• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Reducing God to moral absurdity

PassionatePatriarch

PassionatePatriarch

Member
Male
It is absolutely amazing to me how many Christians are utterly unwilling to accept the very simple premise that something God explicitly decrees as *lawful* cannot simultaneously be a sin (ie. a man taking multiple wives).

There is no such thing as a "lawful sin"; the very notion is an oxymoron. God doesn't tell His people how to "sin lawfully". ...To unashamedly and confidently assert that God has, in history, decreed a sin as explicitly *lawful* is to effectively reduce His moral nature to absurd hypocrisy, and make a mockery of His holiness. And to be clear...no, I don't think that's anyone's intention whatsoever. But it is the unavoidable logical consequence of taking such an indefensible position.

There is a massive difference between God *tolerating* sin, and God decreeing sin *lawful*. The former happens all the time. If God didn't tolerate sin, I would have been dead long before I came to Christ! The latter, however, never happened. Not even once.

The theological cognitive dissonance is real out here. Traditions of men and feminist rebellion have united to form quite the powerful, unholy tandem. And in the body of Christ no less! Very sad. It's honestly more an issue of cowardice, selfishness and fear. People understand that God can't deem objecitve sin as lawful. They are just scared of (or just don't like) the ramifications of doing so.
 
In my experience, there aren't that many people concerned about truth, whether they go to church or not. What they want is validation, and finding a significant group to belong to is the typical way people find that.
 
The American church, so called, is well into the calling good evil and evil good phase. Sadly I think they are becoming the foremost champions of feminism within the context of marriage.

This is a problem when you are a Christian in name but retain the paradigm of the world. You find ways to use God to justify your false worldview.
 
For those interested in thinking more about why people profess faith in a Teacher whose teachings they aren't really interested in, take a look at Terror Management Theory, starting with this Wikipedia article or this documentary.
 
I think we over estimate how much the mind contributes to our understanding of truth and under estimate the contribution of the heart. Why did some people hear the very words from Jesus himself and yet not follow him? And when I say not follow him, I mean to the point where they hated him and then made sure he was killed? While others listened and obeyed? In some people the ground was fertile and in some the ground was rocky. Truly the Holy Spirit has to open your eyes to God's truth. He can be a shock to find out that people in the church are not open to the truth and have hard hearts, etc. Maybe they just go to church because their parents went or out of habit or whatever.
 
cnystrom said:
In some people the ground was fertile and in some the ground was rocky.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I have heard it said recently that humans are not rational beings, but rationalizing ones. Modern social scientists have observed that people will dismiss credible evidence that violates their belief while accepting questionable evidence that supports it. And it turns out inborn personality traits are the biggest predictor of ones political philosophy.

Also keep in mind, they call it a 'church service' and not more biblical names. It is very much a service in that they provide good feelings about what happens after death in exchange for your money. If someone comes in and attempts to follow the way of Christ more closely, you aren't just an extra devout person, you are challenging their product, calling into question whether it is valid. And so in order to maintain those good feelings the members are forced to attack you.

I can see how this fits into TMT. In TMT the culture counteracts the terror and for the church, traditional beliefs are a big part of culture. So simply having a differing opinion on PM (or on other more common, yet far more arcane, theological topics) becomes an untenable cultural conflict.
 
Exactly. You're not just offering an alternate theory of marriage. You're raising the "if my pastor or priest or Sunday school teacher is wrong about this, what else are they wrong about?" flag, which threatens their worldview, which taps into their primal fear of death. Scary stuff if your existential self-comfort in the face of inevitable death depends on what some Sunday school teacher told you about heaven....
 
andrew said:
You're raising the "if my pastor or priest or Sunday school teacher is wrong about this, what else are they wrong about?" flag, which threatens their worldview
Click to expand...

Yes, and thats just for run of the mill theological questions. PM threatens feminism and female primacy; and there are few doctrines more sacred than that today in the world.
 
Right. On. One of our first hints that something was seriously wrong here (and that led me to a study of TMT) was the way some otherwise rational people straight up erupted when this topic was brought up. Out-of-control emotions took over, and reason, logic, and scripture went out the window. TMT at the very least helps explain the nerve that was hit, producing pain out of proportion to the actual injury.
 
PassionatePatriarch said:
The theological cognitive dissonance is real out here. Traditions of men and feminist rebellion have united to form quite the powerful, unholy tandem.
Click to expand...

It is worth noting that the current false traditions in this area date back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries, if not earlier. Some even predate Christ. The rot is very deep and very dug in. The Protestant Reformation turned the world upside down, yet it didn't touch this; save one notable but widely ignored letter on PM by Luther.

Actually, the heart of feminism is envy, something that was at the root of the serpent's temptation of Eve. So we are really just replaying the oldest of all spiritual battles here.
 
The rabbit hole just keeps going deeper.... ;)
 
andrew said:
Right. On. One of our first hints that something was seriously wrong here (and that led me to a study of TMT) was the way some otherwise rational people straight up erupted when this topic was brought up. Out-of-control emotions took over, and reason, logic, and scripture went out the window. TMT at the very least helps explain the nerve that was hit, producing pain out of proportion to the actual injury.
Click to expand...

The stereotypical "hot button issue".
 
andrew said:
Exactly. You're not just offering an alternate theory of marriage. You're raising the "if my pastor or priest or Sunday school teacher is wrong about this, what else are they wrong about?" flag, which threatens their worldview, which taps into their primal fear of death. Scary stuff if your existential self-comfort in the face of inevitable death depends on what some Sunday school teacher told you about heaven....
Click to expand...
My wife had that very reaction when I first approached her with the possibility of PM. fortunately, I had built up enough equity for her to trust me more than former pastors.
 
I've had conversations with Christians about this before. I do believe that the initial transformation from "lawful" to "sinful" is often good intentions gone wrong.

Smoking
Gambling
Drinking
Polygyny

At some point, some folks saw the dangerous potential outcomes and cried loudly for folks to change their ways to avoid potential problems. Then, fear and other emotions were used to convince. Eventually, the spiritual concept of "sin" and potential judgment or damnation creeps in. Not wanting to be on the wrong side of God, people relent and no longer seek scripture for discernment and the matter becomes finalized internally.

It's funny, but tattoos are much more debatable when it comes to "lawfulness", but some folks I've discussed polygyny with proudly wear them while calling polygyny an outright adulterous sin. I've questioned them on it and GRACE becomes such a sacred thing.

***EDIT: Grammar police...it should be " wear them proudly"... Right?
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
I've had conversations with Christians about this before. I do believe that the initial transformation from "lawful" to "sinful" is often good intentions gone wrong.

Smoking
Gambling
Drinking
Polygyny

At some point, some folks saw the dangerous potential outcomes and cried loudly for folks to change their ways to avoid potential problems. Then, fear and other emotions were used to convince. Eventually, the spiritual concept of "sin" and potential judgment or damnation creeps in. Not wanting to be on the wrong side of God, people relent and no longer seek scripture for discernment and the matter becomes finalized internally.
Click to expand...

This is a really great observation, and I think very accurately articulated. Basically every argument against polygyny usually boils down to, "I just don't see a lot of upside to this, but a lot of a potential downside".

....well, that's like...your opinion man. And unfortunately your opinion, nor your personal distaste, nor even the odds of "success" in a given circumstance determine the moral nature of an action. and quite frankly, I don't really care about man's opinion. I care about God's opinion. And He was not silent on the issue by any means.
 
I just want to say, "I love this forum!"
 
Mojo said:
At some point, some folks saw the dangerous potential outcomes and cried loudly for folks to change their ways to avoid potential problems. Then, fear and other emotions were used to convince. Eventually, the spiritual concept of "sin" and potential judgment or damnation creeps in. Not wanting to be on the wrong side of God, people relent and no longer seek scripture for discernment and the matter becomes finalized internally.
Click to expand...

The church has completely missed the lesson of Paul when he said...

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not....All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top