Read 1 Tim 3:1-5 where this direction for church leadership comes from; you’ll realize this argument doesn’t make sense.
Leadership is required to have one wife because they are **setting an example** for the rest of the congregation of faithfulness…the same way they are setting an example in the other qualities that are mentioned (self-control, not an excessive drinker, not a bully, not quarrelsome, not greedy, etc).
That means this same behavior is expected of the congregation **as well** (otherwise who are they setting an example for?)
Polygamy is a sin that was regulated & not approved under Mosaic Law (the same way modern laws regulate divorce). Jesus returned believers to God’s original design in Matt 19:4-6.
There is no record of Polygamy being allowed in the early church.
Mosaic Law acknowledged a sinful reality and limited its damage through regulation, just as modern laws regulate divorce without endorsing it as good. Regulation is not approval.
Jesus made it clear that laws like these were made because of the hardness of man’s heart, “but it was not like that from the beginning” (Matt 19:8).
Monogamy was established from the beginning of creation (Gen 2:18-24), Polygamy was regulated under Mosaic law (Deut 21:17 &17:17), & Jesus returned believers to God’s orignal creation & design (Matt 19:4-6)
There is no instance of a polygamist being admitted to the early Christian church.
Those practicing sexually improper relationships were removed from the congregation (e.g. a dude who slept with his father’s wife 1 Cor 5:1-3)
@Brent_Atlas700@MatNuclear Agreed, neither is “White”. African American is a far better term.
“Black” (at best) describes an Afrocentric subculture unique to the United States born out of our pre-US colonial period.
@FaytuksNetwork And this was technically a segway from having just talked about the male candidate’s ass….full context here (skip to 51:20) https://t.co/iWHQ3V3awW
Exactly, these people always think these scenarios are so simple. Why risk innocent people getting hurt or killed to protect a potential threat? If all this accommodation of flagrant lawlessness is going to happen what is the point of paying higher taxes?? The priority should be the protection of the law-abiding public, not the vagrant.
Better to send the police first to assess the situation & keep the public safe and then call in a mental health professional if possible. Public safety should come first.
Jason Oppenheim breaks down the EXACT math on why LA landlords lose money every month…
“If you're buying a fourplex today for $2,000,000... it's probably gonna cost you about, call it $12,000 a month to carry that property... You're not gonna get $12,000 in rent.”
Peru is about to get the Bukele treatment. This is the new Peruvian president, Keiko Sofía Fujimori Higuchi.
The caption on the original video says “We announce the creation of the Unified Command to confront organized crime, an elite special force made up of the National Police and the Armed Forces.
We are uniting capabilities, experience, and operational strength to act in a coordinated way against criminal organizations and restore security for all Peruvians.”
Nithya Raman vs. Graham on police being called on homeless people in LA…
Nithya: “If there's not a crime happening there...”
Graham: “There is a crime, they’re doing drugs.”
Nithya: “Well no if they're just sitting on your sidewalk...”
Graham: “No no, they're doing drugs.”
Nithya: “Well, that's a different situation. What I’m talking about is someone sitting on your sidewalk talking to themselves potentially.”
Graham: “Oh, no, no, no, no. I mean that’s not what I’m talking... anytime the police have been called, it’s because they’re doing drugs in public.”
@twotwosmakefive@Kurrco Exactly what I’m talking about. I found imagery like that interesting before…but now it seems corney in retrospect when he actually started judging people’s lives