@LeeWoofenden I did. The reasoning didn't use the Bible, hence me asking for some Bible verses.

@Birdie The whole first part of the most recent article (linked first) draws conclusions based on Bible verses. The last-linked article is entirely an analysis of Bible passages on the subject. Even the second-linked article does deal with some Bible verses at the beginning, though it is not primarily providing the biblical basis.

If you don't agree with my interpretation of the Bible, that's fine. But to say that "the reasoning didn't use the Bible" is simply not true.

@LeeWoofenden Statements like "It is this character that we have formed through our lifetime on earth, and up to the time of our death, that will determine who we will be married to in heaven." no Bible references, neither "During the course of our lifetime here on earth, we develop into the angel we will become. "

Section titled "What happens to us when we die?", no Bible references at all, builds its theology entirely on Swedenborg. "Who will we be married to in heaven?" references nothing, as do the next two sections.

Only bits that reference the Bible are the union of two souls in Mark 10 and the original 7 husbands question, which isn't exegeted at all.

"The history of marriage" section is pretty odd, because the reasons for marrying do not preclude love within a marriage.

The Bible makes that pretty clear, and love within marriages has existed since creation.

@Birdie That's pretty basic. Jesus said we must be born again. Paul said that in Christ we become a new creation. Nearly every prophet and evangelist in the Bible said that we must repent and begin a new life of doing good instead of evil. If these things don't make us into a new person, with a new character, then they have no meaning whatsoever. The entire Bible is based on the premise that we must build a righteous character instead of the sinful character that we start with.

And the fact of the matter is, as I said in one of the articles, that the Bible is not a manual on sex and marriage. Its main purpose is to lead us toward heaven instead of our natural course toward hell. Everything essential for that is clear in the Bible. Other things, such as the nature of marriage, eternal marriage, and so on, not so much, because the Bible is single-minded in its purpose, which is to save eternal souls.

If you think you're going to be able to find every single truth about every subject in the plain statements of the Bible, you're fooling yourself, and living in an illusion.

What you're ignoring is the dozens of Bible quotes in those articles that support the conclusions that Swedenborg came to, and the experiences he had in the spiritual world, and also my conclusions about the same things (which don't always agree 100% with Swedenborg's conclusions).

@Birdie I would suggest that you read the book I recommended in the article: Stephanie Coontz’s Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage. Projecting present-day social views onto the Bible is a guarantee of misunderstanding the Bible. And marriage in Bible times simply wasn't the same institution that it is in Western countries today.

@Birdie And where does the Bible make it clear that love within marriages has existed since Creation? Love is rarely even mentioned in relation to marriage in the Bible. It says that Isaac loved Rebekah. That's a very unusual statement in the Bible. I would challenge you to find even half a dozen clear statements in the Bible linking love and marriage. Perhaps you can. But it's simply not the way that the Bible usually talks about marriage.

There is some material about love in marriage in Paul. But very little elsewhere in the Bible, and practically none in the Old Testament.

Paul's views on marriage were fairly revolutionary precisely because he did make love an important part of marriage. Can you find any statements outside of Paul, earlier (or even later) in the Bible that "make it clear" that love within marriages has existed since creation? Does the Bible actually say that, or is that just some conclusion that you've drawn?

@LeeWoofenden This seems a very odd fight to pick. From Ephesians we know that the entire purpose of marriage is to image and model the loving covenantal relationship of Christ and the church. What Paul said may have been revolutionary, but only because he was reminding a world that was ignorant of God. Paul didn't invent or give purpose to marriage.

You may not see Paul's letters as inspired, but he was clearly building on the prophets, in passages such as Isaiah 54, Jeremiah 2, and of course Ezekiel 16

@LeeWoofenden All of Song of Solomon?

@LeeWoofenden I am sure that the Bible doesn't say everything about everything. If it doesn't tell us what marriage will be like in heaven then I have no other source of knowledge on the matter, so I would simply say "I don't know" rather than "you will end up married to your soul mate" and whatever other conclusions you pulled out of thin air.

If you can't source your doctrine of heaven and marriage in the Bible then it is entirely unlikely to convince anyone with a Berean spirit.

@LeeWoofenden The first article you linked, dealing with the seven husbands issue, has only the 3 passages about seven husbands, and then one passage about marriage joining two together. I'm not ignoring anything, I am simply unable to find in that article any Biblical support for your position.

@LeeWoofenden A huge concept throughout the entire Bible is the idea that God is the groom and his people are the church. Every time the Bible talks about God's love for his people, we are seeing love within a marriage described.

The exemplary marriage we are given is between God and his people, although of course only one of those parties behaves perfectly in that marriage relationship.

Isaac loved Rebekah, Jacob loved Rachel (before marriage also), Leah desired the love of her husband, Shechem is said to have loved Dinah in Genesis 34, Exodus 21:5 speaks of a slave loving his wife, Samson loved Delilah in Judges 16:4, Elkanah loved Hannah in 1 Samuel 5, Michal loved David in 1 Samuel 18:20, 2 Samuel 1:26 assumes that men love women (or perhaps vice versa).

Amnon loved Tamar (sinfully), Solomon loved many women (also sinfully) in 1 Kings 11:1, Rehoboam loved Maacah more than his other wives and concubines in 2 Chronicles 11:21, the king loved Esther in Esther 2:17, Ecclesiastes 9:9 assumes that husbands love their wives. Need I go on?

Those are just the verses that are explicit about love, but there are many more that show love through their actions.

Marrying for love is throughout the Bible and is not new, and love within a marriage is not just recorded, but expected and required!

That doesn't mean that one must necessarily marry for love, but husbands must love their wives and wives must love their husbands.

@Birdie In that article, here are the Bible passages quoted or referred to by link as part of the main argument: The three versions of the story being considered: Luke 20:27-40, Matthew 22:23-33, and Mark 12:18-27. Various parts of these stories are taken up throughout the article and considered.

Supporting passages used in the course of the article: Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Jeremiah 3:14; Isaiah 62:5; Hosea 2:16; Matthew 22:1-2; Matthew 25:1; Mark 10:6-9; Revelation 19:6-9. Incidental passages referred to that aren't part of the main argument: Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26.

By my count, that's fifteen total Bible passages, including twelve that are directly part of the argument. And I'm not counting multiple quotes of particular verses within the main story as found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This, once again, makes me wonder whether you actually read the article.

The first article linked quotes or refers to: Genesis 1:27-28; Genesis 2; Genesis 3; Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9.

The follow-up article on marriage in the resurrection ("Marriage in the Resurrection: The Deeper Meaning") quotes or refers to: Isaiah 62:1-5; Jeremiah 3:1-4:4; Hosea 2:14-23; Matthew 9:15; Matthew 22:1-14; Matthew 25:1-13; Mark 2:19; Luke 20:27-38; Luke 20:34-36; Revelation 19:6-9; Revelation 21:1-22:4.

If you are "simply unable to find any biblical support" for my position, I have to wonder how many Bible quotes and references are necessary to constitute "biblical support." Do I have to quote the entire Bible?

@Birdie No, you've made your point. And yes, love is mentioned in connection with marriage a number of times in the Bible. However, the example of Song of Solomon suggests that the "love" referred to in the Bible is not what we think of as marriage love today. It's almost entirely focused on the physical characteristics of the beloved. And considering that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, I have to question what sort of "love" he had for his wives.

As for the rest, yes, there are examples of husbands loving their wives and vice versa. But the idea that this means that marriage for love was the norm is, I think, mistaken. Keep in mind that marriages were commonly arranged. Isaac and Rebekah, for example, whose marriage story receives the fullest treatment in the narrative parts of the Bible, had an arranged marriage. The statement that he loved her came after the marriage was already arranged and contracted.

So it's highly doubtful that he "married for love." Rather, he came to love his wife after the marriage was already arranged for other reasons: primarily, that he should marry someone from his own clan.

In general, the "love" in polygamous marriages is not an example of what we think of as marriage love today. It certainly isn't a spiritual love. It is not a union of hearts and minds by shared beliefs and values. It generally has to do with propagating the family line and forming advantageous alliances between families, clans, and nations.

So I'll concede your point that love is mentioned in connection with marriage numerous times in the Bible. But I doubt that the "love" mentioned there bears much resemblance to what we think of as "love" today. And in the passages you mention, there are not many cases in which love seems to be the driving factor in bringing about a marriage. In most of them the love seems to have come along after the fact. Or it is mere lust and a desire to have sex with someone.

Another example: in the entire passage about the ideal wife in Proverbs 31:10-31, there is not a single mention of love. It's all about how smart and capable she is, how good she makes her husband and children look, and how well she reflects upon him.

Now, these are all excellent things. But you'd think that somewhere in there, it would mention the wife loving her husband and the husband loving his wife. But that is simply not part of the picture painted of what makes a woman an ideal wife.

@Birdie In short, though there may be examples in the Bible of people "marrying for love," such examples are few and far between. In most cases the love comes after the marriage is already contracted, or it isn't mentioned at all. As for any Bible passages saying that we should marry for love, I doubt you can find one. At best, that was the exception rather than the rule in Bible times.

@curiousdannii Precisely. The world was (and is) ignorant of God. And until fairly recently, marriage relationships that were anything like God's love for God's people were rare. Marriage was almost universally a legal, social, financial, and political affair. And the marriages recorded in the Bible are no exception.

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/01/589808670/…

I know I haven't been here in a while, but I thought some of you might get a kick out of this one.

It's an offshoot of the moonies, so you know they're nutters, but there's a striking similarity among some normalized churches in America.

The conflation of religion and politics is rampant in American churches. Though blatant idolatry involving guns and politics is rare, the sentiment is exactly identical. The veneration of the rifle is the natural and logical progression.

The equating of morality and political opinion is the problem. These churches should be assuring their members that differing political opinions is acceptable and unrelated to personal morality, rather than telling them how to vote.

Any opinions? Be careful, though, as that might seal your fate in Hell.

@fredsbend Here in Australia I've seen quite a few Christian friends on FB comparing the gun culture in the USA to idolatry. I think the comparison is very valid.

I'm also becoming more convinced that libertarianism is a deeply anti-Christian philosophy ;)

mobile.twitter.com/AlanLevinovitz/status/968836006106497024

This Twitter thread comparing gun culture to alternative health culture is also very compelling!

There's no doubt that some aspects of "gun culture" can be idolatrous... people trust their guns to protect them more than they trust God. But the same could be said for "big government culture" – people trust the government to care for them and protect them more than they trust God.

Same thing with libertarianism; people can trust themselves to protect themselves / provide for themselves more than they trust God

@curiousdannii How do you view government programs like welfare for the poor/eldery/sick?

@Nathaniel "big government" is a concept that only makes sense within the fallacious worldview of a libertarian

For me there are simply governments, and no possibility of an ideal sized government such that one could be said to be too big

Oh really? No government can be too big?

or maybe I misunderstood what you mean by ideal sized...

@Nathaniel they are in general wise strategies for helping people in a society that isn't really a community any longer

@Nathaniel it's a category that doesn't really make sense to me.

@curiousdannii Why not simply have a centrally planned economy that tells every individual what task to do and gives them what it deems to be the necessities of life?

How about this government also makes decisions about when a member of society is no longer useful and needs to be terminated?

at some point, hopefully, we can agree that a government has too much power over its people

@Nathaniel I don't see how either of those are even remotely parallel to collectivised health care

I'm not saying they are

@Nathaniel I don't think so

It has power within its scope. Government doesn't have power over science

A government that decides the elderly aren't worth being alive is wrong, not too big

But if 51% of the population votes to give the government that power, hoping that it exercises it correctly, that isn't a problem?

Governments can misuse their power, but within the scope of governing a nation-state, the power is theirs to use

I guess a government that didn't recognise the sovereignty of other states would be "too big"

A good point. And who defines what a "state" is?

As the US quite frequently says that xyz "state" is a "failed state" and therefore it's okay to invade

A tricky question. And one whose answers are likely to be circular

@Nathaniel I don't really understand what you're asking here

@Nathaniel I don't think so, more that they can't have

There are policies that governments shouldn't have, but that's different from powers

but you wouldn't say the same thing for individuals, right? You agree that there are powers that individuals shouldn't have.

This is too abstract for me :) I'm not great at political philosophy

But a state/government is not just the sum of its people

@curiousdannii Fair enough. But my core issue with "states" is how one defines them.

If I'm a single guy in an apartment and two thugs break in and say "we are establishing a new state and we outvote you 2-1, and we legislate that you don't deserve to live" am I breaking Romans 13 if I resist?

@Nathaniel a state is a state. Recognised by the others. Appointed but not visibly labeled by God

is the magic number 3, or 10, or 100, or a million?

If recognition is the standard, then why can't a few groups of thugs form "states" and recognize each other?

I've got to sleep. I'm sure we'll pick this up another time

:) okay

@Nathaniel they do even now. A whole bunch of micro nations support each other

There's an interesting question of how humanity went from the tribes of Noah's grand children to the seeming states that Abraham encountered.

In any case, we live in a world in which states exist, and that's the world of the NT

@curiousdannii There's really a bad taste in everyone's mouth regarding libertarianism. At it's base, libertarianism is "I don't want the government controlling my personal decisions." Unfortunately, those that hate charity and have no empathy have adopted the term to also mean "I don't want the state helping anybody with my taxes." The former is amoral. The latter is certainly anti-Christian and I'd say comes from an immoral attitude about charity.

But we were talking about guns. Gun ownership rights is not a uniquely libertarian point.

@Nathaniel If there's a stranger in my house in the middle of the night, my first thought will not be "prayer". It'll be "weapon".

@curiousdannii It's just a phrase. The actual size of government is somewhat irrelevant. But libertarians would argue that entire departments exist when they shouldn't (e.g. DEA, because drug use is a personal choice).

@fredsbend I'd turn that around and argue that the state is anti-charity – it has co-opted the care of the poor and elderly from the church and the family. Granted, the church and the family didn't put up much fight, to be sure, and the fact that the state has taken this over doesn't mean that the church/family shouldn't be involved.

But it encourages the breakdown of family and church connections and pushes people toward relying on government for the solution of their problems, rather than the much more biblical model of relying on the family and God's people.

@fredsbend Precisely; in that sense the gun is simply a tool that you employ like you employ a kitchen knife to cut vegetables. But I know people who behave like their 9mm is a magical talisman or a way to poke the eye of The Man... not a great approach.