Christian Polygamy

[johnbastion]

You're quoting examples of old covenant people and saying this is better than the original plan God gave for man, which Jesus quoted in Matt 19?

 

[HonestTruth]

I'm sorry. I'd take Jesus' words over the Mosaic law. The old covenant is out aside..abolished. According to Hebrews.

I think Jesus knew what He was talking about.

Deuteronomy 4:13: "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone."



Are you sure the Ten Commandments are abolished? or are they magnified?

See Isaiah 42:21 where we are told the Messiah will "magnify" - that is enlarge and fulfill the Law. Christians fail to understand that by ''abolishing'' it was meant he was expanding it.

 

[Hank77]

Naomi's brother in Law? You mean Boaz?
Where does it say he was already married?

Sorry, when I say Naomi's brother-in-law, that would be the closest male kin to Naomi's husband. That was not Boaz, as I'm sure you know.
In verse 4:6, he says that if he were to take Ruth to be his wife it would destroy his inheritance, meaning that he already had children who would inherit from him.
If he just could buy the land then he was adding to his inheritance for his children. But if he took Ruth and gave his kin a son, that son would inherit that land. Not only Ruth and this son cost him to take care of, if he had other children with her his present children would have to share their inheritance with Ruth's children.
You can find the explanation in the Targum or in several commentaries. Josephus also wrote about it.

 

[dayhiker]

To me we can't use Mt.19 to say poly wives is wrong because Jesus isn't asked about multiple wives nor does Jesus say multiple wives is wrong.
Jesus is asked about divorce and is addressing the divorce situation of his day where there was a debate about Dt.24:1 and what it meant.
God in Num.12 supports Moses when he takes his 2nd wife, even saying of Moses that Moses is faithful in all his house.
In 2 Sam.12 Nathan the prophet in confronting David about his adultery says God gave David multiple wives and if those weren't enough God would have given him more.
So what was he stealing Uriah's wife.

So God is the same God in the OT as in the NT. God supports multiple wives in the OT. Where did the idea of one wife come from. History shows that Greeks had the idea of one wife and Roman, who ruled all the lands the NT was written in, had it in their laws that a man could only have one wife. It was the pagans who had one wife laws not God's people the Jews. What's more in NT times the Jews petitioned Rome for an exemption to this law and is the only people to receive an exemption from the one wife law.
Thu we have Paul writing to Gentile churches saying deacons are to be the husband of one wife.

 

[SwordmanJr]

It's all there in Matt. 19.

*[[Mat 19:3-9/NASB]]* %v 3% Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" %v 4% And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, %v 5% and said, `FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? %v 6% "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." %v 7% They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" %v 8% He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. %v 9% "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

You still have not shown where Jesus said anything against polygyny in those verses. He was specifically addressing divorce. Introducing a nuance as proof positive of a subject He clearly was not addressing is eisegetical reconstructionism.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I recall my dad saying something about people getting stuck on English translations where the singular "wife" is translated rather than the plural by many translators in order to try and keep our English translations "culturally relevant" for us here in the West, and that it's too bad that so many see the singular "wife" translation as unlimited license for them to inject meaning into the context that, realistically, is nowhere addressed, or even hinted at.

I think he rightfully concluded that doing that is a form of "intellectual dishonesty" that has become so dominant in Western thinking that an entirely new religion has surfaced as a result, springing up out of the soil; a religion which is utterly unfounded within the Hebrew and Greek texts our Bible are translated from.

I certainly wouldn't take another wife. The one I have is enough for me.

But, if I were to abuse the scriptures to the extent I see going on here to justify telling other men that they are wrong for involving themselves in polygyny, I can't imagine that I could look others in the eye and pretend that I'm infallible in my assumptions simply because people I admire taught such things to me as truth, all without even taking the time and effort to stop and think that maybe, just maybe, there's something to the challenges I'm getting; asking myself, "Maybe I'm being stiff-necked, and justifying that by the strength of tradition and social/cultural pre-programming that most dare not challenge."

Critical thinking is a lost art by most products of public education these days.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Rather than dueling with people who embrace traditional falsehoods, I like composing music that sets instruments against each other that sound better than the banging gongs and clashing cymbals of dead and worn out argumentation. Here's one I performed featuring a duel between a piano and a hammer dulcimer. Beauty is much more preferable to status quo.
https://soundcloud.com/https%3A%2F%2Fsoundcloud.com%2Ffourwindsangels%2Fbuilding-on-sand-remix

 

[HonestTruth]

Swordman,

I put you on Follow. This because you make the best posts on CF.

Here's a challenge for you - on another thread I mentioned belly dance as a sacred art form which, in many cultures, is recognized as the world's greatest affirmation of matrimony and maternity. Not coincidentally, it comes from societies that practice polygyny. May I ask that you compose music that is influenced by these cultures and which can be used when the dance is performed? I would love to see you post such music here.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Swordman,

I put you on Follow. This because you make the best posts on CF.

Here's a challenge for you - on another thread I mentioned belly dance as a sacred art form which, in many cultures, is recognized as the world's greatest affirmation of matrimony and maternity. Not coincidentally, it comes from societies that practice polygyny. May I ask that you compose music that is influenced by these cultures and which can be used when the dance is performed? I would love to see you post such music here.

Um, I've never composed that kind of music. Don't they do a bunch of clanking and clashing with cymbals, tamborines and bells? The stuff I've heard doesn't seem to have much of any melody to it. I'm not sure I would be proficient at that style. Which of my posts is close to what you're looking for?

Best posts? I don't know about that, but I appreciate it that you and some others appreciate them. I like meeting up with cool folks.

About the most appreciation I've had from folks about the music I write is a song I worked with Grammy Award winner Eric Whitacre.

https://soundcloud.com/https%3A%2F%2Fsoundcloud.com%2Ffourwindsangels%2Ffly-to-paradise

 

[SwordmanJr]

I did all the instrumentals for that one. The size of that choir he directed for the above song is about 5900+ voices strong. As you probably heard, I put a REAL pipe organ into the instrumentation. Most people can't imagine what it's like playing the king of all instruments, one that can only fit inside a cathedral. What a rush!

 

[Honey Parallel]

Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Matthew 19:4-6
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

 

[dayhiker]

Yes we believe those scriptures.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Matthew 19:4-6
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Somebody better go and tell all the evangelical preachers out there that the Lord violated their misinterpretation and misrepresentation of His inspired word.

 

[Hetta]

Im Curious About Christian (Non Mormon ) Women Views On Polygamy? Do You Thinks Its Ok Biblically? Would You Be Up To It?

No and no.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Im Curious About Christian (Non Mormon ) Women Views On Polygamy? Do You Thinks Its Ok Biblically? Would You Be Up To It?

Most wouldn't. Feminism is so deeply set into the Western psyche that most women find it impossible to even consider such a marriage. Feminism reminds me of that song by Queen, "I want it all. I want it all. I want it all, and I want it NOW!"

 

[Hetta]

Most wouldn't. Feminism is so deeply set into the Western psyche that most women find it impossible to even consider such a marriage. Feminism reminds me of that song by Queen, "I want it all. I want it all. I want it all, and I want it NOW!"

It has nothing to do with feminism, only for a desire for one woman for one man. Sure, if you think that's women 'wanting it all', that's what you'll think, but polygamy has many risks and dangers for women, and for their children, so no the vast majority of us would prefer not to be one of a harem. Besides the fact that most men can't handle one woman, let alone multiple women.

 

[SwordmanJr]

It has nothing to do with feminism, only for a desire for one woman for one man. Sure, if you think that's women 'wanting it all', that's what you'll think, but polygamy has many risks and dangers for women, and for their children, so no the vast majority of us would prefer not to be one of a harem. Besides the fact that most men can't handle one woman, let alone multiple women.

It has everything to do with feminism. It's feministic theology that demands polygyny is a sin, and that twists scripture to try and prove such. However, that's another debate entirely.

But seriously, marriage is ALWAYS risky, to everyone. Who can say otherwise? In marriage, I learned the extent of my own selfishness, and about the necessity to give myself sacrificially to me Lord first, and then to my wife. I don't know any families with plural wives, but my dad did, and he told me many things about what he saw.

So, until you've taken the time to walk in their shoes by listening to their testimonies, then you only know the bad side of it all from the public media and warped Bible stories that are demonstrably false. The usual diet of misinformation and total lies our culture vomits in order to smear what it doesn't like is tiring to say the least.

On a more positive note, we all have the choice as to whether we remain a product of what my dad called "socially engineered Christianity" (I think that's what he called it), or to walk in that wilderness with the Lord, allowing Him to tear down all the falsehoods of pop religion, and let Him fill us with His Spirit and His Truth.

Amen?

 

[Hetta]

It has everything to do with feminism. It's feministic theology that demands polygyny is a sin, and that twists scripture to try and prove such. However, that's another debate entirely.

But seriously, marriage is ALWAYS risky, to everyone. Who can say otherwise? In marriage, I learned the extent of my own selfishness, and about the necessity to give myself sacrificially to me Lord first, and then to my wife. I don't know any families with plural wives, but my dad did, and he told me many things about what he saw.

So, until you've taken the time to walk in their shoes by listening to their testimonies, then you only know the bad side of it all from the public media and warped Bible stories that are demonstrably false. The usual diet of misinformation and total lies our culture vomits in order to smear what it doesn't like is tiring to say the least.

On a more positive note, we all have the choice as to whether we remain a product of what my dad called "socially engineered Christianity" (I think that's what he called it), or to walk in that wilderness with the Lord, allowing Him to tear down all the falsehoods of pop religion, and let Him fill us with His Spirit and His Truth.

Amen?

Then I guess that feminism must rule the world then because almost every single culture and religion has rejected it as a way of life, and yet those cultures and religions are far from "feminist."

You haven't walked in their shoes either, you've heard about them second or third hand, and really the Bible stories are "warped"? That's interesting coming from a Christian. Jesus never endorsed multiple spouses. You'll find everything that Jesus said related to wife and husband - singular. Never wives. And as for your dad - great guy I'm sure, but no authority I am interested in accepting.

 

[HonestTruth]

Jesus never endorsed multiple spouses. You'll find everything that Jesus said related to wife and husband - singular. Never wives.

See my earlier post re Levirate marriage.

 

[dayhiker]

Then there is the parable of the 10 virgins and the bridegroom coming for them.