Recommendation...

[Ed Brayton]

Stephen R. Prescott, Esq. wrote:

> Basically a lurker on this list, wisdom would no doubt be for me to 
> remain silent.  Yet, "fools rush in where angels fail to trod."  I 
> have no idea who Mr. Lofton is or the nature of the group with which 
> he is associated.  However, acknowledging the stellar credentials of 
> his critics, its seems to me that the arguments of Professor Finkleman 
> and supporters are the ones that are circular.  The basic premise that 
> people in the Bible did something, or at least that "partiarchs" did 
> it means that God sanctions and condons the behavior is begging the 
> question.  Certainly, people in the Bible committed murder, adultery, 
> and became intoxicated (Noah immediately after the flood episode 
> ends).  As I think Mr. Lofton is stating, the mere fact that a "super 
> hero" like Noah, of whom God does not express any disapprove, does not 
> merit an absolute statement that "The Bible permits intoxication." And 
> that is the sum total of Professor Finkleman, et al's argument:  Some 
> Biblical characters did it, therefore God approves of it.
>

You're missing an important distinction here: the Bible DOES condemn 
murder, adultery and intoxication. It does not condemn polygamy, 
anywhere. Thus, it's a far more reasonable conclusion to draw that 
condemnation of polygamy was not a part of that moral code that is 
allegedly from God. Given that the OT contains an astonishing array of 
things that it condemns, even in the most minute and irrelevant of 
things (length of hair, type of fabric one may wear, etc), it is surely 
reasonable to conclude from the fact that polygamy is not condemned, and 
that God blesses polygamists greatly and makes them leaders throughout 
the Bible, that polygamy is not frowned upon from the perspective of the 
Bible.

Ed Brayton