Posted on 07/11/2024 4:40:32 PM PDT by Morgana
Patrick Woodbeck, who uses He/They pronouns, spent a decade as the pastor of Windsor Park United Church before taking on a position at Gordon-King Memorial United Church.
Both congregations are part of the United Church of Canada denomination, which was formed when liberal Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational churches merged to create a new denomination. A Canadian version of the United Church of Christ, they are a denomination so woke and corrupt that one of its most prominent ministers, Gretta Vosper, has spent decades leading her church as an avowed atheist, and she has never been removed.
A proponent of progressive values, Woodbeck espouses not just a collection of the usual antichrist theologies (pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ, pro-euthanasia) but rather also is a practitioner of ‘ethical non-monogamy, a concept he explains in a video:
“So my partner and I have been together for probably 16 years. And so we were exclusive up until four years ago, so we are in a relationship where we can engage in physical intimacy with others outside of the relationship, both together and alone.”
(Excerpt) Read more at protestia.com ...
Sounds as if the pastor would like another fellow in his threesome.
That is the guy the Village People forgot to include: the “swinging clergyman”.
They are no more Christians than they are Zoroastrians. I hesitate to make the judgement about who is in the church and who isn’t, but this person is an atheist who lives an immoral life and and leads people astray and the people and the denomination are okay with that. A tree is known by its fruit. This is not a church.
There are tons of polygamous marriages in the OT.
Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” So the OT is still valid.
Paul cannot quote Jesus, having never met Him.
Paul probably got monogamy from the Greeks and Romans. Everyone else in the world at that time, including the Jews of Jesus’ time, practiced polygamy. (Polygamy is still practiced by the majority of the world, with apparent success.)
Folks need to consider Paul’s target audience. Why talk about polygamy to a monogamous audience? Last time I checked, Corinth was in Greece, not Israel/Palestine/whatever. It would have been tremendously out of context for Paul to address a situation which was illegal to his target audience.
Some of Jesus’s ancestors were polygamists. Why would G*d or Jesus condemn his own ancestors? If there is nothing wrong with the OT then why is not polygamy condemned in the OT?
Christianity simply imported monogamy from (pagan) Greeks and (pagan) Romans. Everything else is unfounded opinion. “Christian” people need to think logically and not indulge in presentism.
Uh, the road to Damascus?
noteworthy OT polygamists
Moses
David
Solomon
Abijah
Genesis alone has Lamech (Gen. 4:18–24), Nahor (Gen. 22:20–24), Abraham (Gen. 16 and 21), Jacob (Gen. 29–30), Esau (Gen. 26:34–35; 28:8–9; 36:2–3), and Eliphaz (Gen. 36:12).
None of these people were punished according to Jewish law for polygamy.
> Uh, the road to Damascus?
No reason to give Paul preference over the OT. Or Jesus.
Whenever any doubt arises, always go with the primary sources.
Also please see my argument about Paul’s intended audience who were nominally monogamous Greeks.
Gay, of course.
One thing you have to understand is that the Jews allowed the OT to speak for itself. If the person in question came to a bad end, it’s because they lived a bad life. The Jews let the results speak for themselves.
When David became polyamorous, he split Israel into two nations. Judah and Israel.
Solomon, because of his 700 wives, came to a bad end as well.
The OT does not advocate for polyamorous relationships. Quite the opposite, actually.
Trudeau imports muslims a few years ago and now everything is going halal and screw non-muslims where does it stop
Why would Khamas do this?
One Word: SODOMITE
I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.
> One thing you have to understand is that the Jews allowed the OT to speak for itself.
> If the person in question came to a bad end, it’s because they lived a bad life. The Jews let the results speak for themselves.
> When David became polyamorous, he split Israel into two nations. Judah and Israel.
so are you claiming that every polyamorous family in the OT met with ill fate? i have not gone over it with a fine tooth comb, but unless that is the case (and i am skeptical) then does not your reasoning fall apart? because if the ill fates of each such polyamorous relationship is not specifically documented, does the reasonable reader have justification to presume that a good proportion of those families lived peaceful and productive lives, just like we presume most of the Jews lived peaceful and productive lives in the OT days? I think your logic is (1) presuming the worst and (2) concluding a predetermined universally bad prediction from it.
> Solomon, because of his 700 wives, came to a bad end as well.
Ya well another anecdote. Solomon it may be argued is an outlier, hardly an ordinary guy. He is at the top of the food chain, being a king, so lightning strikes the top of the tallest building. Does not mean all buildings are all evil.
> The OT does not advocate for polyamorous relationships. Quite the opposite, actually.
The OT is alternatively describing life in Israel/Palestine/Judah. There were good farmers as well as bad farmers. Just because some farmers were bad does not imply that all farmers are bad. Just because some shepherds were bad does not imply that all shepherds are bad. I think a very major lesson of the NT is that Paul was a bad tax collector before he became a good evangelist. The OT does not necessarily advocate polyamory but neither does it condemn it, unless we get into good shepherds, bad shepherds existing proves the OT condemns shepherds, good farmers, bad farmers implies that the OT condemns farmers, good fishermen, bad fishermen implies that the OT condemns fishermen, etc.
In short, you may be confused in your faulty logic. I suppose you learn this type of logic in sunday school so maybe it’s not so much your logic as sunday school logic. If so, I would encourage you to unlearn everything you learned in sunday school, read the bible afresh, and come to your own conclusions (in contrast to a sunday school level’s conclusions, or equivalent).
and then there is also this (almost forgot):
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.)
Yes. Maybe not in real life, but those individuals in the Bible who were polyamorous met bad ends.
The OT captured the life of the Israelites at that point in time. When they obeyed God, they had nice lives. When they didn’t God had no difficulty in sending them through Hell.
In the real world, the West was at its best when it kept to a Biblical marriage between men and women. However, because we want to spend our time emptying our gonads, God is letting the West fail. If we continue to fail, God will let us disappear.
I’m not the one that is faulty on this point. This is why God does not protect us from consequences.
Yes, and there is no command to polyamorous. Sociologists have noted that the most violent societies are polygamous ones.
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/19/why-polygamy-breeds-civil-war
> Yes. Maybe not in real life, but those individuals in the Bible who were polyamorous met bad ends.
I’m not clear on what you mean here. Anyway, we have some anecdotes but nothing like a logic capstone or even a law. actually, the law (Jewish law, the law of the chosen people) clearly allowed polygamy. Logically, G*d has no one to blame but Himself if Jewish law got screwed up to the point that it allows something that he considered evil.
> The OT captured the life of the Israelites at that point in time. When they obeyed God, they had nice lives. When they didn’t God had no difficulty in sending them through Hell.
I’m not sure when Hell was invented. Wasn’t it around 125 to 150 AD? So what are you saying here? That G*d condemned people to a hell which he did not even instruct them about until well after Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected? Why didn’t Moses mention Hell? Why didn’t Jesus mention Hell? If it is such a central concept to your argument. It does not make any sense. Hell is more or less a sunday school presentism, not a part of the OT or NT. Again, standard disclaimer, maybe hell is mentioned somewhere, find it for me in the bible and i will gladly retrace.
> In the real world, the West was at its best when it kept to a Biblical marriage between men and women.
That’s your present day opinion but it’s ultimately based on hand-me-down Greek/Roman law. Again, most societies are polygamous. I’m not sure any of us have the right to say we are happier than (say) Hawaiian culture, Tahiti culture, African culture, etc. in regards to family relationships. Those societies seem to do OK without our *condescending* “help.” (No wonder we are regarded as ugly Americans in some countries.) (Texas is booming. Therefore everyone should wear a cowboy hat, and speak with a drawl! Not to wear a cowboy hat is a sin!!)
> However, because we want to spend our time emptying our gonads, God is letting the West fail. If we continue to fail, God will let us disappear.
Sorry, it is said that G*d made us in His image, including our gonads. I don’t think you or I or anyone gets to pick and choose which parts of our bodies are good or evil. We got what we got. For thousands of years. If you have a problem with your gonads, i think it is a problem with you.
> I’m not the one that is faulty on this point. This is why God does not protect us from consequences.
There are plenty of happy polyamorous families in the world. Your eyes are closed. Your mind is closed. Your heart is closed. Is this G*dly? My recommendation- open your eyes. open your mind. open your heart.
> Yes, and there is no command to polyamorous. Sociologists have noted that the most violent societies are polygamous ones.
> https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/19/why-polygamy-breeds-civil-war
I’m sorry but you are quoting sociologists now to support your bible conjectures? you must be fairly desparate.
And the Economist? Is that now considered a reputable oracle of truth in FR-land? I must have missed the memo!
And it’s behind a paywall? You mean i gotta pay to see the “sociologist” references?
Africa has polyamory. Africa also has war. Therefore polyamory causes war. That’s the logic that you espouse??
Ehhhh... yuck. You truly need better arguments than this. This makes you look even worse than before. Stop digging the hole!! (Really!!)
(Did sociologists also note that Africa also has beer??) (Oh never mind...)
Let me put it this way. If you are determined to live a polyamorous life, go live that life. Have fun. Evidence on the topic is not relevant to you.
The Bible cautions against it and the sociological evidence speaks against it, but you are a free individual to live as you wish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.