A valid point, the Bible does condemn certain items, so we do not have to infer the Biblical view from circumstanial evidence. However, that cuts both ways. The Bible condemns drunkness. Yet, Noah is in no way criticized in the Biblical text for his intoxication. Rather, a son Ham is condemned severely for not covering up the results of his father's sin. God (or at least according to the author, God Himself not only does not condemn Noah's intoxication, but punishs one who took advantage of Noah's sin. In this case we can be absolutely certain that the silence of God does not demonstrate approval since intoxication is expressly condemned in the Biblical text.. Therefore, the seeming silence of God in response to polygamy does not prove divine approbation, only that God and/or the Biblical writers chose not to deal with that topic, just as likely an inference, it was not relevant to the spiritual point the author was making.
Moreover, at least for rulers the Bible does explicitly forbid polygramy in the passage I referenced, Deuteronomy 17:17. For complete context, vv. 17 -20. By the way I am hardly a Bible scholar, but that passage is in many catechisms and I am old enough to have been taught Bible stories in Sunday School (and public elementary school). Although I had to get on line to remember the reference it is a verse that immediately came to mind. [www.olivetree.com lets one do a textual search of a dozen plus versions, remember 3 or 4 words and it takes 30 seconds to find the passage.]
The reason I posted was the shrill, indeed almost abusive tone of the attacks on Mr. Lofton. My basic contention: The argument that since the Biblical narrative does not condemn (although it never explicitly approves) a number of important Biblical characters who were polygamists, polygamy seems not to violate the Biblical moral code is a legitimate inference from the circumstantial evidence. However, several times the flat out statement was made that the Bible supported polygamy. Mr. Lofton asked for a reference, where was this explicit approbation oif polygamy in the Bible? (well he asked where God approved of it.] The response was the statement of fact that so and so was a polygamist, not as an arguement from inference, but rather it was asserted that was a positive statement of approval, which of course, it is not, coupled with ad hominem attacks (eccentric) up Mr. Lofton.
You are probably right, I may just not get it. However, it seems to me Mr. Lofton is correct. You and the others have a very plausble circumstantial argument, but the repeated statement of his critics that the Bible approves of polygamy is simply not true, or at least misleading. Arguably, the Bible approves of polygamy; yes, that is true, one can argue that. [At least it would be if Deut. 17:17 were not in the text. The irony is that if even the most strident Biblical literalist, who tried to limit the verse to rulers, the reference to Luther would be wrong since it was to a ruler. Poor choice of exmaple.] But to bluntly state that the Bible approves of polygamy, as it does monotheism for example, seems an overstatement.
In the first month of law school in Legal Research and Writing it seemed the course consisted of forced every student to rewrite the endless most recent draft of his or her memo to be precise and accurate in what the case stated. Again, perhaps I just do not get it, but it seems to me that it is time to be precise. The several times repeated statement that the Bible approves of polygamy is an inference, a reasonable one, but misleading, if not wrong. I still think that Mr. Lofton was correct, and that the tone of the criticism of him, strident and personal reflects that. My brother-in-law is a minister. He often quotes a ministerial proverb, "Weak point, pound pulpit."
Thank you Mr. Brayton for your response. We will probably just have to agree to disagree, but I appreciate you interacting with a non-specialist such as I.
Steve Prescott
From: Ed Brayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Recommendation...
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:14:43 -0400
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
_______________________________________________
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.
