Hi KFC,

I too have been thinking about marriage which as I'm sure you know was the very first institution that God set up in the Garden.  

She certainly did look very sad....but nonetheless, she was there by his side which many can't understand why. Marriage is  for better and for worse....for good times and for bad times. This was definitely the worse. Some marriages can withstand infidelties...I guess it depends upon the individual.  

It was reported that the man who replaced Spitzer admitted having several extra-marital affairs, and evidently his wife admitted having them too!  (

 

This is the exact type of attitude that justifies and perpetuates this myth that it is impossible to be monogamous so go ahead and do what you want. This is paramount to the myth that you don't have to be responsible for yourself anymore (actually the two and interrelated). Kinda sad when major publications can publish this type of stuff and there is no outcry to us being compared to dumb animals with no other thoughts than base instinct driving us.

Adultery is normal? "Making our own Morality 101" according to the NY Times. But you know I betcha they believe it...it's based on believing Godless Evolution Theory which goes if we evolved from animals; then why not act like animals, blah, blah, blah...

Hey Lula, do you ever post on an article that's not religiously or politically oriented?

You should go check out my newest blog entry, Memories of War and Catholic Sanctums, because you should contribute more to the community than just on religion and politic blogs. I'm beginning to think you're a one-trick pony.

[/blog pimping]

KFC, I agree with the premise of your article. I hold the family to be completely sacred. So does the church I belong to. For those who want to learn more about the importance of the family in Latter-Day Saint beliefs, check out The Family: A Proclamation to the World, which sums up quite nicely the basics of our beliefs about families and their importance in God's larger plan.

[/religion pimping]

And yay for Philippine dating ads on your blog! Gotta love advertisements. I know they pay the bills, but how many people on this site are clicking "Find a Philippine hottie" anyway?

Maybe I don't want to know how many people are, in fact, clicking on those ads.

it's all over the place as tho it's ok.  I'm glad they fixed their problems and were able to move on but the rest of the story isn't finished yet and once you go outside the bond of matrimony looking towards another it does irrepairable damage.  It can be fixed to a point but there will always be a weak point where it was sewn up. 

Yes, there is no cut and dry rule here.  There are way too many variables involved. 

I would't have blamed her if she was not there.  He didn't keep his end of the deal, why should she?   But in the end kudos to her.  She did what I couldn't have done. 

Yes, seems as tho they are trying to tell us something? 

Well you know SC I've always admired the Mormons and their love and faithfulness to their family as a whole.  They are a great example to the world that families matter and are quite successful when they stay together no matter what.   

My blog?  I didn't see them.  All I can see are side links advertising marriage repair. 

 

 This is an issue that hits me close to home.  I just wanted to say that I agree that the best thing you can do for your kids is to have a happy, healthy marital relationship.  It's not always easy but I think it's always worth the effort and prayers to keep a family together. 

I believe both but I don't think the one proves the other. In fact, they have nothing do with each other in the direct way you imply.

G-d is one, He doesn't have a partner (although some religions claim He does). He wants us to have a partner, ideally for life, but it has nothing to do with us being created in His image. Many animals have only one partner and keep that partner for life, if they can. It's not specific to mankind (and, in fact, mankind is a late arriver at the practice).

Traditionally, scripture has not been interpreted as G-d wanting a man to have "one" partner and four or more wives were and are legal in many jurisdictions where law is based on scripture.

In fact, monogamy was a Roman thing and only became part of Christianity as it moved away from Judaism. In Judaism polygamy was legal (and still is in Sephardic jurisdictions). Islam, another religion ultimately based on scripture also still features polygamy. (Islam does limit it to 4, as does Sephardic Judaism now.)

 

Either way, since monogamy and polygamy are both common in the animal kingdoms, saying that we are different from animals (which is true) does not dictate that we must follow the one or the other. Both are features we would share with certain animals but not with others.

The difference between mankind and animals is that we would practice one or the other not because nature makes us but because our law tells us to.

 

P.S.: Did you know that the adultery law only applied to women? Man couldn't commit adultery since they could freely add another woman to their list of wives. Hence the need for another commandment "Do not covet your neighbor's wife" to put some limit on this.

 

Marriage is supposed to be a picture of Jesus and the church.

Jesus' parents weren't even married.

 

No, that's not correct.  David committed adultery with Bathesheba.  He was an adulterer.  John the Baptist accused Herod of Adultery.  So not sure where you're getting your info from but adultery is one going outside the bounds of matrimony whether male or female.   It's quite clear from scripture both old and new that adultery is a two-way street. 

"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."   Lev 20:10

"Whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."  Matthew 5:31

"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."  Matthew 5:28

yes they were.

"When Joseph woke from sleep he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife.....Matthew 1:24

What does that have to do with anything, by the way?

(I ignore Christian changes to G-d's law.)

I am getting my info from the fact that Jewish law allows polygamy. A man could thus not commit adultery except by coveting the wife of another man, which is a separate commandment. (That is why both commandments exist. Otherwise one would be enough.)

As you quote, it is "with a wife of a neighbour" that is the problem, not the act of sleeping with a woman not his wife. Sleeping with a woman not one's wife was not and is illegal under Jewish law (except when declared so by the rabbis like in Europe).

Yes, sorry, you are right. Jesus' mother and Jesus' father were married.

It was claimed that G-d and Jesus want us to get married, one husband, one wife, monogamous, and that this is clear from the Bible.

It is therefor relevant whether

a) G-d actually says anything like that when He addresses the subject of marriage. (He does not as He allows polygamy and does not insist on monogamy.)

G-d sent His messenger (if Jesus was such) in a way that would support monogamous relations and normal family life. (He did not as, assuming Jesus was in any way special, G-d apparently decided to father a son into an existing family.)

If Jesus wants us to do what he says, and His father supports it, I find it very relevant to know whether Jesus' own family lives that way.

 

Leauki,

I think you misunderstand.  God NEVER allows poloygamy. Then or now.  Men did take more than one wife but this was never part of God's plan.  Everytime they did, they ran into trouble.  So, no it's not allowed in God's plan at all.  In fact he does address monogamy right from the get go in Gen 2:4 when he said:

"Therefore a man shall leave his Father and his Mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh." 

One man for one wife.  Later in the NT when Paul addressed the qualifications of a Pastor, he said the husband of one wife.  Nowhere in scripture did God say it was ok to have more than one wife.