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.
I do not understand what the statement "Some of us do not read the Bible that way means." What way? Why is that relevant? It seems to me that Mr. Lofton is not the one displaying an eccentric interpretation? He asks a straightforward question (maybe not in an irenic tone), Where does God ever explicitly state that He (She/It) approves of polygamy? The answer, No where directly, but since there were some Biblical heroes who were polygamists, that suggests that God approves is a reasonable and rational argument. However, it is only a contention, a supposition, a conjectural inference drawn from the narrative. Similarly, the opposition argument that the Biblical authors always point out the agony and domestic strife that comes with polygamy, e.g. Abram, Sarai & Hagar; Penniah & wives, Solomon & wives, David & family problems
is a rational argument that the Bible implies that God disapproves of polygamy. However, it does not support an absolute statement that the Bible condemns polygamy any more than the presence of polygamists in the Biblical narrative supports that the absolute statement that the Bible (or God) approves of polygamy. The weight of both arguments is the same, drawing a reasonable, but hardly irrefutable conclusion from circumstantial evidence. The attacks upon Mr. Lofton definitely seem a case of "me thinks that the lady protesth too much." Although not a Bible scholar, I am confident in stating that the Bible, neither attributing the statement to the deity, or elsewhere explicitly approves of polygamy. At most, several people are polygamists, and God does not directly judge or condemn their polygamy.
However, and I waited because I felt someone would quickly answer the question, at least for the king, the Bible does expressly forbid polygamy.
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: Dueternomy 17:17.
I know no reason to think that only the King should not have his heart turned from God, so it certainly suggests that the Bible and/or God disapproves of polygamy. As for Martin Luther's advise to Philip of Hesse, in direct violation of the Biblical teaching (he was a king), Luther, Philip and the cause of the Protestant Reformation all suffered from this foolish (and if one adopts eccentric interpretation) sinful advice.
It is scary, a professor of Business Law has to supply the Biblical answers.
From: "Paul Finkelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To: <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Recommendation...
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:28:59 -0400
Didn't Jacob have two wive and also childern with two "handmaidens" as
they were called? I am not at the office or home, so have no Bible to
check.
Paul Finkelman
Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York 12208-3494
518-445-3386
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/01/06 3:13 PM >>>
Marc Stern wrote:
>Jacob had four wives. And see Exodus 21:10; Deut 21:15 all of which
>assume polygamy.
>
>
In the context of an old testament that provides regulations for
virtually everything, down to what kind of fabrics to wear and what to
eat, it's hardly unreasonable to conclude that the lack of condemnation
of polygamy is evidence of God's approval. This is especially true when
he offered revelation both through and about men who engaged in
polygamy, and he allegedly gave them many blessings. What's the
alternative explanation, that it slipped his mind? That he saw fit to
tell us how to conduct ourselves in the most banal and irrelevant items
like how long to keep our hair, but couldn't be bothered to say "only
marry one person"? Or for that matter, "don't own other human beings"?
It just doesn't add up.
Ed Brayton
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
