Ran across this: in my journeys with Google: "Schiavo Case Proves Marriage Amendment Leaders are Anti-Marriage" on the website Pro-Polygamy.com.
The writer, a self-described "Christian Polygamist," claims that Fox, conservative web sites, talk show hosts, and others, are really "liberals" who want a nanny state, as demonstrated by their refusal to contenance both euthanasia and group marriage. Obviously, we were trampling Michael Schiavo's rights as a de facto poly.
I'm speechless.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Goodreads Feed
11 comments:
I was fascinated by reading that. I don't think you really read it though. That page is against euthansia. I read it as saying that conservative judges saw facts that others did not. I think it's funny maybe you did the same thing that article says conservative media did. You didn't really check it out and then you drew conclusions that did not apply. For my amusement, I looked up polygamy at wikipedia. It says polygamy is not group marriage. From what I read in the article, many big names in Bible had more than one wife. Maybe Christians have done to the Bible the same thing the article says conservative media did. It is funny! What I read from the article is to check out facts before drawing conclusions.
I only mentioned wikipedia regarding the uncorrect calling polygamy as group marriage.
For the rest here is quote from the linked pro-polygamy.com article.
Many started to then accuse Michael Schiavo as a “common law bigamist.” However, to discredit Michael Schiavo for his subsequent relationship with Jodi Centonze is to equally discredit the Bible. While Schiavo is just a regular man and certainly not as great as any of the Biblical heroes, the fact of this issue remains, nevertheless. If involvement with another woman so many years later means that such a husband is discredited as thereby being “incapable” of love for and commitment to a first wife, then the implications are clear. Since polygamous Moses authored Genesis through Deuteronomy, such Christians making those accusations would equally have to discredit and throw out those books of the Bible. They would also have to throw out the Psalms, written by polygamous David. And, of course, that means other important polygamists in the Bible - such as Abraham and Israel - would have to be perceived as having no credibility either. God forbid.
Here is another -
The Schindlers were incorrectly referred to as “Terri’s family.” But technically, they were not “her family.” Terri’s marriage with her husband, Michael, was her real family. As the Bible’s polygamous Moses wrote in Genesis 2:24, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
That particular verse reveals a serious irony in this case, too. Many of the same marriage amendment leaders usually mis-apply that Genesis 2:24 verse to very liberally re-interpret it to manufacture their man-made unbiblical anti-polygamy doctrine. Specifically, they absurdly suggest that a man cannot be “one flesh” with each of his wives – even though the polygamous author, Moses (who wrote that very verse!), had obviously been “one flesh” with each of his two wives. While such leaders try to incorrectly use that verse to liberally justify their unbiblical “one man, one woman” marriage amendment, they conveniently overlooked the first clause of that verse as it applies to the Schiavo marriage. Children leave their parents - and their marriages become their new family. As such, Terri’s family is her husband, not her parents.
At the end of the article, it includes these links -
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/remember-moses-wrote-it/
and
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/one-flesh/
Some interesting other pages at that biblicalpolygamy.com site too.
I am really enjoying this information. Look what I found at that same pro-polygamy.com site -
Marriage Amendment is Anti-Israel
It tells story of Israel's polygamy! Funny.
Since the anonymous commentator on this post finds the pro-polygamy author insightful, lets take a somewhat closer look. A little fact checking reveals that the pro-polygamy site author ignores most anything that is in the record that casts Michael Schiavo in an unfavorable light:
pro-poly: "it is on public record that Terri's parents, the Schindlers, even comfortingly encouraged their distraught son-in-law to 'start dating' again."
omitted: "'I looked at that as maybe he was starting to take a step in the right direction and get his life back together,' Bob Schindler said in a 1993 deposition. 'He's still a young man. He still has a life ahead of him.' The Schindlers later said that they urged Michael to see other women because they ultimately hoped to gain guardianship of their daughter." (Source: Miami Herald, March 24, 2005) If the Schindler family story is correct, it turns out to be understandable that they might want to have Michael Schiavo "move on" and leave Terri's care in their less conflicted hands.
pro-poly: "The lawsuit award was distributed to Michael Schiavo in February, 1993. On Valentine's Day, 1993, the in-laws showed up for a visit with Terri as they normally did. Michael was there when they arrived. The in-laws soon began asking about their getting a portion of the $300,000 'loss of consortium' award from Michael. They alleged he had promised to give some of that award to them. He was outraged and digusted."
omitted: Bob Schindler testified under oath that Michael had pledged to share that award with them to help care for Terri. Michael testified that he didn't. Michael admitted in court that he then lied about having received it. (Source: Miami Herald, March 24, 2005)
also omitted: Schiavo's convenient "remembering" Terri's wishes in early 1993, very shortly after being awarded $1 Million in the lawsuit at the end of 1992 for the ostensible purpose of applying to his dear wife's therapy.
I really don't feel like going into how pro-poly only cites one side of the medical opinion in the case; Thrown Back has a lot of useful info.
This sort of fact-checking quickly becomes tiresome, especially given that the poor woman's already dead.
What I find informative is that the pro-polygamy.com article never makes direct quotes from the involved parties. Quoting direct statements from Schindlers or Shivo themselves proves less. The public records does more to convince me.
I also find it funny. Protestants are glad they stood up to correct against the Catholic traditions. Back then they told Catholics that relying on centures of tradition does not prove truth. Now Protestants do same thing now as Catholics did then. When other Christians point out issue of polygamy in the Bible, Protestants do what Catholics did. They rely on their traditions and history. Funny.
What I find informative is that the pro-polygamy.com article never makes direct quotes from the involved parties. Quoting direct statements from Schindlers or Shivo themselves proves less. The public records does more to convince me.
I also find it funny. Protestants are glad they stood up to correct against the Catholic traditions. Back then they told Catholics that relying on centures of tradition does not prove truth. Now Protestants do same thing now as Catholics did then. When other Christians point out issue of polygamy in the Bible, Protestants do what Catholics did. They rely on their traditions and history. Funny.
Mr. T quoted
The Schindlers later said that they urged Michael to see other women because they ultimately hoped to gain guardianship of their daughter
Funny to use that quote if it's even true. If it true, it admits they tried to trick him into seeking other women so they could then use it against him. Dishonest and that admits it.
They also had admitted in court they would never accept removing tube even if Terri had a living will for it. Mr. T's quote shows they would even lie in any way to get that goal.
Mr. T persuades me more against the Schindlers. Funny.
I am finding all this investigation interesting.
treefrog, thank you for being nice.
As I am investigating, I have found much interesting information.
An article,
It's Divorce, not Polygamy
at biblicalpolygamy.com
answers the Matthew 19 argument very sensibly. Really. You are going to want to read that. Funny. When Jesus spoke about one flesh, he was quoting the writing of polygamist Moses but did not condemn Moses for it. Seems to me that Christians are mis-reading what Jesus really said.
Very interesting things I am finding. There is even a christian polygamy organization, called truthbearer.org that is not mormon at all.
At that site, I found a 6 mini-chapter section, called,
The "Grace / Law Hypocrisy"
Follow through the 6 chapters linked on that menu page. Those christian polygamists show that they have not "perpetuated the religion of ancient Israel", as you thought.
As my first in this thread was about not checking the facts, I find it important that we really all need to do that. Thank you for being nice, though.
My investigation is so much fun.
I agree good question to consider, although I would not call what could be political expediency or fear a cover up. I also do not suggest any enlightenment ideas any more than what Jesus did with Pharisees or Protestants did with Catholics.
When the Protestants showed the errors to Catholics, when was that? 1500s or some time like that? The Catholics then had 1500 years of their traditions behind them and still Protestants said they were wrong. So now Protestants have had 500 years since then of their traditions and they now use the same Catholic arguments of tradition?
Isn't it possible they could also be wrong? Were not "God's People" wrong about Jesus when they crucified him? Were not Catholics wrong about saved by faith doctrine when they persecuted Protestants? Doesn't Christian history show the repeated pattern of "God's People" repeatedly making a doctrinal mistake and being hard-hearted when a reformer explains the mistake?
Historically, I am not sure we can accurately say whole Bible was in its current form at exactly the time of Jesus. I always thought the New Testament was a series of testimonies and letters written by apostles at that time. That's true, right? Those were collected and put together a few centuries later. From what I am seeing so far, the New Testament books themselves do not seem to ever speak against polygamy. So, I am thinking it could only be later opinions from readers who formed such opinions against polygamy.
This investigation is very fascinting.
At truthbearer.org site, I found a big book from 1800s. Its all right there online no charge. It lists out the history of the early Christian church and those things about polygamy. Interesting.
The History and Philosophy of Marriage
or
Polygamy and Monogamy Compared
That's easy.
Lord. I Cor 12:3.
The Christ, the Son of the living God. Mat 16:16.
Now, who do you say that He is?
So you're Catholic. That explains everything. treefrog, I won't bother you anymore.
Post a Comment