Monogamy

[mcart909]

Wrong, Nadiine--my primary motivation in taking two wives would be to have a safety net of moral support. Like I said, I pity the man who is forbidden from loving another woman because he is to remain "faithful" to a wife who is in a coma. Polygamy can serve as a safeguard against the whips and scorns of outrageous fortune. But keep pretending that sexual variety is the only reason a man could want to have more than one wife.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Nice bit of sexist judgmentality there - Men have feelings too, you know.

And I'll ask this again - are threesomes & orgies ok with God within polygamy? Group sex?

And would any men be adamant to have several wives if they couldn't have sex with the additional wives? If he could still only have sex with his original wife?

Basically, what BENEFIT is it to him to have more than one wife if he can't being having sex with the others? Any?
I'd love to know what's so great about it if there's no variety of sex involved in it for him.

Maybe somebody can level with us as to what the Big enticement is to it?? I think we all know what's at the very core & heart of this type of lifestyle.

 

[mcart909]

Furthermore, statements concerning marriage in the NT would assume the moral acceptability of polygamy, and certainly not assume that polygamy was not morally acceptable.

I agree. Therefore, the fact that polygamy was never condemned in the NT is evidence (albeit, weak evidence) for its continued acceptability.

 

[mcart909]

Nice bit of sexist judgmentality there

Yeah, Nadiine really needs to stop that.

 

[Nadiine]

My point was that you disagree with the Torah concerning polygamy. The Torah allowed and regulated polygamy, and certainly did not forbid it. But, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the NT changes this making monogamy the only acceptable family structure. So you agree with the moral laws of the OT except for issues concerning MDR like polygamy; those the NT change.

That same law also provides for SLAVERY too. Do you condone that today?

That's where we disagree; I believe that the NT is founded upon the OT, especially the moral laws, including issues concerning MDR like polygamy.

Yes it does, so why is slavery wrong today when it wasn't then?
And you're wrong, I agree the NT is the revealing of the OT - they coincide, but it doesn't mean everything stays the same under the grace covenant when God's FULL REVELATION is given. In fact, that's the whole point of Christ's coming!

Thus the lack of specific NT examples concerning polygamy is not a valid argument against polygamy.

Jesus' model of the proper marital union IS DIRECT ARGUMENT AGAINST POLYGAMY. (as well as homosexuality).
If God designed man for 2+ wives, GOD WOULD HAVE MADE ADAM, EVE AND EVANGELINA.... Namely when God needed mankind to populate and multiply! Don't you think God would have thought that over?
"why don't I just make 1 man & 4 women - that way the earth will be populated not only faster, but then I don't have incest issue to bring conflicts later when people get confused about my laws against incest that I'm allowing to occur temporarily now"

Plus the verses in Timothy on specifications for church elders. You can try to read more into the Greek there, but in their context it is directly stating ONE wife - which is also why all examples of practicing polygamists in the NT churches are absent.
THAT IS PROOF - you're just refusing what's given and that's nothing I can help or change.

What you claim as NT specifications & guidelines do not speak against polygamy, in fact if one accepts that Jesus did not change the moral law of the OT, then these "guidelines" assume polygamy is morally acceptable as biblically declared.

I'm saying God ALLOWED IT, not that He WANTED OR DESIGNED IT as His plan & will for us. God allowing something doesn't mean He PROMOTES IT.
Look at the situation with King Saul! Case in Point. They were under a theocracy, but Israel was whining for a REAL King to rule over them like the pagan nations had.
What did God do? HE GAVE THEM A KING and said "they have rejected ME". HE didn't WANT to have a king over them, He appeased their clamouring for one.
ALLOWING and wanting are not the same nor should they be confused.
God also didn't want RAPE to occur, but He made allowances by law to handle such things to protect the women from being destitute outcasts.

Concerning your previous arguments concerning homosexuality, there is a huge difference between polygamy and homosexuality, that being polygamy was morally acceptable in the OT; whereas, homosexuality was declared morally reprehensible.

Not according to 'homosexual christians'!! Who claim that all references of homosexuality being abomination refer to ritualistic sex in spiritual worship - not gays themselves. (which is easily argued against btw).

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

That same law also provides for SLAVERY too. Do you condone that today?

straw man

Jesus' model of the proper marital union IS DIRECT ARGUMENT AGAINST POLYGAMY. (as well as homosexuality).
If God designed man for 2+ wives, GOD WOULD HAVE MADE ADAM, EVE AND EVANGELINA.... Namely when God needed mankind to populate and multiply! Don't you think God would have thought that over?
"why don't I just make 1 man & 4 women - that way the earth will be populated not only faster, but then I don't have incest issue to bring conflicts later when people get confused about my laws against incest that I'm allowing to occur temporarily now"

straw man

Plus the verses in Timothy on specifications for church elders. You can try to read more into the Greek there, but in their context it is directly stating ONE wife - which is also why all examples of practicing polygamists in the NT churches are absent.
THAT IS PROOF - you're just refusing what's given and that's nothing I can help or change.

petitio principii

I'm saying God ALLOWED IT, not that He WANTED OR DESIGNED IT as His plan & will for us. God allowing something doesn't mean He PROMOTES IT.
Look at the situation with King Saul! Case in Point. They were under a theocracy, but Israel was whining for a REAL King to rule over them like the pagan nations had.
What did God do? HE GAVE THEM A KING and said "they have rejected ME". HE didn't WANT to have a king over them, He appeased their clamouring for one.
ALLOWING and wanting are not the same nor should they be confused.
God also didn't want RAPE to occur, but He made allowances by law to handle such things to protect the women from being destitute outcasts.

straw man

Not according to 'homosexual christians'!! Who claim that all references of homosexuality being abomination refer to ritualistic sex in spiritual worship - not gays themselves. (which is easily argued against btw).

petitio principii

 

[Nadiine]

straw man



straw man



petitio principii



straw man



petitio principii

I'm going to ignore you to say this, THIS ISN'T A POST TO SIT & PICK APART AS A FORMAL DEBATE, it's a discussion on issues and biblical teachings.

Someone else in another thread (Digit) already pointed out your misapplication of

petitio principii

so your usage isn't always correct.

They are also not straw men - they are examples that go to my side of the issue.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

I'm going to ignore you to say this, THIS ISN'T A POST TO SIT & PICK APART AS A FORMAL DEBATE, it's a discussion on issues and biblical teachings.

You mean that there's no room to discuss biblical teachings?

Someone else in another thread (Digit) already pointed out your misapplication of
so your usage isn't always correct.

inductive argument

They are also not straw men - they are examples that go to my side of the issue.

They are rubbish counter-examples, if I may so so without causing offence

 

[Nadiine]

You mean that there's no room to discuss biblical teachings?

inductive argument

They are rubbish counter-examples, if I may so so without causing offence

I'm not continuing w/ you, I see no fruit in this type of analytical format. I also disagree with your arguments entirely - they don't stand up but I don't find it's worth it go into any of it w/ you becuz it mainly detracts from the issues to go into debate structures & formalities.
no thank u.

 

[vossler]

First of all I've been following this discussion and it's been one of the most fascinating. Thanks to alll who have contributed. I did want to address this one topic just to provide some clarity so that the discussion can get back to the OP.

That same law also provides for SLAVERY too. Do you condone that today?

Slavery, at least the form we normally think of, was not condoned in the old testament. Exodus 21:16 clearly states:

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.​

That clearly identifies the type of slavery that existed in colonial times and was verbotten.

Most slavery during biblical times consisted of where people sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. That's the type of slavery the Bible primarily speaks about.

 

[Nadiine]

First of all I've been following this discussion and it's been one of the most fascinating. Thanks to alll who have contributed. I did want to address this one topic just to provide some clarity so that the discussion can get back to the OP.


Slavery, at least the form we normally think of, was not condoned in the old testament. Exodus 21:16 clearly states:

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.​

That clearly identifies the type of slavery that existed in colonial times and was verbotten.

Most slavery during biblical times consisted of where people sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. That's the type of slavery the Bible primarily speaks about.

Ok, where were you when slavery threads were started? LOL
Doesn't the NT call them "bond servants"? And I'm aware of some who after their debt was paid that they wanted to continue their 'employment' with their master?

In the OT I recall some instances where after they would go to war, they were allowed to take the women as wives? Isn't that a form of slavery? I'm sure they weren't asking them for their consent?

 

[david_x]

That same law also provides for SLAVERY too. Do you condone that today?

Why do people assume slavery is bad? The type of slavery that was in the united states was atypical. Slaves are meant to be treated well that is what the bible says. Not that I would ever keep a slave, but there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Nadiine]

Why do people assume slavery is bad? The type of slavery that was in the united states was atypical. Slaves are meant to be treated well that is what the bible says. Not that I would ever keep a slave, but there is nothing wrong with it.

Not only would I not want to 'own' one, I also wouldn't want to be one.
It doesn't appeal to me any. I guess maybe if we lived in ancient times, our mindframes would be alot different no doubt.

 

[david_x]

Not only would I not want to 'own' one, I also wouldn't want to be one.
It doesn't appeal to me any. I guess maybe if we lived in ancient times, our mindframes would be alot different no doubt.

That could be taken as a sign of disrespect. If God put you somewere you should be thankful.

 

[vossler]

Ok, where were you when slavery threads were started? LOL
Doesn't the NT call them "bond servants"? And I'm aware of some who after their debt was paid that they wanted to continue their 'employment' with their master?

Exactly, that's why this issue is so complicated and difficult for us to fully understand today. I have found that comparing the slavery in the Bible to modern military service is a fair and productive means of comparison. After you think about it a bit it really helps to understand much of what we read when we substitute a military service member for a slave wherever it is mentioned. Just like back then, many today would never allow themselves the indignation of being put under the complete authority of someone else and yet there are a fair number who will freely do exactly that by signing up to join the military. It is for topics like this and polygamy that perspective is an incredible gift to possess. However, I can't claim to have a sufficient perspective or insight to give a definitive response on either.

In the OT I recall some instances where after they would go to war, they were allowed to take the women as wives? Isn't that a form of slavery? I'm sure they weren't asking them for their consent?

I agree, that isn't something we today can easily understand and grasp. The OT is sometimes chock full of things like that, some, after lengthy study and prayer are easier to see and become clear while there are still others that leave us scratching our heads.

I'm sure we do things today that they would see similarly.

 

[Nadiine]

It is for topics like this and polygamy that perspective is an incredible gift to possess. However, I can't claim to have a sufficient perspective or insight to give a definitive response on either.

yes. Well, as I see perspective.... Paul spoke about marriage and his view was, it's best not to even get married so that we weren't sidetracked from serving God more fully. In light of that perspective, I'd have to say polygamy is even further away from regular marriage; taking away much more of our time, resources and focus from GOD onto personal issues that must be attended to.
I'd say the more spouses you have, the less time you have for God; it's hard enough with 1 spouse.

I agree, that isn't something we today can easily understand and grasp. The OT is sometimes chock full of things like that, some, after lengthy study and prayer are easier to see and become clear while there are still others that leave us scratching our heads.

I'm sure we do things today that they would see similarly.

Oh I've always said this - we barely bat an eyelash at abortion - yet if this was done in their day, they'de put us to death for it!
What we condone and think nothing of, they'de be shocked and outraged! So we can't think that just becuz we're so advanced and modernized that we aren't any less brutal or barbaric than they were (just in different things & ways).

Here's my personal spin on why they were allowed to take them as wives - I think God was allowing them to be cared for by them rather than killing all the husbands in the cities and abandoning them to care for themselves w/ no men around.
The women/children would be sitting ducks for other barbarians to brutally take over & rape etc. Or they may starve to death in a city where there were no men to do the heavier jobs they couldn't to continue on alone. It could have been God's way of sparing them.

Same way I believe in other instances, God told them to kill the women & children - leaving the children w/out parents would be causing children to suffer & starve as orphans in a city!! (is that loving??) - wiping them all out was actually MERCIFUL- it was also their judgment for sacrificing their own children to false gods & all their other crimes against humanity & God alike.
God also teaches that these women & children who were steeped in paganism & human sacrificing would continue to be a snare to God's people... not all pagan cities were as bad/evil/demonic as others tho - & I think that's why God used different methods for differen't cities.
Some God allowed them to take booty or women/children for themselves - others, they had to destroy everything in sight. God had His reasons for that, that wasn't random.

It's our job to TRUST HIM & have faith that His motive was always love even if we can't grasp things here. (even if His love was in protecting Israel from these pagan nations that would seek to destroy Israel later - things we couldn't know like God could).

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Haha! Do unto thy neighbour as you would have them do unto you, you hypocrite.

That could be taken as a sign of disrespect. If God put you somewere you should be thankful.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Where does it say in the Bible that slavery is good, pray?

Why do people assume slavery is bad? The type of slavery that was in the united states was atypical. Slaves are meant to be treated well that is what the bible says. Not that I would ever keep a slave, but there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[vossler]

I'd say the more spouses you have, the less time you have for God; it's hard enough with 1 spouse.

lol yeah I couldn't agree more although my kids seem to find ways to sap my time more than my wife does.

Oh I've always said this - we barely bat an eyelash at abortion - yet if this was done in their day, they'de put us to death for it!
What we condone and think nothing of, they'de be shocked and outraged! So we can't think that just becuz we're so advanced and modernized that we aren't any less brutal or barbaric than they were (just in different things & ways).

Exactly and that's why I think it's difficult for us to speak about polygamy with any authority. The Bible itself certainly isn't clear about it. Before reading this thread I would have had no problem stepping out against it, but Sherman gave some strong biblical reasons for getting me to think about this issue a little less emphatically.

Here's my personal spin on why they were allowed to take them as wives - I think God was allowing them to be cared for by them rather than killing all the husbands in the cities and abandoning them to care for themselves w/ no men around.
The women/children would be sitting ducks for other barbarians to brutally take over & rape etc. Or they may starve to death in a city where there were no men to do the heavier jobs they couldn't to continue on alone. It could have been God's way of sparing them.

I think you're right. We also need to remember there were probably far fewer men because of the constant threat of war and the casualties inflicted by it.

Same way I believe in other instances, God told them to kill the women & children - leaving the children w/out parents would be causing children to suffer & starve as orphans in a city!! (is that loving??) - wiping them all out was actually MERCIFUL- it was also their judgment for sacrificing their own children to false gods & all their other crimes against humanity & God alike.
God also teaches that these women & children who were steeped in paganism & human sacrificing would continue to be a snare to God's people... not all pagan cities were as bad/evil/demonic as others tho - & I think that's why God used different methods for differen't cities.
Some God allowed them to take booty or women/children for themselves - others, they had to destroy everything in sight. God had His reasons for that, that wasn't random.

It's our job to TRUST HIM & have faith that His motive was always love even if we can't grasp things here. (even if His love was in protecting Israel from these pagan nations that would seek to destroy Israel later - things we couldn't know like God could).

I have nothing against any of this and find your reasoning to be rational and well thought out. It certainly would align with the character and nature of God. I especially liked " It's our job to TRUST HIM & have faith that His motive was always love even if we can't grasp things here." If only we did more of this instead of always trying to figure everything out based on our own finite perspectives.

 

[Nadiine]

lol yeah I couldn't agree more although my kids seem to find ways to sap my time more than my wife does.

And, all the more reason against polygamy lol. Not only are 2-4 wives too much to handle, but tack on the TRIBES OF KIDS you create to keep you busy!
How do they get one on one quality time with 1 dad?
(let alone mom??).

Exactly and that's why I think it's difficult for us to speak about polygamy with any authority. The Bible itself certainly isn't clear about it. Before reading this thread I would have had no problem stepping out against it, but Sherman gave some strong biblical reasons for getting me to think about this issue a little less emphatically.

That's one thing (and maybe the only one thing) I do disagree with - I think the NT is emphatic - by what it says and what it doesn't example in the NT churches.
It SHOULD BE full of polygamous couples working in the churches if God was clearly promoting this as acceptable. But, like homosexuality, it's found nowhere.
With verses defining God's ideal model of the unit.
1 male 1 female who leave their parents & become 1 flesh/family/unit.
I don't honestly see how much plainer that could be.

We also need to remember that the secular, unsaved men would be participating in this, it isn't just Israel anymore who were bound to the OT law in a "free" society like we have today.
Polygamy in free societies imo could be disastrous in many ways.... I also think it would harm women & their value (which is already damaged imo due to mass immorality).