This was a link over on Facebook:
Mate debate: Is monogamy realistic? - CNN.com
If you were to judge the success rate of monogamy by the sex lives of public figures, perhaps couples should change their marriage vows to say, "Till a tempting new partner do us part."
It garnered quite a few comments. The comments were mixed, ranging from "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law" type responses (Satanic from Aleister Crowley) to some such as mine, as follows:
Well, if one reads the Old Testament in light of the New with a concerted focus upon what Jesus said and did, then the Old Testament rules are too low. The low rules are for those with harder hearts. The soft-hearted care deeply about how things such as infidelity hurt the other.
Does consenting to anything other than monogamy or celibacy actually come harm free?
The Old Testament allows incestuous marriages too.
In certain strains of Islam and Judaism, sex with prepubescent children is acceptable. Too me, it's beyond ignorant. There is major rationalizing going on to get that far over into dismissing the harm of that confusion.
Jesus said that we'll end up as the angels in heaven that is to say, not married. Consider the implications here and now.
The standard was higher in many areas before this postmodern wave, was it not? This movement to a new "modern" is looking more and more like moving from an already distorted version of Christianity to worshiping something getting closer and closer to Dionysus again. When will "Christians" start having group sex in their churches, or has it already happened quite a bit but just below the mainstream radar?
Are orgies ever really Christ-like? I know they aren't. You can't tell me that there aren't orgies going on with this poly- this, that, or the other stuff either.
No one is going to be able to keep a lid on it. Licensing is definitely trending toward libertinism. Hedonism is all the rage. Would-be Christians need to consider.
I, for one, openly and firmly reject this trend to relaxing the standards consciously set higher by Jesus. What's happened with the movement to being perfected?
Someone wrote: "Whatever happened to common sense without debate? Sheesh. Part of "loving your neighbor" is leaving them the hell alone."
I responded with this:
Who here takes Communion with an unrepentant Aleister Crowley bent upon subverting everything that is Holy and right? I refuse. The blood he offers, I don't want.
Also, leaving one's neighbor alone includes leaving him lying by the side of the road, dying. Do you want to be left there? I don't.
Where are you going? Where are you headed? Where are you trying to take others? What kind of world are you working to bring forth?
Jesus came to divide, and I wish it were already over; but it's God's will.
In his good time.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)