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 ...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124093142.htm
But, as I said, you are free to live as you wish.
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124093142.htm
Just to note in passing that you have apparently shifted away from the bible and towards what is presumably modern sociology as justification for denigrating polyamory, which at the most basic level is just a way that individual people choose to relate to each other.
Hey maybe you can pass a law. I got a good title for you, call it “Prohibition.” That will be sure to make it a success.
It should be self evident that people can and should relate to each other peacefully and with mutual consent in whatever way they choose. Otherwise, it is not free choice but mandated choice on a fundamental human life style.
Furthermore, polygamy reduces jealosy which is a very palpable cause of violent crimes of passion.
As to reduction of pool of available mates, I would say that this would have the beneficial effect that more women can have more offspring since their polyamorous husbands can afford to support multiple wives in their family. This quickly gets philosophical since the question of whether or not a population boom is desirable arises. In at least one sense, however, it may be beneficial, since otherwise polyamorous societies would eventually displace monogamous societies since the latter do not reproduce as rapidly (or the latter actually declines in population over time).
Thus the monogamous aspect of monogamous Christianity may lead to it eventually being evolutionarily extinguished by societies which embrace and encourage polyamory.
The next logical question would be, is that what you prefer? It seems... (beyond the unnatural aspects of simply acknowledging human nature) self-destructive.
I use both. The Bible gives us rules and science and consequences explains why those rules exist.
However, as I said, if you are determined to go your way any way, then go your way. Nobody can stop the man who is determined to go his own way despite being warned.
Love is not enough, despite the song. :)
We were created to function in a particular way and refusing to function that way will lead to disfunction.
The West was strong because the West was sexually integrous. The West is losing its way as it becomes sexually unintegrous.
I prefer a society that functions the way people were created to function. Our days of scientific and social developments are likely over because we have become unintegrous to our sexuality. We are being allowed to blow away like dust in a strong wind.
[who uses He/They pronouns]
(facepalm)
> https://www.openbible.info/topics/marriage_between_one_man_and_one_woman
I could but won’t argue every single point that that essay makes. For one, sake of brevity. For another, it is dishonest.
Here is an example of its dishonesty:
“Matthew 19:4-6 ESV
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.””
This passage is totally ripped away from the context. what is the context? Logically, if the essay were honest, Jesus would have been previously asked by the Pharisees “What constitutes a G*dly marriage, monogamous or polyamorous style?”
Then Jesus’ response could truly be regarded as the answer to the question what constitutes a G*dly marriage, monogamous or polyamorous style.
However, that is *not* the question that Jesus was asked.
In fact, the Pharisees asked Jesus a totally different question:
“2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?””
Therefore Jesus’ answer should not be interpreted in *any* way other than as to a specific answer to the specific question of whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife.
Why? because this is question that Jesus was answering! Not the sunday school write-in question about monogamy versus polygamy!
I only skimmed it but it seemed that I had refuted many of the other points, and still other points are afflicted by a similar lack of honesty in interpretation.
So here is a clue for you. Get your mind straight, and stop wallowing in these low grade non-proofs.
Seek wisdom, and only true wisdom, not a validation of sunday school logic you were force fed when you were 7 years old.
When you have found an intellectually honest essay that you believe promotes your point of view, post it here for all of our benefit.
open your eyes. open your mind. open your heart.
The Bible has made it clear that a Godly marriage can only be between a man and a woman. No matter what you do to justify any other arrangement, it is not a godly marriage.
You are justifying the unjustifiable.
Christ wrote the Torah, so what the Torah says is permissible is what Christ would have permitted.
Christ gave a harm reduction response to the Pharisees. He basically, if you are bound to not obey then this is what you do to create the minimal harm. It does not mean, however, that the minimal harm is God’s ideal for man.
Amen and so true.
> I use both. The Bible gives us rules and science and consequences explains why those rules exist.
I think the monogamous-only crowd is actually a holier-than-thou crowd consisting largely of hypocrites. Why? because most — let’s just say many married people cheat. And 50% or more allegedly monogamous people (need statistic here) get divorces. Now, the bible or at least Jesus almost totally has ruled out divorce. (I guess only the Protestants don’t think so, because Henry VIII.) So if you want to get on a religious high horse, maybe consider preaching to the alleged “Christians” that they should follow Jesus to the letter by refraining from divorce. As a starter!
Hey, just a thought.
> We were created to function in a particular way and refusing to function that way will lead to disfunction.
Well only “Christians” and a few bonobo monkeys practice monogamy. And many of the “Christians” only pretend.
The remainder of G*ds creatures including most humans practice polyamory in some form. If you don’t think polyamory is natural, well think again. Your problem is with G*d (and not me, and not with polyamorists). (Nature has spoken!)
As for your “science,” (going TL:DR here) I reject sociology as a science. Sociology is the deceptive abuse of statistics (usually) to espouse a statist point of view under the guise of science. I strongly advise that you also reject sociology as a science. Sociology is at best claptrap and at worst mind poison. Stay away!! Common sense still works!!
Peace out!
Seem kind of defensive. If you hate Christians, maybe there is a Democrat site you would like.
> The Bible has made it clear that a Godly marriage can only be between a man and a woman. No matter what you do to justify any other arrangement, it is not a godly marriage.
Presentism.
> You are justifying the unjustifiable.
Prudishness.
Christ wrote the Torah, so what the Torah says is permissible is what Christ would have permitted.
You may have your history dates screwed up. Torah preceded Jesus by ~400 years.
> Christ gave a harm reduction response to the Pharisees. He basically, if you are bound to not obey then this is what you do to create the minimal harm. It does not mean, however, that the minimal harm is God’s ideal for man.
I do not know what you are saying at all with this. It is late in my time zone. You neglected to address most of the points I raised. Therefore I probably cannot help you unless you revisit what i have written before and demonstrate that at least you correctly understand the points that I have made for you. Good luck.
I asked a pastor once why it seemed that God was okay with multiple wives. He said God was more concerned with them worshiping other false gods at the time, and they had to get that right first. Which they did, finally. After Babylon invaded and destroyed everything.
I don’t claim to be perfect. It’s not a holier than thou thing. It’s, if you want the best for yourself and to have the best society, thing.
I totally get that married people do cheat and most people aren’t equipped to know how to have lifetime marriages. But the consequences are the same. The farther that we wander away from sexual integrity, the closer to disappearing as a society that we get.
God is not going to fool around on this point. Whenever Israel stopped being sexually integrous, He let Israel suffer from the consequences of that and God told Israel that, if they insisted on going their way, that God would make them a rumour of a nation because they would be a disappeared nation.
Yes, the Christian way is the way that we were meant to function. I’m going to stand firm on that, despite whatever imperfections we have as a society.
Most of those humans you mention are trying to flee their society because of the values of their societies. Their sexual unintegrity is making their societies terrible places to be.
You are free to accept or reject what you wish, but God will not spare you from the consequences of your choices in life. If the West perists in what it is doing, the West will become a rumour to other civilizations.
> Seem kind of defensive. If you hate Christians, maybe there is a Democrat site you would like.
Non-responsive to any points I made. Respect is earned. OTOH, you are not even trying. And welcome to FR.
Not Presentism. Alwaysism.
No. You are justifying what cannot be justified. God said no, so your disregard to what God has said no to cannot be justified.
Christ is the OT Adonai. He was the Fire at night and Cloud by day. Every time, in the OT, you see the use of the word Lord, in a divine sense, they are talking about the Adonai, the preincarnation of the earthly Christ.
Let’s use a parallelism to try and explain harm reduction. God doesn’t really want us to eat meat, because we are taking lives when we do that. However, God permits it. However, when God permitted it, He told us which meats to eat to prevent harm to us.
He allowed meat to be eaten, but not all meats. Just the least harmful kind.
If a person is not willing to live in a Godly marriage, which is a lifetime commitment, then God has created procedures to be followed in order to cause the minimal harm to the person and society in question.
Think of the parable of wine and wineskins. God can only give truths when we are ready to receive them. If God tries to get ahead of where we are ready, then anything He says will just fall on deaf ears.
In that sense, your pastor was correct. There is a priority list with God as to when truth was to be shared to help our societies develop. Getting rid of the false gods were at the top of the list and everything else was secondary or tertiary.
But that doesn’t mean those secondary or tertiary priorities were not to be heeded or were unimportant. We just weren’t ready to receive them yet.
Just as the thief on the cross was only ready for salvation through Christ, it does not mean that truth stopped with the salvation through Christ. If the thief on the cross had managed to survive and did start following God, God would have brought to his mind more truths.
It’s the same for you and I. God desires to have us drink from the well to our full, but how much we can drink will be upto us and how ready we are to drink from the well of life
At this moment, Muslims seem to be on the ascendant and many Western nations suffer from low birth rates. Eventually, there won’t be enough young people to take care of the old people in Western societies. You can keep your sexual hangups. The way we are currently going, a few generations from now, “Christian” churches will be razed for mosques. You will have kept your sexual whatchamacallit. And no one will remember, or care.
That’s because of the weakness of the West and not because Muslims are strong. If the West got its act together and repented, we could send the Muslims back to where they came from, or to where they should be, in a very short order.
We are being paralyzed through our indulgences and lack of repentance. If we don’t repent, we are doomed.
But we aren’t doomed because Muslims are strong. We are just weak.
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.