Originally Posted by stereoman
...I'm not sure what constitutes "serious study" Ron.
A couple of college literature courses with the Bible as literature, three years of Methodist-oriented Bible study, and a number of years of teaching an adult SS class. Pace, I am not going to argue anything from a theological/doctrinal point of view - only from the point of view of what the scriptures say as opposed to what people think that they say.

Quote
Maybe you could give an example of what you found to be shoddy, or demonstrating lack of knowledge.
How about this, a complete representation of the story:

Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile?

There was no epiphany, much less any sneakiness on the patriarch's part; Sarai and Abram had discussed her infertility for years. It was Sarai who proposed - in accordance with custom - that he try to have children by her Egyptian servant, Hagar. What I think you see here is the problems that arise from the weakness of Abraham's faith in God's promise - or at least that's what a couple of rabbis have told me.

Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.

And in this, as in the story of Abraham, there is the moral lesson of jealousy, betrayal, covetousness and a lack of faith. I think that the lesson from the story of the patriarch's personal lives is not than polygamy is acceptable but that the failure to act always in faith leads to problems not anticipated and difficult to deal with that continue to bother us years later.

The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family.

Well, to borrow a line from the Blues Brothers, he was indeed on a mission from God. Itinerant, unmarried rabbis were not uncommon in that era, and the Levite law allowed for what is called a Nazarite vow - such as undertaken by Samson and by John the Baptist and probably by Bar Abbas. And Jesus's specific injunction is to his disciples - you can follow me or you can follow the way of the world - not to a general dismissal of marriage as unimportant.

The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.

Paul's approach seems to be based on the expectation of the imminent return of Christ; therefore, the institutions of the world were of less importance than the spiritual ones. It has also been suggested that Paul himself was a homosexual, and that he - as a Pharisee - would have seen it as unacceptable and would have recommended marriage as an alternative to what he considered an unacceptable behavior. He admonishes married Christians to be humble and faithful toward their spouses

Quote
For starters, I would offer her example of whom the Apostle Paul was addressing his comments about "committing shameless acts with men" to. I found that reference intriguing, and one I had not really thought of (disclaimer: I am not a "serious student" of the Bible). Do you think it demonstrates lack of knowledge, or less than a smattering of serious study?
Paul's letters to the various churches addressed both their good and bad points. I think that he is specifically addressing problems reported as existing in various parts of the very small Christian world and not necessarily some general misbehavior on the part of the rulers and the aristocracy.

Hope this helps to clarify my position.

Life should be led like a cavalry charge - Theodore Roosevelt