in polygamous marriage, who perform the marriage contract is only the husband, so how can the husband be calculated 2?

I know a very nice woman in Indonesia. Her husband got caught having an affair with the wife of the local imam. The imam divorced his wife. The first wife of this man, the woman I know, told her husband she better marry this divorced woman so that she does not starve, as it was all his fault from the start. The two women never liked each other and hardly talk to each other. They live in separate places.

don't like doesn't mean doesn't accept, but based on QS. 24:3 she should divorce her husband!

The way I look that this is like this: I do not judge what domestic arrangement people make for themselves. Live with three women, a donkey and a canary, for all I care. But a MARRIAGE is always between just ONE man and ONE woman.

that's not true based on religion of Abraham!

[manfred]

that's not true based on religion of Abraham!

A marriage is between one man and one woman. That is Christian teaching for pretty much all Christians apart from some small, much later groups.
It is also true that I, nor anyone, should not judge people on how they live their lives. That is also UNIVERSAL Christian teaching. But three or more people living together in a relationship is not a marriage. A bus is not a bicycle.

no, but his second wife become family of his first wife!

Well, they live together. But they are not married. And often, as you must know, this extended family arrangement is not a happy one.

the standard is based on who do it? in polygamous marriage, who perform the marriage contract is only the husband, so how can the husband be calculated 2?

Does the first wife to agree to marry the second wife? No?
Who agrees to marry the second wife? The HUSBAND.
After this, how many people are there in the "marriage"? 2 women and one man. That is three.

The husband in fact BREAKS his original marriage vows by marrying a second time. He has solemnly and publicly promised to "forsake all others".

[Garudaman]

A marriage is between one man and one woman. That is Christian teaching for pretty much all Christians apart from some small, much later groups.

I don't understand, how irrelevant comment like this can arise, you think the religion teaching, is democracy/voting?

It is also true that I, nor anyone, should not judge people on how they live their lives.

isn't religion govern how people should live their lives?

That is also UNIVERSAL Christian teaching. But three or more people living together in a relationship is not a marriage. A bus is not a bicycle.

where's the evidence from the Bible?

Well, they live together. But they are not married. And often, as you must know, this extended family arrangement is not a happy one.

if the reference is the case that you give before, then that wife whose husband is having an affair, will more unhappy if she doesn't allow her husband help ex-wife of Imam!

Does the first wife to agree to marry the second wife? No?

since we use your standard, agreement the first wife isn't counted, because she doesn't perform the marriage contract, right?

Who agrees to marry the second wife? The HUSBAND.
After this, how many people are there in the "marriage"? 2 women and one man. That is three.

but as you said, just agree is different with doing it yourself! so how can you involve agreement of his first wife?

The husband in fact BREAKS his original marriage vows by marrying a second time. He has solemnly and publicly promised to "forsake all others".

others = anyone who is not his wives! btw, may I ask the Bible verse?

[manfred]

A marriage is between one man and one woman. That is Christian teaching for pretty much all Christians apart from some small, much later groups.

I don't understand, how irrelevant comment like this can arise, you think the religion teaching, is democracy/voting?

I am telling you what the Christian teaching of marriage is, as you asked, so why do you say it is irrelevant? All Christians would agree that that marriage is between one man and one woman, except small groups like for example the Mormons. And you never heard of "freedom of religion"?

isn't religion govern how people should live their lives?

Religion is about finding God, not about telling other people what to do. Those who have found the love of God will not need to be "governed", they will do what is right as a loving response to a loving God, entirely by themselves. Religion is about meaning of life and fulfilment, not about sets of rules.

That is also UNIVERSAL Christian teaching. But three or more people living together in a relationship is not a marriage. A bus is not a bicycle.

You are misquoting what said, by connecting the first sentence to something it does not belong to. I said:

"It is also true that I, nor anyone, should not judge people on how they live their lives. That is also UNIVERSAL Christian teaching." I already gave you the biblical evidence of the Christian teaching on marriage. As to the Christian command not to judge others, this a mentioned several times in several ways, for example look at John's gospel chapter 8

others = anyone who is not his wives! btw, may I ask the Bible verse?

In the New Testament, both Jesus and Paul upheld the biblical ideal of monogamy. When asked about the permissibility of divorce, Jesus reiterated God’s original plan for marriage as stated in Gen. 2:24 (Matt. 19:4–6 pars.). Paul, likewise, assumed monogamous, heterosexual marriage as the norm, even relating it to Christ’s relationship with the Church (Eph. 5:21–33; cf. Col. 3:18–19). Peter did likewise (1 Pet. 3:1–7; cf. 1 Cor. 9:5).


Now, why would you be so interested in only this variety of living arrangements, one man several women? Would you also approve of of a woman having four husbands? How about 3 men living together ( there is a restaurant near where I live which is called " Les Trois Garçons". The owners are three gay men in a relationship, one French, one English one Indonesian, and they have excellent food.) So, is that a "marriage" too?

As I keep saying, I do not judge how people want to live their personal lives, but I cannot call something a marriage that is not.

[pr126]

I wish Muslims would argue their Quran as much as they do about the Bible.
I think that their "interest" in the Bible is just diversionary tactics.

[Nosuperstition]

Yes, it is quite true that monogamy was the norm as well as the law on the Roman world, but not rigidly enforced by the Romans in the provinces, such as in in the Judea of the time of Jesus. Only just before the birth of Jesus, Herod the first had in fact had several wives, and this same king was confirmed by Augustus himself who also was a personal friend of his, and knew how many wives he had.


We know from Matthew 19 that Jesus's teachings on marriage also suggested monogamy, at a time and place when this was not necessarily the norm for all in Judea.

Herod was a king,Krishna was also a king and so are Muhammed,Solomon and David.The cordial and intimate relations between kingdoms and tribes are cemented in the bygone eras by multiple marriages to the princesses and other prominent members of the other kingdoms.So that is understandable.

But if they go for polygamy out of lust , then their moral character can be questioned.

[manfred]

Well, obviously if you choose to have several wives and lots of kids, you need to have the money to afford that. So it is not a surprise that we find prominent examples in rich and powerful people. The ordinary people also do not often find their way into the historical record.

Also, what is interesting, both Solomon and David are reported as much more human figures in the biblical sources than in the Qur'an. They both have some good qualities but also serious faults. David effectively murdered a friend to get his hands on his wife. Solomon fell into idolatry. In the Qur'an they have become somewhat wooden figures, difficult to relate to, idealised "prophets" without faults, faceless and one dimensional like some mystical characters, something they are not in biblical texts.

It is also interesting to note that the bible merely reports their polygamy as a fact, not as an ideal.

[Nosuperstition]

As to mistresses, there are multiple pronouncements against this practice, and attempts by the church to curb that, but how does a simple bishop tell his king he should keep his hands off other women, without risking to loose his head?

Well people in West nowadays supposedly live in democracies,so there should not be any problem at all in ex-communicating posthumously all those monarchs who were polygamous and who have had mistresses,isn't it.That would send a powerful message.

[manfred]

de mortuis nihil nisi bene

The message really is quite clear enough, without such measures.. If all who whose standards in life fell somewhat short of those expected are excommunicated, who will remain? Anyone?

At the end of the day, the church is for sinners as much as it is for saints.

Even pope Alexander vi, a vile and cruel man by all accounts, was not denied a proper burial. He lies next his uncle, also a corrupt pope, in a church in Rome.

The best service we can do the dead is not to sit in judgement over them, but merely to tell the truth about them. As to their final fate and judgement, it is best to leave that in the hands of him who is the source of all justice, mercy and compassion.

[Garudaman]

I am telling you what the Christian teaching of marriage is, as you asked, so why do you say it is irrelevant? All Christians would agree that that marriage is between one man and one woman, except small groups like for example the Mormons. And you never heard of "freedom of religion"?

Religion is based on Holy Book, hence practices that deviate from the Bible can't be termed as Christian Teaching!

Religion is about finding God, not about telling other people what to do. Those who have found the love of God will not need to be "governed", they will do what is right as a loving response to a loving God, entirely by themselves. Religion is about meaning of life and fulfilment, not about sets of rules.

then how about, the necessity of fruiting, prohibition of divorce unless she's unfaithful?

You are misquoting what said, by connecting the first sentence to something it does not belong to. I said:

"It is also true that I, nor anyone, should not judge people on how they live their lives. That is also UNIVERSAL Christian teaching." I already gave you the biblical evidence of the Christian teaching on marriage. As to the Christian command not to judge others, this a mentioned several times in several ways, for example look at John's gospel chapter 8

that teaching is about, If you do judge, your judgment should be based on God Standards (Bible) :

15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

In the New Testament, both Jesus and Paul upheld the biblical ideal of monogamy. When asked about the permissibility of divorce, Jesus reiterated God’s original plan for marriage as stated in Gen. 2:24 (Matt. 19:4–6 pars.).

if you call that, God's original plan, that should apply to every human, then :
1. celibate is forbidden!
2. if God create more than one wife for Adam, then by your logic, monogamy & moreover celibacy became forbidden!

Paul, likewise, assumed monogamous, heterosexual marriage as the norm, even relating it to Christ’s relationship with the Church (Eph. 5:21–33; cf. Col. 3:18–19). Peter did likewise (1 Pet. 3:1–7; cf. 1 Cor. 9:5).

I don't see which part from those verses, which forbids polygamy!

Now, why would you be so interested in only this variety of living arrangements, one man several women? Would you also approve of of a woman having four husbands? How about 3 men living together ( there is a restaurant near where I live which is called " Les Trois Garçons". The owners are three gay men in a relationship, one French, one English one Indonesian, and they have excellent food.) So, is that a "marriage" too?

polyandry is forbidden by several verse which says "the husband is the head/leader of the wife or must be obeyed by wife", while for the homosexual relationship, I think it is quite clear forbidding in the Bible!

As I keep saying, I do not judge how people want to live their personal lives, but I cannot call something a marriage that is not.

but you've done it, by saying that it wasn't a marriage, then it just the same, you say it's forbidden relationship!

[Garudaman]

I wish Muslims would argue their Quran as much as they do about the Bible.

you know, I used to play this game by put myself in the position of my opponent discussion!

I think that their "interest" in the Bible is just diversionary tactics.

my interest arises, because recently there are some who promotes Christianity as the truth, so this is sort of responsibility demands!

[Nosuperstition]

de mortuis nihil nisi bene

The message really is quite clear enough, without such measures.. If all who whose standards in life fell somewhat short of those expected are excommunicated, who will remain? Anyone?

At the end of the day, the church is for sinners as much as it is for saints.

Even pope Alexander vi, a vile and cruel man by all accounts, was not denied a proper burial. He lies next his uncle, also a corrupt pope, in a church in Rome.

The best service we can do the dead is not to sit in judgement over them, but merely to tell the truth about them. As to their final fate and judgement, it is best to leave that in the hands of him who is the source of all justice, mercy and compassion.

Pope Stephen VII had the remains of his predecessor, Pope Formosa, exhumed, put on trial for heresy, excommunicated, and then thrown into the Tiber River.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 04x3615719

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pe ... lic_Church

But judgements seem to have been already passed by mortals in many cases.Sinners are supposed to be clearly distinguished from saints

Is this not where monotheism boasts of superiority over pagans/polythiests i.e in terms of having better morals?

[Nosuperstition]

As to mistresses, there are multiple pronouncements against this practice, and attempts by the church to curb that, but how does a simple bishop tell his king he should keep his hands off other women, without risking to loose his head?

But in Christianity,the priests need not abstain from eating meat and I have read that the Popes and the bishops themselves at times commanded armies.Perhaps by divine right mentioned in the O.T,under monarchy all of his subjects can be rightfully enslaved and might be the clergy tacitly approved of the practice of keeping mistresses.

[manfred]

Priest eat meat, as do bishops. Some monks don't. And in medieval times bishops (as well as the pope) were also often rulers over a territory, so some did lead armies then, but not for hundreds of years.

[Nosuperstition]

Priest eat meat, as do bishops. Some monks don't. And in medieval times bishops (as well as the pope) were also often rulers over a territory, so some did lead armies then, but not for hundreds of years.

Have read somewhere that even the religious people had keeps when they were in charge.Power seems to corrupt.

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 06#p189006" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now did God punish David for violating the commandment that Uriah , his slave by divine right was killed not in such a fashion that he could survive for one or two days or is it for having an out of the wed-lock relationship with Bathsheba?

Remember a master can be spared punishment if a slave survives the beating of his master for more than 1 or 2 days according to the Bible.

[Nosuperstition]

Well, obviously if you choose to have several wives and lots of kids, you need to have the money to afford that. So it is not a surprise that we find prominent examples in rich and powerful people. The ordinary people also do not often find their way into the historical record.

Also, what is interesting, both Solomon and David are reported as much more human figures in the biblical sources than in the Qur'an. They both have some good qualities but also serious faults. David effectively murdered a friend to get his hands on his wife. Solomon fell into idolatry. In the Qur'an they have become somewhat wooden figures, difficult to relate to, idealised "prophets" without faults, faceless and one dimensional like some mystical characters, something they are not in biblical texts.

It is also interesting to note that the bible merely reports their polygamy as a fact, not as an ideal.

But then David is also polygamous.David is said to be very close to God's heart.May be God did not find fault with David for being polygamous possibly because he accepted it as a fact of life for some men.See God had a problem with David when he murdered Uriah and took Bathesheba and took him to task but did not bother to chastise David or take him to task for being polygamous.

Christianity's medieval hero Charlemagne was also polygamous.Possibly he too thought that he endeared himself to God's heart by coverting and slaughtering pagans at the point of sword , so might be God to whom he is close would not be bothered in any way with him having mutiple wives.

So those who believe themselves to have endeared themselves to God by their devotion might think it is O.K to take mulltiple wives just like David did.

[Nosuperstition]

Catholic church is said to excommunicate sometimes posthumously those that commit serious sins.Given that it never excommunicated Charlemagne for his slaughter of pagans and their forced conversion and for being polygamous,these are possibly not considered sins that merit excommunication.

[manfred]

Catholic church is said to excommunicate sometimes posthumously those that commit serious sins.Given that it never excommunicated Charlemagne for his slaughter of pagans and their forced conversion and for being polygamous,these are possibly not considered sins that merit excommunication.

In Roman Catholic canon law, excommunication is a censure and thus a "medicinal penalty" intended to invite the person to change behavior or attitude that incurred the penalty, repent, and return to full communion.[3] Excommunication does not expel a Catholic from membership in the church; excommunicated Catholics are still considered to be members of the church, and thus considered bound by their obligations of membership such as attending Mass or fasting seasonally. Excommunicated Catholics, however, are barred from receiving the Eucharist or from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.) while under censure.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pe ... lic_Church" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This makes an posthumous excommunication a nonsense. A dead person cannot fast or attend Mass, much less take part in the Eucharist or the liturgy by virtue of being dead.

about forced conversion the Catholic church teaches this:

It is absolutely necessary that conversion should come about by free choice, since no man can believe unless he be willing. . . . That faith without which it is impossible to please God must be the perfectly free homage of intellect and will.

Should it therefore at any time happen that, contrary to the unvarying teaching of this Apostolic See, a person is compelled against his will to embrace the Catholic faith, we cannot in conscience withhold our censure.

Encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII

Christian teaching has in fact always affirm freedom of conscience, but as you say, not always have all Christians followed that principle, and not always have Church authorities responded firmly to excesses.

Here is the difference: When Christians have forced people to convert in the past, they did so wrongly and against the teachings and accepted principles of the Church. When Muslims do the same today, they follow Mohammed's example.

[Nosuperstition]

]This makes an posthumous excommunication a nonsense. A dead person cannot fast or attend Mass, much less take part in the Eucharist or the liturgy by virtue of being dead.

But many popes in the past have dug out the bones of their predecessors out of contempt for them and ground them to dust and scattered them in rives.Something similiar could have been done with Charlemagne for

a)conversion by sword of pagans

b)polygamy

But nothing happened and the case is the same with countless nobles who had harems and concubines and Teutonic knights who carried out forced conversion of pagans.

[Nosuperstition]

When Christians have forced people to convert in the past, they did so wrongly and against the teachings and accepted principles of the Church. When Muslims do the same today, they follow Mohammed's example.

Well until 1960s,the church firmly is said to have stood by its doctrine of supporting slavery,it altered the same only after there was strong public opinion against it.So one has to know how many times during its long history, the Church has flip-flopped on this subject.