Monogamy

[mcart909]

No woman who intimately loves her husband is "OK" with hearing him in the next room, carrying on with the other woman in a sexual session!

Provisions could be made to prevent this, lol.

If they sincerely aren't bothered by something like that, I'd question the level of love or their possible lack of spirituality or something.

You're turning jealousy (a sin, last time I checked) on its face and making it seem like it is a moral requirement to feel jealous--how's that for irony! Perhaps the onus should be on the woman to move to a higher spiritual plane and overcome her jealousy.

 

[ShermanN]

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.

I think you misunderstood my point concerning 1 Tim.3.2. I believe "husband of one wife" meant "faithful in marriage (if he's married) ". It was not a statement for or against polygamy. It was not talking about being faithful to God, but being faithful in practicle everyday relationships, especially marriage if one is married.

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.

First of all, thank God that salvation is not dependant upon us understanding anything; if it was we'd all be in a world of hurt. Concerning the inspiration of scripture, yes scripture is inspired and most of it is relatively easy to understand and transcultural. However, some of it can only be understood correctly if one understands it through the cultural lenses of the ancient near-east. Scripture translation is far from a "guessing game", it's a science. Not only is it a science, but it is also an art - that's why there are so many different English translations though there is only one Greek text. When we read an English translation we are thus dependant upon the integrity, spirituality, and scholarship of the translators. Not only that but when we sit in our churches we are also dependant to some degree upon the integrity, spirituality, and scholarship of the leadership.

Understanding the Word is no "guessing game" it's a disciplined spiritual science that requires both the heart and the head. Paul told Timothy to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Tim.2.15". As I said, it requires both the heart and the head. If our hearts are not right (for example - filled with pride), then no matter how much "evidence" we're shown, we will refuse to change because we know we are right. It requires the head in that we have to do our best and use all the tools we have available to understand something that was written indirectly to us. The Bible in a sense is a love letter from God to us, but it is also a historical document, a collection of wise sayings, the story of God's interaction with the people of Israel, etc. All of these things and much more should be taken into consideration for the disciplined student of the Bible.

Between the heart and the head though, by far the most difficult of all to overcome is problems in the heart. Head issues (ignorance) can be corrected with a little information. But issues of the heart (pride, self-righteousness, selfishness, etc.) require repentance and a forsaking, even death, to self! And one of our biggest obsticles to overcome is our cultural predudices!

God is love, and love communicates. How many times though has your spouse said "xxxxxxxx" and you heard "YYYYYY"? If we misunderstand something spoken to us in English, how much more are we apt to misunderstand something written to us in another language, from another culture, across a distance of 2000+ years! The confusion is not on God's part but on our part because of our ignorance and especially because of the wickedness of our hearts.

 

[ShermanN]

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.

You are kind of proving my point for me. Thank you. There are obviously times when the bible is prophetic, and or symbolic, and obvious times when it is literal, and or instructional. These verse are instructions on how to structure a church. To try to take them any other way than literal would be an attempt to fit a doctrine.

So If I understand you correct, you believe that Paul meant to legislate that only a married man with children could be an elder in the church, and thus he meant to exclude all women, single men, married men with less than two children, and married men with two or more children but who have one or more children who are not faithful to God. All of these people are excluded from qualifying for leadership. It that what you are saying?

And later in 5.9, Paul meant to exclude any widows from ongoing support that had been the wife of more than one husband.

If you believe either of these "literal" translations, then I really believe that you are missing the point, the intended message of what Paul wrote.

 

[ShermanN]

Nadiine, I'm out of time for today, so just a brief reply to your previous question concerning would polygamy every be God's will?

Short answer - yes. In the OT it was actually commanded, the Leverate (sp?) marriage. If a man died and left a widow with no children, it was his brother's responsibility to raise up children for his brother through his brother's widow. In fact, Onan was killed by God because he refused to do so.

Beyond that we have two very different beliefs about the OT. I believe that the NT is built upon the OT, whereas you believe that the NT should be understood apart from the OT, that Jesus changed everything. Major difference in what we accept as biblical norms and will allow to influence what we believe.

Just a short answer, I'll share more later as I can.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[mcart909]

Here's some food for thought:

WHY MAY NOT A WOMAN HAVE A PLURALITY OF HUSBANDS?
Because a woman's heart is so constituted, that it is
impossible for her to cherish a sincere love for more than
one husband at the same time. It is even difficult for her
to believe that a man can cherish a sincere and honest love
for more than one woman at the same time. It is difficult
for her to believe it; for she cannot comprehend it. Her own
instincts revolt against the thought of a plurality of
husbands, and judging his feeling by her own, she does not
see how a man can want, or at least can truly love, a
plurality of wives. But, as this point involves a
constitutional difference of sex, it is one in which we must
be aware that our feelings cannot guide us. A man can never
know the infinite tenderness and the infinite patience of a
mother's love, except imperfectly, by reason and observation.
His experience does not teach him. His paternal love does
not exactly resemble it. So a woman can never know the
purity and sincerity of a man's conjugal love for a plurality
of wives, ex-
Page 217
cept by similar observation and reason. Her conjugal love is
unlike it. Her love for one man exhausts and absorbs her
whole conjugal nature: there is no room for more. And if she
ever receives the truth that his nature is capable of a
plural love, she must attain it by the use of her reason, or
admit it upon the testimony of honest men.
THE SUN AND THE PLANETS; OR MARRIAGE LIKE GRAVITATION
It would be as impossible and as unnatural for a pure-minded,
virtuous woman to have more than one husband, as for the
earth to have more than one sun; but it is not unnatural nor
impossible for a pure and noble-minded man to cherish the
most devoted love for several wives at the same time: it is
as natural for him as it is for the sun to have several
planets at the same time, each one dependent on him, and each
one harmonious in her own sphere. To each planet the sun
yields all the light and heat which she is capable of
receiving, or which she would be capable of receiving, were
she the only planet in the sky. Each planet attracts the sun
to
Page 218
the utmost of her weight, - the exhaustion of her power; and
the sun returns her attraction to an exactly equal degree,
and no more. Not one planet nor two, nor all combined, are
able to exhaust his power, or move him from his sphere.

http://www.truthbearer.org/books/history-and-philosophy-of-marriage/9/

 

[Sojourner<><]

Hey there mcart909.

I don't mean to take sides for or against what you're saying, but I think it's important to share teachings from the Bible only, if you're going to share teachings at all. Opinions and references to historical fact are definately welcome though.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No woman who intimately loves her husband is "OK" with hearing him in the next room, carrying on with the other woman in a sexual session! If they sincerely aren't bothered by something like that, I'd question the level of love or their possible lack of spirituality or something.

I think its sad that you automatically assume that what works for you is automatically "normal" for everyone else.

You are also, of course, ignoring the most obvious remedy to ill feelings generated in such a situation... that said partner, hearing the other two, rather than seething quietly in her room, would probably be better off going and joining in.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Anyone?

I didn't respond to this because it is a fantasy. First of all, if there are 2 of them, neither is getting the constant undivided attention you are claiming they would be getting. Unless the man is omniscient like God. I could say a lot more here, but I have to go, I don't get many breaks at my job.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I didn't respond to this because it is a fantasy. First of all, if there are 2 of them, neither is getting the constant undivided attention you are claiming they would be getting. Unless the man is omniscient like God. I could say a lot more here, but I have to go, I don't get many breaks at my job.

I think it would be foolish to assume that a polygamous family would be any less prone to the same difficulties as a monogomous one...

However, I still don't see anything inherently wrong with it if we are talking about an equal partnership of everyone involved, entered into with full disclosure and consent by all parties...

I'm certainly open to the suggestion that there IS something wrong with it... however, to convince me, please try to respond with something other than uncomentated Bible quotes or exclamations of "but its DISGUSTING!" or "But its WRONG" or "But its DIFFERENT!"

 

[Sojourner<><]

Chie, Nadiine and Romanseight. I just want to say that if I happened to make any of you feel threatened in your positions that I apologize. That was not my intent for this thread.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Chie, Nadiine and Romanseight. I just want to say that if I happened to make any of you feel threatened in your positions that I apologize. That was not my intent for this thread.

I'd like to add that I think it's only natural for you to feel threatened by such a different way of thinking, and that it was wrong of me to keep pushing my view against yours at the expense of your feelings.

 

[mcart909]

First of all, if there are 2 of them, neither is getting the constant undivided attention you are claiming they would be getting.

There is not "constant undivided" attention even in monogamous arrangements. The issue is whether each wife receives enough attention and affection. It is very possible for a bigamist (man with two wives) to devote sufficient attention and affection to each wife, particularly when the man and his wives live together.


Consider the wife whose husband is deployed in Iraq. The wife receives little attention or affection; yet where is the outcry against this arrangement? There is none, because the wife has decided that this is OK--the occassional presence of her husband is better than nothing. It is up to the potential bride--having been informed that there will be another woman in the picture--to decide whether she wants to embark on the venture of marriage.

 

[dayhiker]

*I'd like to add another note here to my previous post in reply to Sherman --
Can somebody find me one law against child molestation / pedophilia or porn? Or even over-spanking/beating (not sure on that one)

I don't recall those laws being the bible; promoted or discouraged specifically... I think the laws of LOVE cover that by themselves.
Or Eph 6 for a parent not to exhasperate their children. - but it's not in there specifically that I know of.

So I think in some things, like polygamy, something doesn't have to be specifically condemned to be wrong - namely when God gives His guideline on what His will is.

Hi Nadiine,
This is why I don't believe the main point of the NT is that we are living by the law. I believe we are living by loving.

Rom.13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 13:9 For the commandments, “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,” (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

In my opinion no written rules can lead to God's will being done. Because people will find loop holes or they will to obey the laws or whatever. But God wants us to love God and people. If we talk to them and know what they need and we can give it to them we are to give it to them. Love would so modivate us to give. But the law leads many people to be legalists and leads religious people to create even more laws to try and be righteous and pure by obeying more rules than any one else.

Is it a sin to look at a porno? It is if doing do hurts a person. Its not a sin if it doesn't hurt anyone. Ofcourse that is always really easy to determine in the macro. But its pretty easy to talk to ones spouce and know if he or she would be hurt by watching.

That's how I see poly too. If those involved feel that they entering into a committed relationship will benifit them and they can learn more about love then I say go for it. If someone feels poly relationships will hurt them then the others must back off.

That's how I see the Christian ethic. Its very personal, its very responcible and requires those involved to talk and be sensitive to each person involved.

I've always been concious that laws hurt some people in trying to help the majority. I believe the NT is teaching there is a way to love, to not hurt anyone. Yet, I'm all to concious that this is hard to do. Yet I've read stories to poly people that are living this type of love. So that is why I can't say poly is inheriently evil(sinful). I know it could be sinful for 90% or more of the people. But I believe its sinful to the 90% to require the small minority to not be able to love more people when their heart is saying that's what God wants them to do.

Thanks for reading,
dayhiker

 

[Sojourner<><]

*I'd like to add another note here to my previous post in reply to Sherman --
Can somebody find me one law against child molestation / pedophilia or porn? Or even over-spanking/beating (not sure on that one)

I don't recall those laws being the bible; promoted or discouraged specifically... I think the laws of LOVE cover that by themselves.
Or Eph 6 for a parent not to exhasperate their children. - but it's not in there specifically that I know of.

So I think in some things, like polygamy, something doesn't have to be specifically condemned to be wrong - namely when God gives His guideline on what His will is.

This is the best verse that I know of to apply to the issue of porn:

Psalm 101:3 "I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; [it] shall not cleave to me."

The main problem with porn, IMO, is that it involves images of people who are committing adultery, fornication and other ungodly acts, hence "the work of them that turn aside". You can't enjoy the material without turning aside along with them. Even if you're dealing with illustrations and what not, it's the work of their minds. Granted, it's not a commandment or anything but it does show us the position of the character of God on the subject.

In regards to pedophilia, all I know of is 1Cr 7:36

"But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of [her] age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry."

IMO, the age limit of 18 in our country seems to be close enough to be the age at which girls generally 'pass the flower of their age'.

 

[Chie]

Here's some food for thought:

WHY MAY NOT A WOMAN HAVE A PLURALITY OF HUSBANDS?
Because a woman's heart is so constituted, that it is
impossible for her to cherish a sincere love for more than
one husband at the same time. It is even difficult for her
to believe that a man can cherish a sincere and honest love
for more than one woman at the same time. It is difficult
for her to believe it; for she cannot comprehend it. Her own
instincts revolt against the thought of a plurality of
husbands, and judging his feeling by her own, she does not
see how a man can want, or at least can truly love, a
plurality of wives. But, as this point involves a
constitutional difference of sex, it is one in which we must
be aware that our feelings cannot guide us. A man can never
know the infinite tenderness and the infinite patience of a
mother's love, except imperfectly, by reason and observation.
His experience does not teach him. His paternal love does
not exactly resemble it. So a woman can never know the
purity and sincerity of a man's conjugal love for a plurality
of wives, ex-
Page 217
cept by similar observation and reason. Her conjugal love is
unlike it. Her love for one man exhausts and absorbs her
whole conjugal nature: there is no room for more. And if she
ever receives the truth that his nature is capable of a
plural love, she must attain it by the use of her reason, or
admit it upon the testimony of honest men.
THE SUN AND THE PLANETS; OR MARRIAGE LIKE GRAVITATION
It would be as impossible and as unnatural for a pure-minded,
virtuous woman to have more than one husband, as for the
earth to have more than one sun; but it is not unnatural nor
impossible for a pure and noble-minded man to cherish the
most devoted love for several wives at the same time: it is
as natural for him as it is for the sun to have several
planets at the same time, each one dependent on him, and each
one harmonious in her own sphere. To each planet the sun
yields all the light and heat which she is capable of
receiving, or which she would be capable of receiving, were
she the only planet in the sky. Each planet attracts the sun
to
Page 218
the utmost of her weight, - the exhaustion of her power; and
the sun returns her attraction to an exactly equal degree,
and no more. Not one planet nor two, nor all combined, are
able to exhaust his power, or move him from his sphere.

http://www.truthbearer.org/books/history-and-philosophy-of-marriage/9/

It is simply amazing what the human mind can conjure up to justify what the heart of man wants to live and believe.

 

[Nadiine]

It is simply amazing what the human mind can conjure up to justify what the heart of man wants to live and believe.

LOLOL - I hear ya sister!

And THIS is why feminism rose to what it is today - and I'm partially thankful for that, however it's caused many other problems in it's wake.

 

[Romanseight2005]

The fact of the matter is that women were never designed to share a husband, anymore then men were designed to need more than one woman sexually. Solomon and David were perfect examples of a constant biblical principle throughout the scriptures, which is that the lust of the flesh is never satisfied. If one woman isn't enough, two won't be either. Then 3 won't, and on and on. Once you don't take those thoughts captive, and allow them into your heart, you will then seek out variety, and no amount of it will ever be enough. There are so many scriptures that speak of never being satisfied, and then there is the contrast which is being conten at all times. When God said that if we delight ourselves in Him , He will give us the desires of our hearts, He wasn't saying that our lusts will be gratified, but rather that we would be completely happy with what ever he gave u. Our hearts change, not our possessions. Part of the curse was that the woman's sorrow would be great. Again, polygamy was a big part of this, because God knew that He designed the woman to be man's counterpart, not his property. The ironic thing to me is that the polygamists want to blame women who would be hurt and offended by polygamy , for sinful jealousy, yet never stop to think about where their desires to have more than one wife come from. A woman having her own husband, whom she shares with no other, is how she and he were designed. So it is quite unfair and inappropriate to say that man should be able to happily live out their sinful desires, but the woman has to get over her sinful jealousy. Just think about that logic. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Romanseight2005]

I have read everything Truthbearer.org, and every other poly site out there has to throw out. They twist scriptures, and won't acknowledge others. They are merely trying to justify their agenda.

 

[Nadiine]

I have read everything Truthbearer.org, and every other poly site out there has to throw out. They twist scriptures, and won't acknowledge others. They are merely trying to justify their agenda.

They can twist to their heart's content - Paul tells us that such manipulation is "to their own destruction".

The NT verses are crystal clear in that the NT churches nor any of the apostles IN NO WAY promoted, taught or exampled polygamy.
Why that is ignored seems to be that people don't want it to be so.

I have this question too. IF there were no sex involved in plural marriages (ie. if sex weren't in any part of the relationships with any of the additional spouses), WOULD MEN BE SO QUICK TO MARRY OTHER WOMEN?

I think not! I think it's the SEX they want with more than one woman, NOT THE SHARING OF THEIR HEART INTIMATELY with more than 1 wife.
Are we to believe that it's not mainly and possibly ONLY for the variety of sexual partners to enjoy? In my humble opinion, if men would be honest, we'd find the true source of their desires wasn't in bearing just their souls w/ multiple women.

In the documentary I saw on it, it was NOT the ideal relationship nor did it look very glamorous at all.

 

[Romanseight2005]

They can twist to their heart's content - Paul tells us that such manipulation is "to their own destruction".

The NT verses are crystal clear in that the NT churches nor any of the apostles IN NO WAY promoted, taught or exampled polygamy.
Why that is ignored seems to be that people don't want it to be so.

I have this question too. IF there were no sex involved in plural marriages (ie. if sex weren't in any part of the relationships with any of the additional spouses), WOULD MEN BE SO QUICK TO MARRY OTHER WOMEN?

I think not! I think it's the SEX they want with more than one woman, NOT THE SHARING OF THEIR HEART INTIMATELY with more than 1 wife.
Are we to believe that it's not mainly and possibly ONLY for the variety of sexual partners to enjoy? In my humble opinion, if men would be honest, we'd find the true source of their desires wasn't in bearing just their souls w/ multiple women.

In the documentary I saw on it, it was NOT the ideal relationship nor did it look very glamorous at all.

Exactly! It's all about the lust of the flesh, not love. Marriage is indeed about love, and intimacy. Polygamy is conducive to neither, only lust. Something else has occurred to me. In the passages where men are chastised for dealing treacherously with the wife of his youth, etc. There is a clear warning against abandoning the wife for another. Well, since throughout scripture we see that God is concerned with the heart, even more than our actions, I ask you, when does a polygamous man abandon the first wife in his heart? Just because a man doesn't divorce a woman technically, the divorce happens in the heart, because men were designed to be monogamous. So this whole idea that they truly love all of these women at once is not true. They may be able to be friends with them, but the eros love will only be there for one woman. Most of the time the women are possessions though, not even friends. Of course what they will really have for the women is lust, and that won't last long before a new wife will need to be taken to satisfy the never ending lust.