Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Opinion|Mon, Aug. 10 2009 07:43 AM EDT

Polyamory: The Perfectly Plural Postmodern Condition

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.|Christian Post Guest Columnist

Once a sexual revolution is set loose, it inevitably runs its course through the culture. While the current flashpoints of cultural conflict are focused on same-sex marriage and gender issues, others are biding their time. As Newsweek magazine makes clear, some new flashpoints are getting restless.

Polyamory, reports Newsweek, is having a "coming-out-party." Polyamory is the current "term of art" applied to "families" or "clusters" comprised of multiple sexual partners. As Newsweek explains, this is not exactly polygamy, because marriage is not the issue. Advocates of polyamory argue that their lifestyle is not "open marriage." Indeed, they define their movement in terms of the moral principle of "ethical nonmonogamy," defined as "engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person - based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved."

Legal theorists and opponents of same-sex marriage routinely (and rightly) make the argument that the legalization of homosexual marriage will, inevitably, lead to the legalization of polygamy. Once marriage is redefined to allow for same-sex unions, any determination to maintain legal prohibitions against polygamy will be seen as merely arbitrary. At the same time, once strictures against adultery were eliminated in the culture and in the wall, something essentially like polygamy was inevitable.

The article in Newsweek, written by Jessica Bennett, presents polyamory as a growing movement that now involves persons in the cultural mainstream. As the magazine reports: "Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city."

The movement now claims a number of recognized books, logs, podcasts, and even an online magazine entitled "Loving More." According to Newsweek, actress Tilda Swinton and Carla Bruni, the First Lady of France, have emerged as prominent spokespersons for nonmonogamy. As should be expected, the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University now features a "polyamory library."

Jessica Bennett suggests that the contemporary polyamory movement has roots in utopian movements of the 19th century:

The notion of multiple-partner relationships is as old as the human race itself. But polyamorists trace the foundation of their movement to the utopian Oneida commune of upstate New York, founded in 1848 by Yale theologian John Humphrey Noyes. Noyes believed in a kind of communalism he hoped would fix relations between men and women; both genders had equal voice in community governance, and every man was considered to be married to every woman. But it wasn't until the late-1960s and 1970s "free love" movement that polyamory truly came into vogue; when books like Open Marriage topped best-seller lists and groups like the North American Swingers Club began experimenting with the concept. The term "polyamory," coined in the 1990s, popped up in both the Merriam-Webster and Oxford English dictionaries in 2006.

In one sense, the polyamorous defy easy categorization. The movement includes couples who openly and with full knowledge of each other engage in sexual relationships with others. Some are involved in group sex and others experimented with bisexuality. The Newsweek article introduces readers to a new vocabulary. The most revealing word is "polyfidelitous" - which means that the multiple partners keep sexual activity within their own self-identified cluster. Continue »

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    This is definitely an interesting topic to talk about. I utilized this article to bring up the issue of post modernism and how our moral relativism allows our boundaries to continue to go into areas we never thought it would. Who would have thought gay marriages would be so common place. Polyamory, just the next thing. Is it really a surprise considering our culture does not believe in moral absolutes?

    here is my post Polamory Relationships & Cultural Subjectivity of Truth

    first time poster.. hoping this html link goes through. sorry if it doesn't!

  • Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Blacksho,
    I agree.

  • Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking: I try so hard not to be derogatory towards certain of the posters here! You are absolutely right that the Spirit of God does not tell us to insult the lost. Sometimes my flesh gets control of my mouth, though, as I am sure it does with other posters.

    There are posters on here that post for the sole purpose of raising a stink. There are others who have an honest disagreement, but are blinded to the Word. Sometimes you just need to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of their flesh (1 Cor 5:5), but it is never right to insult them.

  • Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:59 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    blacksho,
    hi thanks for the response I agree that I also have seen the verse quoted partially both ways. I agree those who quote only the first phrase seem to often seeking to justify or excuse sin as not really a problem, just as often those who only quote the second half seem often to be more interested in using Christ as a justification for setting themselves over the sinner. I try not to leap to this conclusion rapidly but when a poster uses intentionally degrading and inflamatory language towards the "sinners" such as trolls, perverts, homo, and repeatedly talks about them burning in hell with sarcastic or flip comments.. well this seems far from the spirit of Christ to me. I have always thought that the best definition of sin is that which holds us separate from God. I believe God does not hate sin because he said x or y was a sin and he is angry about disobedience. I believe God hates sin out of sadness that it is separating a soul from him. It appears to me that the spirit that enables name calling, sarcasm and denigrating separates a human being from God no less than any of the enumerated sins of licentiousness, etc.

  • Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    jasemingld: If you are placing your salvation in the Law, you are doomed. The Law brings only condemnation. See Romans 8:1-2.
    If you are saying that there is no "literal" need to obey the commandments, then I'd like to see some Scriptural foundation for that.
    If you mean something else that I am not understanding, please let me know.

  • Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking, I tried to type "I do not condemn other sinners TO DEATH". That is the point Jesus was making, that physical death is no longer the penalty for sin. The second death, however, is still the penalty for unrepentant sin.

  • Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:59 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    viking: Of course, I do not condemn other sinners, for I an a sinnner myself. But the second clause in Jesus' statement often gets overlooked by people who want to justify sin. And there are a lot of people on these boards trying to justify sin, especially sexual sin

  • Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Blacksho,
    Hi thanks for the response and clarification although I think there is actually a little more that could be said You Know "then neither do I condemn you" If Christ who was without sing could withhold judgment and is in fact the only one justified to give it then can we who were ourselves fallen strive other than to do the same.

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    > The 613 are for people who don't want the
    > responsibility of seeking God's will on their own.

    That's what we tell ourselves when we want the luxury of picking and choosing among the Scriptures, when we want to dismiss certain awkward commandments that we don't like very much, while holding other people accountable to the "top ten" that we enjoy so highly.

    However, I had the privilege of learning from someone raised in the Jewish tradition, someone who really knows the Torah, that ALL the commandments carry equal weight. Picking and choosing Scriptures is apparently a uniquely Christian art form, especially when done with the slick overlay of self-righteously accusing other people of picking and choosing Scriptures at the same time.

    Matthew 5: 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

    If you want to hold fast to a literal "top ten", then you have to hold fast to ritual baths, prescribed beard trimming, stoning, Levirate marriage, and prohibitions against shellfish and pork as well. And all the rest of the commandments.

    Or we can talk about context, culture, and the intent behind each of those Levitical laws. Including the top tem. What is God telling me about my life? It's a "priesthood of the believer" approach, where each person wrestles with the Scriptures to learn what wisdom it holds for that person. Like Jacob.

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Weekender,

    You are welcome.

    Yahwehnissi,

    Although I disagree with your interpretation of "not returning void", I can respect your words and intentions.

    I am still wondering about the donkey though....

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    jasminegld: "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" is still in the top 10.
    The 613 are for people who don't want the responsibility of seeking God's will on their own. It's a lot easier to search a list and say, "God, I am grateful that you did not make me like this publican here!" than it is to search your heart and say "God, have mercy on me, a sinner!"

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Did you ever get the feeling that sometimes you need to question the motive of the article writer? I get a bad feeling about why this article was even written. I find no real reason to offer the details of a lifestyle that is as common today as it was in the 1960's. Back then they were called "communes".... Cults are often found with cult leaders practicing various forms of this.

    I just get a bad spiritual vibe. I think the article is almost voyeristic in nature. I can't put my finger on it... but something about this article jmakes me uncomfortable

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:52 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I'm told there are 613 commandments in Judaic law. Many of God's people don't even bother with the arguments that those commandments don't apply to them.

    Commandments such as men with defects being forbidden to approach the altar to present offerings. Or a man being forbidden to marry a woman who has been divorced. A man being required to marry the widow of his brother and produce children with her on behalf of his brother. A variety of commandments about how to trim one's hair and beard. Instructions to engage in ritual baths. Or a whole host of directives to stone people for specified violations.

    Things like being forbidden to wear cloth woven of different types of fiber, or to eat shellfish or pork. Three, four, five thousand years ago, when the no-pork law was established, eating parasite-infected pork could kill a person. That was a seriously important law back in the day.

    Every one of these commandments carry the same weight as any of the more titillating commandments. But no, somehow we all just ignore these sins completely. We consider ourselves fully justified in breaking these commandments willy nilly any time we want, and very few of us even notice, much less feel compelled to justify the sin. But we pounce on the titillating, sexy laws and demand justification for reacting to them exactly the same way we react to all the rest of the Levitical laws.

    Maybe we need to think less about justifying sin, and more about learning how to listen to each other and practice a little Christ-like lovingkindness.

    1 Corinthians 13

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    viking, my point was the same as yours. The only conversation possible is, "Go, and sin no more".

    Many on this forum want to argue that God's word does not apply to their favorite sin. Fornication in its various forms seems to be one that sinful Man tries the hardest to justify.

    Whoever looks at a woman with lust in his heart has committed adultery. I freely admit that I am an adulterer. I do not attempt to say that it's OK by God.

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Abdohim,
    regarding the wordsmithing it reminds me of my Mclean. The medium is the message. Or perhaps Orwell. At least they didn't try polyagapian.

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:43 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    blacksho,
    Hi regarding discussing something respectfully. It seems to me that Christ was adressed the issue without disrespect when he was confronted by the iminent stoning of the adulterous woman. The only ones you could even remotely suggest he was disrespectfull to were the self riteous judgemental ones who were condemming the woman. Perhaps we should all check our hands to make sure we are not carrying stones before we enter into any discussion of these issues.

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:34 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    As God's design is for one man to be married to one woman, and sexual activity outside of this model is disrespectful to Him, I don't see that a respectful discussion is possible. Perhaps on a board that proclaims the values of the world and of the flesh, but not on a board where hopefully the Spirit guides the conversation.

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:14 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Thanks for that, Jim. I didn't remember ever using the word "homo pervert," as I don't usually (besides, it's a little repetitive, don't you think?). :)

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Does anyone want to talk respectfully about the topic of the article -- polyamory?

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:20 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    Regarding Balaam: Joshua 24:10 "But I was not willing to listen to Balaam. So he had to bless you, and I delivered you from his hand. "
    This is another example of how Balaam was NOT a Godly man. Balaam did not want to bless Israel. God deals with us based on our hearts and our motives, not our works!

    Sometimes, reading in context means digging out the old concordance and reading several "unrelated" chapters.

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:07 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Bro Jim,


    I sincerely agree with you about sharing the truth in love. And i sincerely believe the preaching of the Gospel is the power of GOd unto salvation.

    I guess citing the donkey was too extreme but God brought it to my remembrance..


    The problem lies in the hearts of men. Jesus describes the different states of the heart regarding the gospel of CHrist.

    All of us have a heart condition, in the spiritual sense.

    The parable o the sower gives us insight to peoples' responses to the gospel, and in the end it is a very encouraging text. It assures us that if we are faithful to share the gospel of Jesus Christ that there will be those who receive and bear much fruit.

    The "sower" is Jesus Christ. Matthew 13:37 and Luke 8:11 tell us this.

    This parable presumes the presence of communication, which demands a communicator. Paul elaborates on this need of a communicator in:

    Romans 10:14 (NASB) How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

    The Word is the Word of God, and it is sown on all kinds of terrain or soil. There is no exclusivity in the sowing of the Word, it is to go out to all.

    Who is responsible to sow the seed of the Word of God? All believers. Anyone who understands this glorious Gospel is responsible to share it.

    I am aware of the fact that I am responsible to sow, and I am responsible to water, but I can't make the seed grow. Only God can do that.

    1 Corinthians 3:6 (NASB) I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.
    Keep this thought in mind "God causes the growth."

    *Hard Soil* represents the heart condition of unbelievers

    Mark 4:15 (NASB) "And these are the ones who are beside the road where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them.

    This parable teaches us how unbelivers will respond to the Gospel. But I understand that these soils can change. We were all at one time hard soil. So, we continue to cast the seed knowing that the result is up to God.

    This is my understanding of Isaiah 55..that God's Word will not return void


    AGAPE brother
    :O)

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:33 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    HM,

    "They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. " (Numbers 31:16)

    If we read the entire chapter, we find that sometime between the end of Balaam’s
    prophecies or oracles and his return home, he counseled the King of Moab that
    there was one way to curse Israel, and that was if they sinned. He told him to send
    in the Moabite and Midianite women to seduce the men away from obeying the Lord.
    His counsel to Balak was evil, counseling these nations to go against their covenant
    with God and commit immorality with Moab. And we find in Numbers 25:1-3, that is
    exactly what happened. God ended up sending a plague and 24,000 people died.
    Balaam’s advice placed a stumbling block before God’s people and caused them to
    turn away from the Lord. This is a grave sin, and we are warned against it by Jude,
    Paul and Yeshua in the Messianic Writings.

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Weekender,

    I won't belabor the point further but just for clarification on a couple of things if you will endulge me;

    1. Using terms that are accurate, commonly used and derogatory in reference to others may be normal but that isn't the acid test. I have admitted that I do not always do this myself and I apologize when I have the chance. I will use an example of an accurate, derogatory and normally used term for someone; jerk. Although not a swear, it can be quite accurate and is commonly used it still isn't respectful to use, no matter who the person is and what they have done. Have I done this? Yes I have. Does it make it OK? Absolutely not and I sin when I do use it.

    You said on Aug 15, 1247pm that you never used th term homo perverts. Unless I am misunderstanding your post below, you did call some people on this site homo perverts.

    from Aug 12 1041pm;

    "lordshepherd: I never called you a troll, so stop having such a hissy fit. I'm merely pointing out to you that it's the homo perverts who come in this site, promoting their abomination and blaspheming the Holy Spirit (while claiming to be Christians and belittling those of us who believe the Bible) who are running up the number of posts on the homo-themed threads. Do the math -- it's pretty obvious to see."

    So, I will drop it as you say although Scripture doesn't say to drop it when a brother is wronging others with the tongue (yes, I understand it is the 'net tongue') and refuses to repent for it. Not sure what kind of witness to unbelievers it is but it is now done.

    PS I have no desire to harass you as you say you were on some other site. Confronting a brother or sister is not harassing, it is harassing when it is either undeserved or continues after someone repents.

    YAH,

    Yes, I know of the donkey but please forgive my inability to understand what you mean by the question and comments. I see a few different ways your post could be meant and I don't want to over-think your post (and see things that aren't there) nor assume anything either. I would appreciate your further explanation.

    DITL,

    Thank you for your kind words. And your "practice makes permanence" quote is true and priceless. I must remember that myself - daily.

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:29 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    hm,

    One must thoroughly complete their research on any given subject before they can give an accurate account; until we do this we will continue to misrepresent the biblical facts. Like you misrepresenting the person of Balaam; he was not what you made him out to be.

  • Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    U4 thanks for your response, sorry to be so long.

    Thanks for the review of naturalism/materialism.
    Assuming for a moment that naturalism were correct. Then by its rules all phenomena of the universe arises from natural/material causes.
    This would include all human thought. Now all natural causes are by defintion of naturalism non-rational. Therefore all human thought is ultimately a result of non rational causes and are therefore by definition in a naturalist belief system non rational.

    Also of course the concept of identity the idea of a self as an agent rather than an artifact of nature is equally incompatible with Naturalism.

    Also of course the concept of free will or purposeful choice is similarly incompatible.

    If you disagree with these statements could you explain how in your view a non rational purposeless universe can give rise to purposeful, rational, selves. Remember Evolution is of course consistent with naturalism and insufficient as an explanation of identity, rationalism or purposefullness.

    If you accept the consequence of a naturalist view that human beings are incapable of actual identity, rationality and purposefullness please Acknowledge your zombie status.

    Thanks in advance for your response.

  • Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:22 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show abhodim wrote: "A challenge. Present an English term that is derived of a Latin-Greek hybrid formation. It can't be a neologism and has been in circulation since, say the 1980's." Hee hee I know this one: "Homosexual." hide

  • Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Abhodim,

    The suggestions that you came up with do not have bad connotations, but they're also not very pretty sounding, either. I'm not trying to trivialize anything with that comment. I'm just telling you what my friend was saying the purpose of that word choice was. Yes, it is simply about good PR by choosing a warm and fuzzy word that would sound nice.

    DelightInTheLord,

    It's an imaginary, undying flower. It also refers to any plant of the genus Amaranthus, some species of which are cultivated as food and some for their showy flower clusters or foliage. However,in chemistry, it is a purplish-red, water-soluble powder - an azo dye used to color pharmaceuticals, garments and food.

    I use it in the first definition. The imaginary, undying flower. I got the idea from a song by AFI that I love. :)

  • Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:52 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Homo Man wrote: "I am not lacking for "context."

    Sorry, but without the guidance of the Holy Spirit indwelling you, even if you drank a bunch of Red Bulls and read all 66 books of the Bible in one sitting (from Genesis to Revelation . . . there's no book in the canon called "Revelations") you'd still get everything out of context.

    As you're proving now . . .

  • Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show You guys need to read the book of Numbers, straight through. Over and over, Balaam prays to God to ask what to do, and tells his own king that he will not do anything besides what God commands him to do. Balaam blesses Israel over and over, and then PROPHESIES THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH THROUGH ISRAEL. Number 24:15-18 Balaam brought the people of Israel in. He did EVERYTHING that a follower of God would do and VASTLY more: He literally PROPHESIED the coming of the Messiah. Then Moses had Balaam killed. hide

  • Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show JN wrote: [Balaam] "decided, for the sake of Balak's reward, to try to entice the children of Israel to sin against the LORD, thereby causing God to turn against them, in which he succeeded - Numbers chapters 22-25:9 & 31:1-16." JN in all sincerity, I see in chapter 25 that Israel committed whoredom with the daughters of Moab. Is that what you are talking about? I do not yet see that Balaam had anything to do with "enticing" them. In fact, the very words of Balaam are considered to be one of the greatest prophecies concerning Jesus. I'm still looking through this passage - could you point me to what you are referring to? hide

  • Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show O4H wrote: "Hm, Once again my friend you fail to read the scriptures in context" Like I said, I read the ENTIRE BOOK of Numbers on Thursday and Friday of last week. If that's not enough context for you, then remember that I've read more than half of the ENTIRE BIBLE in the past month. I'm working on the rest. I have recently read ALL of Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus, ALL of the gospels, ALL of the minor prophets, Revelations, and nearly all of the rest of the New Testament. I am not lacking for "context." I suspect that the problem is that *you* have not read the story at all. If you read it, you will see that you are wrong, and in addition, you will also see that I am right. You will not apologize though! :-) hide

  • Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show DP wrote: "Interesting...I don't know of any laws on the books that were not made by someone. None of our laws "evolved" on their own...." Daniel, the word "evolve" does not necessarily require lack of a creator / Creator. You should know this. It's ironic that you are arguing about this word in a completely different context from the usual discussions of "evolution." hide

  • Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:56 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    Amen Online4Him.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to O4H's comments. here's a note for anyone who is interested ----

    THE DOCTRINE OF BALAAM
    -----------------------
    Balaamism was one of the first heresies, along with Gnosticism and the error of the Judaisers. It is evident that in the first century the gospel was already under attack from within, being perverted and corrupted, as is witnessed by the amount of New Testament space allocated to teaching designed to counteract these errors.

    Gnosticism is repudiated in John's epistles, Jewish legalism is refuted by Paul in Galatians in particular, but also in 2 Corinthians chapter 11, Philippians chapter 3, Colossians chapter 2, 1 Timothy 1:3-11, Titus 1:10, 11, 14-16, 3:9 and in Hebrews.

    It falls to Peter, Jude and Jesus Christ to contend with the doctrine of Balaam - 2 Peter, Jude and Rev. 2:14-16, 20-24.

    Balaam was an Old Testament prophet, who, knowing the mind of God (that God was intent on blessing the children of Israel) and knowing the character of God (that God cannot punish the righteous as if they were wicked - Jonah 3:10, or bless the wicked as if they were righteous - Sam. 2:27-33, Numbers 14:30-34); decided, for the sake of Balak's reward, to try to entice the children of Israel to sin against the LORD, thereby causing God to turn against them, in which he succeeded - Numbers chapters 22-25:9 & 31:1-16. Balaamism has since been characterised by compromise with the world, spiritual infidelity and frequently sexual immorality, amongst people professing to be Christians.

    Points of the Heresy
    --------------------
    http://www.christian-witness.org/archives/van1998/balaam98.html

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    A good friend of mine met the challenge - polyunsaturated. He likes the point that it combines Greek, Latin, and an Anglo-Saxon negative, so English is a vibrant language on that score.

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 6:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I note the response to the hybrid Greek-Latyin derivation of polyamory. I can't truly understand the linguistic explanation offered. A true Latinate term (multiamory - other than a cognate form multiamoral) or Grecian form (polyeroty or perhaps, polyphilaty) would have done service. But the concept stated >because it sounded pretty and didn't have a bad connotation already associated with it > reveals a piece of word magic where the nicest sounding term would make for good public relations.
    Such stabs at nomenclature reveal a lack of substance, a mere creation of illusion that the "really neat word" exonerates the subject under discussion. If it is all about creating a proper connotation, then what is it we are defining, how can we state it as sweetly as pssible?
    A challenge. Present an English term that is derived of a Latin-Greek hybrid formation. It can't be a neologism and has been in circulation since, say the 1980's.

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:07 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 1

    Hm,

    Once again my friend you fail to read the scriptures in context . . . Balaam was not killed because of his different ethnicity; he was killed for his rebellion against the Lord. He was an unstable individual; a soothsayer who for material gains sought to curse Israel. This is exactly what he did when he told Balak that Israel could be seduced into Baal worship by sending the women of Moab into their camp. The Lord punished those Israelites for their apostasy and in the process Balaam was killed for his sin (setting a stumbling block before the people of God).

    Balaam is also mentioned in the New Testament; Peter speaks of false teachers who “have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam” (2 Peter 2:15), Jude speaks of backsliders who “have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit” (Jude 11), and Jesus rebukes the church of Pergamos who held “the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel” (Revelation 2:14).

    So, Balaam did not as you say, “obey ONLY the God of the Hebrews” . . . he obeyed his own perverted moral standards.

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:50 pm Agree: 9   Disagree: 0

    DITH: Let me be very clear when I say (as I've said before) that gnosticism is of the devil. When I said I enjoy the posts gnosticgirl leaves on this blog, I meant I enjoy the way she seems to genuinely ask questions and engage in actual conversations.

    As I'm sure you have observed, that quality with the pagans is quite rare on this Christian blog. :)

    With that said, I've repeat my point that I've most enjoyed the conversations I've had on this blog with Jeho (with whom I usually agree) and gg (with whom I nearly always disagree).

    Oh okay, I'll add DITL as well if that makes you feel better. :)

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Delight: Sorry, I must have misunderstood your earlier post. "Joe Carter" used to be the editor of another Christian blog I frequented (and was harassed on by trolls and well-intentioned believers alike), and this morning I received an email alerting me that I should wish that JC a happy birthday. I'll go check out YOUR link now. :)

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So Weekender what are you doing this weekend...( teehee I couldn't resist).

    I didn't quite hear your answer for the jimmycarter link I gave earlier.
    Could you respond there?

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi amaranth

    Welcome! Amaranth is a rose color isn't it?

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:35 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    Thanks Delight and Jeho, for your moderating words on both sides of this issue (which I think Jim and I, as a whole, agree on). The Internet is quite an exciting venue, and I'm sure all of us are still adjusting with how to apply Scriptural concepts in its regard.

    Jim has made his point, and I have made mine. According to Scripture, we should both drop it now and agree to disagree agreeably (as a testimony to the unsaved observing our dispute).

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Delight: Yes, it's a very Happy Birthday to our dear (Joe) Carter brother. :)

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Old Student, my Brother,

    I totally see where you are coming from on your overall point.

    I cringe, too.

    Does this cover it?

    Pro 15:1 "A soft answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger."
    Thanks for speaking about this.

    --------------
    Hi Weekender you say it too:

    >>"and the believers than the personal attacks of the trolls. That's all I'm saying."<<

    I agree it is heard to hold the tongue...but practice makes permanent! :D

    Did you get over to the Carter link?

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

    Flagged as inappropriate. show The story of Balaam - now there's a MAJOR ethical flaw in the Bible! Like I said, I just read the book of Numbers over the past couple of days. Balaam is a non-Hebrew who says that God supports the Hebrews. Balaam's king Balak asks him to put a curse on the Hebrews but he refuses again and again and again. Balaam says that God is with the Hebrews and he will not do anything against God. So when the Hebrews take over, what is the first thing Moses has them do? THEY *KILL* BALAAM, THE MAN WHO HAS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN SUPPORTED THEM IN THE NAME OF THE GOD OF THE HEBREWS WHOM HE WORSHIPS AND IN DIRECT DEFIANCE OF HIS OWN KING. Even though Balaam has defied his own king and declared again and again and again that he worships and will obey ONLY the God of the Hebrews, the Hebrews KILL him BECAUSE he is not of their ethnic group. I mean, what kind of "moral" are we supposed to get out of this wretched murderous betrayal? If God had been in charge of the text of the Bible, God would have made it clear that what the Hebrews did was wrong. For that matter, God would have punished them. He did not. Instead, this was, and still is, considered to be one of the Hebrews' greatest achievements of all times. I think it would be reasonable to say that this is the key story of the book of Numbers. It is hard to picture a more direct message of evil. hide

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Bro Jim ,

    I understand what you mean and weekender,too.
    I believe with all my heart that GOd's Word is the two-edged sword of the Spirit to those who "hear' regardless of who speaks it.

    THis may sound funny, but do you remember the donkey?

    "But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey--a beast without speech--who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness." ---- 2 peter 2:6

    "Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?" --- Numbers 22:28


    ...o well... you are my brothers and i agape you both!

    InChrist :O)

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:47 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    You still don't get it, Jim. When I refer to someone as a troll it's like calling my mail carrier a "mailman" or when calling my server at a restaurant a "bartender" or "waitress." It's a simple statement of fact:

    A troll is someone who visits websites built for those he or she disagrees with simply to belittle.

    As for "homo-pervs" or "homo-perverts," I've never used those terms. (I hope you're not projecting onto me?) I refer to Homo Man (another troll and a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit) as that (with "Man" attached) because it's an abbreviation of his moniker (and what the Bible calls him, BTW) so it's shorter to type, and the same with "pervert" (someone who perverts the Truth).

    If you disagree with me as a brother in Christ, fine. You've stated it and I've heard it. Now you can drop it. Thanks in advance! :)

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Iaccepthim,

    No HIS word doesn't return void, our usage of His words many times does return void.

    1. Said without love = banging gong or crashing cymbal. That is not God speaking nor us speaking for him but speaking His words in our own desires and feelings.
    -- 1 Cor 13 - If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

    2. Not seasoning our words with salt and grace results in NOT making Him known or being glorified but again using His words for our desires.
    -- Colossians 4 - "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."

    So Him speaking HIS word through a prophet or personally NEVER returns void (Isaiah 55). You or I using His word can return void depending on what attitude is used and reason for using His word.

    There is a world of difference between me just quoting Scripture and treating others without love and Yahweh speaking or using a prophet to speak.

    weekender,

    Your jumping to another related passage doesn't help your case. As the above Scripture tells us, speaking without love is not what we are called to do; whether or not one wants to quote Scripture while acting or speaking without love.

    ALL SCRIPTURE is the key part of that passage because we must look to ALL SCRIPTURE to see who He is and who we are to be. No one calls someone a troll or a homo-pervert in love and we all know it. So when using all Scripture one finds that calling people names in an unloving manner makes one sound like a banging gong or crashing cymbal and is not what God sounds like or what we are to sound like.

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:59 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "physical world and it's laws deduced from observations of their manifestation. "

    Interesting...I don't know of any laws on the books that were not made by someone. None of our laws "evolved" on their own....

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:46 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "?Since Isaiah wasn't talking about you or I or any other human when God instructed him to speak and write those words, it doesn't apply to you or I. Just because you or I throw Scripture out there certainly doesn't mean it is being used as He desires or as He demands either."!?
    Are you saying His word does return Void?
    We need to look at all scripture for guidance and for Gods will.

    Good Morning weekenderman Hope to see you online later but for now I'm going out to capatalize on the cool of the day to get the outside work done. May the Lord be with you in your postings.

  • Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:33 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness -- that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished for all good works."

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links