Monogamy

[EnemyPartyII]

Because perception is stronger than truth.

Well then we're all rather damned from the start, aren't we? Because we can never know the truth, only our PERCEPTION of the truth

 

[david_x]

Well then we're all rather damned from the start, aren't we? Because we can never know the truth, only our PERCEPTION of the truth

We can know the truth because God gave it to us.

"I am the way the truth and the light..."

(I don't have an opinion on the subject, stuck somewere in the middle)

 

[Nadiine]

Well then we're all rather damned from the start, aren't we? Because we can never know the truth, only our PERCEPTION of the truth

Actually this is going Off topic to monogamy into other avenues -

And yes, WE ARE 'DAMNED' from the start - this is why CHRIST CAME to save us from our fate.

 

[Nadiine]

It's very creative Nadiine but honestly it's not right to bend the truth.

What was bent in my statement exactly? That we don't know right from wrong in our consciences?

I gave scripture that teaches that directly... I'm confused as to what you find 'bent'?

 

[ShermanN]

1Ti 3:2
(2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 5:9
(9) Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,

Again. The bible means what the bible says. If you have to alter the obvious and clear meaning of the verse, to fit into your beliefs, then you need to examine your beliefs and your motives. These 2 verses are not complicated or hard to understand in any translation. They are clear and to the point.

When you say "obvious clear meaning" you should say "obvious clear meaning TO ME". And to assign negative motives to someone who understands the word differently than you do is judgemental and, frankly, shows ignorance, pride, and closed-mindedness. If you're not willing to consider a different understanding of the Word than what is currently "obvious and clear to you", that's ok, just state such, but don't accuse others of negative motives.

If one takes "husband of one wife" literally then in order to be a leader in a local church one must be a man and married. Furthermore because it also says in v.4 that he must have "children in subjection with all reverence", not only must a leader be a man and married, but he must also have children (as in more than two). That's the "obvious and clear meaning" isn't it. Thus women, singles, widowers, and even a married man with no children cannot be elders. Only married men who have children can be elders. -- Of course, I'm being sarcastic. This is the kind of foolishness that one arrives at if one is focused on what is literally said, as opposed to trying to understand what the author meant by what he wrote.

 

[Sojourner<><]

What was bent in my statement exactly? That we don't know right from wrong in our consciences?

I gave scripture that teaches that directly... I'm confused as to what you find 'bent'?

It's the application of the scripture you mentioned to the issue we're discussing that I think is misleading. In other words, you don't seem to be concerned with searching out the truth on the matter of polygamy, but you would rather suggest that those who might arrive at a different conclusion than your own are disobedient to the truth because of seared consciences.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I don't want to be too hostile now

 

[Sojourner<><]

Sinful adultery? I don't think so.

 

[Sojourner<><]

What was bent in my statement exactly? That we don't know right from wrong in our consciences?

I gave scripture that teaches that directly... I'm confused as to what you find 'bent'?

While debating, itt's a good rule of thumb to attack a person's argument and not the person. To ignore a person's argument and attack the person is not a truthful way to reach a conclusion.

 

[Nadiine]

It's the application of the scripture you mentioned to the issue we're discussing that I think is misleading. In other words, you don't seem to be concerned with searching out the truth on the matter of polygamy, but you would rather suggest that those who might arrive at a different conclusion than your own are disobedient to the truth because of seared consciences.

I merely claim that if polygamy is so promoted and condoned by God, then why does the vast majority of born again Christians stick to Monogamy and reject the chronic practice of polygamy?

Why is it only the Mormons that had promoted this so profusely and openly?

PS: Happy Birthday!

 

[Sojourner<><]

I merely claim that if polygamy is so promoted and condoned by God, then why does the vast majority of born again Christians stick to Monogamy and reject the chronic practice of polygamy?

Why is it only the Mormons that had promoted this so profusely and openly?

Is it possible that the vast majority of born again Christians exist within the bounds of a Greco-Roman culture? Where this is not the case it seems that either the people are forced to accept monogamy or there is a shortage of the Gospel. However, this is really just conjecture and is a matter more suited for anthropologists and historians rather than intermediate Bible students such as ourselves.

 

[ShermanN]

This is EXACTLY what I've stated before - people "study" the Bible to a literal DEATH of it's pure meaning.

Word searches can help, but we can analyze them to make them fit practically anything we want. I've seen homosexuals turn EVERY verse that condemns homosexuality to mean "temple prostitution" in every single reference. It cannot be further from the truth when you read it inside it's context and in the FLOW of statements.

This is just another example of this. In our "higher education" of using a Strongs Concordance, we've warped the bible & stripped it's message of nearly all clear meaning as it was intended - the result: confusion.

I'm still waiting for some examples of polygamists in the NT church who were promoting Christianity - any examples to show us this is still allowed from the OT.
AS I demand of homosexuals to show me examples of GAY ELDERS operating in the Christian churches to show me homosexuality is widely accepted in the NT.
(Neither exist).

Nadiine, just because someone understands the Word differently than you doesn't mean that they "study the Bible to a literal death of it's pure meaning." Claiming someone else has bad motives only shows a lack of respect for yourself and for others. The truth is we all have a mixture of good and bad motives and we need to walk in grace towards eachother.

Concerning "higher education", I hope that everyone at least uses a concordance! Various study Bibles are good. Commentaries are helpful. etc. There is a wealth of information available to those willing to invest their time and money to access it.

Of course, the more we understand the context (social, historical, cultural, literary, and authorial) the more likely we are to understand what the author meant and not just what we assume he meant. And only the Lord knows our hearts and the motives behind such study.

A Text without a Context is a Pretext-an assumed meaning that often misses the author's intent. Most often, this is the case in "proof texting"-yanking scriptures from their context and using them to "prove" one's point.

Concerning the examples that you demanded of polygamy being promoted in the NT, there are none. As I explained before, if one understands the cultural context, Jesus use of the word "two" indicates that He endorsed monogamy. The apostles would have understood that and would certainly have said nothing to contradict it.

However, though Jesus endorsed monogamy, He did not legislate monogamy or forbid polygamy. But I've already explained that, and to repeat the argument here would be beating a dead horse. But of course, I don't mean beating a dead horse (an idiomatic phrase), what I mean is it would be a useless waist of time and effort. It would almost be as useless as writing a post full of proof texts and then copying and posting that post again.

 

[Nadiine]

Is it possible that the vast majority of born again Christians exist within the bounds of a Greco-Roman culture? Where this is not the case it seems that either the people are forced to accept monogamy or there is a shortage of the Gospel. However, this is really just conjecture and is a matter more suited for anthropologists and historians rather than intermediate Bible students such as ourselves.

So people can't make educated opinions based on what a majority displays in a worldwide scope?
Even secular laws prohibit polygamy in a large number of nations - I would think there's a reason for this if it's God's allowance and even plan for mankind.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Concerning the examples that you demanded of polygamy being promoted in the NT, there are none. As I explained before, if one understands the cultural context, Jesus use of the word "two" indicates that He endorsed monogamy. The apostles would have understood that and would certainly have said nothing to contradict it.

Sherman, do you think my argument about the letter to the Hebrews and Mat 25 is valid? Granted, the NT doesn't outright endorse polygamy, but it seems to infer that it is honorable as marriage in general is honorable.

 

[Sojourner<><]

So people can't make educated opinions based on what a majority displays in a worldwide scope?
Even secular laws prohibit polygamy in a large number of nations - I would think there's a reason for this if it's God's allowance and even plan for mankind.

One has to consider the possibility of bias in making such a judgement.

 

[Sojourner<><]

In God's realm, faithful ALSO means to stay with the ONE GOD and seek no other gods, doesn't it?
That is the ULTIMATE in faithfulness; staying with the one and forsaking all others??

True, but as the male/female roles in procreation are physically different, the male/female roles in relationships may also be different.

 

[dayhiker]

... premature post ... see next post

 

[dayhiker]

HI all,
Thought I'd make a general statement.
I believed monogamy was the only expression of marriage that God accepted for most of my 55 years on this panet. In the 70's, my 20's I read what the Bible marriage teachers were saying about marriage, believed it and saw it as an amazingly beautiful thing. I still see monogamy was a great way for a couple to relate to each other.

Over the years as I've studied history and many other subjects, I've come to see that the marriage that was being taught as this great thing, was really the marriage that is called bread winning husband/stay at home mom. Well, the height of this marriage was the 50's and even then it wasn't perfect and didn't work for everyone. We clearly know this now as a very large precentage of people aren't following that model of marraige.

What's more I've learned that marriage has been in a continual state of flux that is so extensive that anthroplogist can't even come up with a single definition of marraige. (Marraige, a History). In general our world today is so differant from the world of the Bible that we in general we don't understand their world execpt thru much teaching. It my belief that pastors are doing a misservise in teaching the Bible as if the Apostles were writting to people that think just like we do today!

Three years ago I set out to look at the topics of marraige, sexuality, Law and Grace and the message of Jesus to the pharisee and Paul's message to the Judizers. The result was that Jesus convicted me of being to narrow, too legalistic, too unloving, too judgmental. I could not see the grace of God on all the people that Jesus had saved.

I was asked a few weeks ago to go to a "Bible councelor." Neither of us knew each other. He clearly knew his Bible. Could quote Bible verses better than I can. After 30 mins of talking he started to say things like "You know your sining." "You are a lustful man." "The Jesus you claim isn't the Jesus of the Bible, I'd be ashamed to know the Jesus you think you know."

I responded with things like "I love Jesus with all my heart soul and strenght." "I mediate in God's word day and night." "I love God's people." "I ask the Holy Spirit to guide my life and teach me the truth."

He in no way acklowdeged that I had a relationship with Christ, saying "If you are saved" "You need to repent" "You know what your saying is WRONG." Then starting me in the eyes for 5 mins trying to intimidate me into felling guilty." Then going on to say that the drugs I'm on wouldn't help me by covering up my guilt. I've not taken any drugs, not even a drink of wine!

As I'm listening to him call me a lier for 45 mins, I heard Martin Luther's vioce as I imagine he sounded when he wrote against the Jews for not accepting Jesus as their Messiah, saying that their synagues should be burned to the ground, their homes destroy and they should be driven from the country. Which became as I've heard historians comment on it as a virus that worked in German history for 400 years that lead in part to Nazi Germany. Probably why the Luthern church couldn't stand up and condemn Nazism.

Well, I hope none of you go thru an experience like that. Its not plesant, but the grace of God was with me and I didn't say one negative thing to him. As I left I thanked him for his diagnosis. I can't imagine that I'll go talk to him again.

He ofcourse would say what he was saying was love. I saw it as being a Pharisee. It was more important for him to give me the word than to love me. Praise God there are brethern that do love me and most of all I feel the love of Jesus.

Well, I enjoy the discussion here, please keep learning from each other.
dayhiker

 

[Nadiine]

HI all,
Thought I'd make a general statement.
I believed monogamy was the only expression of marriage that God accepted for most of my 55 years on this panet. In the 70's, my 20's I read what the Bible marriage teachers were saying about marriage, believed it and saw it as an amazingly beautiful thing. I still see monogamy was a great way for a couple to relate to each other.

Over the years as I've studied history and many other subjects, I've come to see that the marriage that was being taught as this great thing, was really the marriage that is called bread winning husband/stay at home mom. Well, the height of this marriage was the 50's and even then it wasn't perfect and didn't work for everyone. We clearly know this now as a very large precentage of people aren't following that model of marraige.

What's more I've learned that marriage has been in a continual state of flux that is so extensive that anthroplogist can't even come up with a single definition of marraige. (Marraige, a History). In general our world today is so differant from the world of the Bible that we in general we don't understand their world execpt thru much teaching. It my belief that pastors are doing a misservise in teaching the Bible as if the Apostles were writting to people that think just like we do today!

Three years ago I set out to look at the topics of marraige, sexuality, Law and Grace and the message of Jesus to the pharisee and Paul's message to the Judizers. The result was that Jesus convicted me of being to narrow, too legalistic, too unloving, too judgmental. I could not see the grace of God on all the people that Jesus had saved.

I was asked a few weeks ago to go to a "Bible councelor." Neither of us knew each other. He clearly knew his Bible. Could quote Bible verses better than I can. After 30 mins of talking he started to say things like "You know your sining." "You are a lustful man." "The Jesus you claim isn't the Jesus of the Bible, I'd be ashamed to know the Jesus you think you know."

I responded with things like "I love Jesus with all my heart soul and strenght." "I mediate in God's word day and night." "I love God's people." "I ask the Holy Spirit to guide my life and teach me the truth."

He in no way acklowdeged that I had a relationship with Christ, saying "If you are saved" "You need to repent" "You know what your saying is WRONG." Then starting me in the eyes for 5 mins trying to intimidate me into felling guilty." Then going on to say that the drugs I'm on wouldn't help me by covering up my guilt. I've not taken any drugs, not even a drink of wine!

As I'm listening to him call me a lier for 45 mins, I heard Martin Luther's vioce as I imagine he sounded when he wrote against the Jews for not accepting Jesus as their Messiah, saying that their synagues should be burned to the ground, their homes destroy and they should be driven from the country. Which became as I've heard historians comment on it as a virus that worked in German history for 400 years that lead in part to Nazi Germany. Probably why the Luthern church couldn't stand up and condemn Nazism.

Well, I hope none of you go thru an experience like that. Its not plesant, but the grace of God was with me and I didn't say one negative thing to him. As I left I thanked him for his diagnosis. I can't imagine that I'll go talk to him again.

He ofcourse would say what he was saying was love. I saw it as being a Pharisee. It was more important for him to give me the word than to love me. Praise God there are brethern that do love me and most of all I feel the love of Jesus.

Well, I enjoy the discussion here, please keep learning from each other.
dayhiker

This post leaves me with more questions than understanding...
I don't care to know all your personal issues - but if you're thinking polygamy and other types of sexual issues are fine, then who's to say this man you met with is so wrong in his diagnosis?
Who wants to go back to someone that doesn't tell us what we want to hear about the spiritual condition we believe we have??

Nobody here can say anything either way - but I don't discount his 'counseling' (that he's a legalist) just becuz you disagree with him - and I can't know the situation nor do I need to.

Follow God's word, it's very clear.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Sherman I have a response to all that you said, but I am spending time with my family right now, so I will answer two questions you had for me.
Originally Posted by Romanseight2005
Something else, the husband of one wife would not likely have been the phrase chosen to allude to faithfulness, since we are always referred to as the bride of Christ, not the husband.

What I was saying is that your definition of what this scripture meant, is not likely at all, even if it were metaphorical, and not literal, since we are always referred to as the Bride of Christ, not the husband of Christ. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense at all for the words husband of one wife to be used to make the point that the Elder must be faithful, as in to God. I believe that he would have said faithful. not husband of one wife. God is not a God of confusion, and the people of that day would clearly have understood the meaning of husband of one wife. As to the meaning of the words chosen to write the Bible, I will ask you this. Do you not believe that God is capable, and has chosen to preserve his words, and illuminate the Holy Spirit filled believers to understand the meaning?Do you think that He purposely allowed His words to be mistranslated, and misunderstood, when the bibles were being written in english? If we are all going to have to play a guessing game to try to understand what He meant, then every christian of this era is lost, and God has decided not to speak to us. If this is true, then we have nothing to base our faith on, because the way we learn how to be saved is through those scriptures, and according to you, maybe those scriptures didn't mean we could be saved at all, because we really don't know what it means, and God wants us to be confused.