Monogamy

[EnemyPartyII]

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??).

And yet hundreds of culture's around the world seem to manage it just fine. Go figure.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

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.

So... anything not in the NT is, by its omission, proven "bad"?

 

[Nadiine]

So... anything not in the NT is, by its omission, proven "bad"?

Oh YES, if the NT doesn't say something, then God always forbids it.... like if there aren't cell fone rules in the NT, then they're sinful to use.

Please take my statements IN their proper context - not using them outside of it to say what's obviously not the case. This is about a certain subject where the NT is concerned - not EVERY SUBJECT under the sun.
thank you

 

[Nadiine]

And yet hundreds of culture's around the world seem to manage it just fine. Go figure.

Interesting, so "managing just fine" is your litmus test for what isn't sin now?
I guess if you have premarital sex & don't get pregnant or an STD, that God approves of it & it's GOOD for all societies.
Lying is sin and all cultures seem to manage just fine when they practice it regularly... along with adultery, cheating, stealing, etc.

 

[ShermanN]

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

As pointed out by other posts, you're argument equating slavery with polygamy is grasping at straws. They are two very different institutions, family vs. servanthood. It's always best to pull doctrine from the Bible as opposed to reading doctrine into the Bible based upon the values and views of our culture.

Even so, the OT regulated slavery, but did not forbid it. And the NT did not forbid slavery either. In fact, Paul tells slaves to honor their masters and masters to treat their slaves well, even freeing them; but he didn't champion a movement to set slaves free. In fact He told Onesimus (a slave) to go back to his owner whom he had ran away from.

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!

So the moral laws of the OT stay the same, except for those concerning MDR, especially 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"

Concerning polygamy not being God's ideal; that God's ideal for marriage is monogamy - I completely agree!!!!! God's ideal for marriage is monogamy! Jesus' quote of Gen.2.27 clearly underscores His endorsement of monogamy as the divine ideal for marriage. Jesus words concerning marriage are an argument FOR monogamy - Yes; but they are not an argument against polygamy. Telling my children that it's best that they eat their potatoes, does not mean that I'm telling them not to eat their vegtibles. There is a huge difference between endorsement and legislation. Neither the OT nor the NT legislate monogamy or forbid polygamy. Thus God allowed polygamy in the OT and He still allows polygamy, as regulated by civil government.

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.

Concerning "husband of one wife," again, even if Paul meant this as an endorsement of monogamy (which he didn't as established in a previous post) it is not either a Legislation of monogamy or an Exclusion of polygamy. Again, you're reading into the scripture as opposed to drawing from the scripture.

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.

As previously stated, I to believe that God allowed polygamy and that the divine ideal for marriage is monogamy; but nothing in the NT forbids polygamy.

But concerning your example of RAPE, that was considered immoral and punished in the OT. Polygamy was not considered immoral and was certainly not punished. When using examples like that you really need to compare apples with apples, and not apples and oranges. The logic is not consistent and only makes your argument look even weaker.

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).

You know, it really doesn't matter what "homosexual christians" claim, what matters is what the Word says. So equating polygamy and homosexuality is comparing apples and oranges, not even apples and oranges, it's like comparing apples and rocks; they're both round so they're both evil. Bad logic.

You know Nadiine, the more we discuss this the more it seems like you're grasping at straws to prove your point no matter how many of your arguments are blown away by the wind of common sence.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Oh YES, if the NT doesn't say something, then God always forbids it.... like if there aren't cell fone rules in the NT, then they're sinful to use.

Please take my statements IN their proper context - not using them outside of it to say what's obviously not the case. This is about a certain subject where the NT is concerned - not EVERY SUBJECT under the sun.

So... explain it to me...

you: The NT does not specifically mention Polygamy, therefore Polygamy is bad

Me: so, how do you know what OTHER things the NT doesn't mention are bad?

It seems that things YOU don't approve of that arent mentioned in the NT are clearly proved sinful by their omission, whereas things you don't have a problem with, though equally absent from the NT are fine.

I'm curious what yardstick you use to determine what is proved sinful by its absence from the NT?

Interesting, so "managing just fine" is your litmus test for what isn't sin now?

Who's taking things out of context now?

You: Polygamy is bad because the child to parent ratio is different to what we are used to in our JC morality

Me: Hundreds of other cultures for whom the child/parent ration difference does not seem to be a problem.

Shall we stick to what is actually said?

If it is your contention that Polygamy is demonstrably sinful BECAUSE there is the opportunity for many more children per father than under monogamy... well, you need to explain why that is a "bad" thing, per ce... particularly in ligh of the fact that many other cultures do not seem to find this to be a problem.

I guess if you have premarital sex & don't get pregnant or an STD, that God approves of it & it's GOOD for all societies.

hyperbole/slippery slope much? Anyway, are you saying that getting pregnant outside of marriage is necesarily a "bad" thing too?

Lying is sin and all cultures seem to manage just fine when they practice it regularly

Really? name any culture that manages "fine" where lying is the norm?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You know Nadiine, the more we discuss this the more it seems like you're grasping at straws to prove your point no matter how many of your arguments are blown away by the wind of common sence.

I strongly suspect that Nadiine has fallen so far into the intricacies of confabulating explanations to show why her opinion is TRUTH that no amount of reasoned discussion will convince her that while her beliefs are certainly valid, anyone elses may ALSO have validity, even if different to her own.

As always, I may yet be proved incorrect

 

[Nadiine]

I strongly suspect that Nadiine has fallen so far into the intricacies of confabulating explanations to show why her opinion is TRUTH that no amount of reasoned discussion will convince her that while her beliefs are certainly valid, anyone elses may ALSO have validity, even if different to her own.

As always, I may yet be proved incorrect

And yet another insult lol

You have YET to prove anything; all you've done is try to shred someone elses points yet haven't supported anything.
Anyone can grandstand & make statements that they're "correct".

I have given plenty of support - both in direct scriptures and the lack of examples of it practiced in the NT churches.

Your statement of "victory" here doesn't float just becuz you claim you're correct.

 

[Nadiine]

As pointed out by other posts, you're argument equating slavery with polygamy is grasping at straws. They are two very different institutions, family vs. servanthood. It's always best to pull doctrine from the Bible as opposed to reading doctrine into the Bible based upon the values and views of our culture.

Even so, the OT regulated slavery, but did not forbid it. And the NT did not forbid slavery either. In fact, Paul tells slaves to honor their masters and masters to treat their slaves well, even freeing them; but he didn't champion a movement to set slaves free. In fact He told Onesimus (a slave) to go back to his owner whom he had ran away from.


So the moral laws of the OT stay the same, except for those concerning MDR, especially polygamy?


Concerning polygamy not being God's ideal; that God's ideal for marriage is monogamy - I completely agree!!!!! God's ideal for marriage is monogamy! Jesus' quote of Gen.2.27 clearly underscores His endorsement of monogamy as the divine ideal for marriage. Jesus words concerning marriage are an argument FOR monogamy - Yes; but they are not an argument against polygamy. Telling my children that it's best that they eat their potatoes, does not mean that I'm telling them not to eat their vegtibles. There is a huge difference between endorsement and legislation. Neither the OT nor the NT legislate monogamy or forbid polygamy. Thus God allowed polygamy in the OT and He still allows polygamy, as regulated by civil government.


Concerning "husband of one wife," again, even if Paul meant this as an endorsement of monogamy (which he didn't as established in a previous post) it is not either a Legislation of monogamy or an Exclusion of polygamy. Again, you're reading into the scripture as opposed to drawing from the scripture.


As previously stated, I to believe that God allowed polygamy and that the divine ideal for marriage is monogamy; but nothing in the NT forbids polygamy.

But concerning your example of RAPE, that was considered immoral and punished in the OT. Polygamy was not considered immoral and was certainly not punished. When using examples like that you really need to compare apples with apples, and not apples and oranges. The logic is not consistent and only makes your argument look even weaker.


You know, it really doesn't matter what "homosexual christians" claim, what matters is what the Word says. So equating polygamy and homosexuality is comparing apples and oranges, not even apples and oranges, it's like comparing apples and rocks; they're both round so they're both evil. Bad logic.

You know Nadiine, the more we discuss this the more it seems like you're grasping at straws to prove your point no matter how many of your arguments are blown away by the wind of common sence.

It seems to me like you guys are the ones with all the SHORT straws, not me. I gave valid NT verses that DEFINE God's model of the marital union - that's gone ignored,
the NT under grace doesn't allow for things that the OT allowed for
Christians as a majority are NOT led to polygamy, just the opposite in fact.
Paul taught that it's best NOT TO MARRY AT ALL in order to be free'd up to serve God fully - which polygamy actually takes even more away from than a regular couple of 2!

Then we have 2 become one flesh - 2 not 3, 4, 5 or 6.
God made 1 man & 1 woman in the beginning when OF ALL TIMES, GOD NEEDED THE EARTH REPLENISHED WITH PEOPLE. Did God make a mistake just creating 2 to accomplish multiplying humanity?
God also allowed incest for a time.... why not just create 1 man & 3 women instead?

Elders & Bishops of the church were to be blameless and THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, not 2, 3 or 4... being blameless means free from being able to be charged with wrongdoing/sin...
and no, your Greek example doesn't support you in it's context as it reads in the chapter.

& lets look at that greek in 1 Tim. 2 "Husband of one wife":
aner:) with reference to sex

a) of a male
b) of a husband c) of a betrothed or future husband

mia: 1) only one, someone
gune:

1) a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow
2) a wife a) of a betrothed woman

This is quite literal in meaning one male to one female only, not "faithfulness". (even if it were, faithfulness INCLUDES FIDELITY TO ANOTHER - as God calls us not to have other gods other than Himself which He considers adultery).

Lastly, EVERY NT VERSE SPEAKING OF MARRIAGE IS SINGULAR MALE/HUSBAND AND SINGULAR FEMALE/WIFE. Not plural anywhere.

Top that off with the complete absense of any polygamous NT leaders or converts practicing this in the churches to let us know this lifestyle continued from the OT.

You actually call all that STRAWS?? If so, then I can easily do the same with every shred of what you've offered here.
There is a difference in covenants from OT to NT - and God was clearly pointing out that things that were allowed in the OT were wrong, but that He was allowing things -
We know better today than to go to war and take the women as slaves or booty - while God allowed for that back then, etc etc.
God expects more from us in the age when His light is fully revealed to all humanity thru Christ.

If you want to claim polygamy is what wants us to live by, then feel free to think it - I disagree with you and anyone else who tries to support it as something God approves us and wills for mankind.

 

[vossler]

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??).

Please, please I give or cry uncle.

At one time I would have said two wives were something I could handle and even actually desired. Having since grown to the realization that my sexual desires (because that's what that desire purely was) are no longer paramount whereas God and my present wife most certainly are, that fleshly desire no longer actively exists. Although it still rears its head on occasion.

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).

I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression about how I feel about polygamy.

I agree with everything you stated here, especially where you state polygamy could be disastrous in many ways. Of course the model for marriage is one man and one woman. Even though the Bible doesn't come out and state polygamy is wrong, it does indirectly show the problems associated with the practice. It doesn't take much effort to see that almost every time a polygamous relationship exists that problems are directly linked or associated solely as a result of the polygamy. The issue or uncertainty I have is to what extent should the church exert its influence on society or government on this issue. Before I felt I had a clear understanding of the position the church should take and that was to oppose any attempt to legitimize such activity, now I'm just not so sure anymore. The reason being is that there are bigger far more important fish to fry. Abortion and homosexual marriage are but two which Scripture does address much more clearly and where the church is clearly not doing a good job taking a stand. If we can't do so with issues that are more clear I don't think we should be pursuing those which are not. However, that doesn't mean as individuals we shouldn't be standing up for our beliefs.

BTW, I just don't see this being much of an issue today. How many women today would follow such a path? Most women today are far too independent and selfish to share their man with someone else. Does anyone expect this to become some sort of phenomenon? I hope not, but that doesn't mean I necessarily want to open that door either.

 

[Nadiine]

Please, please I give or cry uncle.

I'm only a pitbull on some issues - not everything. *holds out yellow flower as a peace offering*

At one time I would have said two wives were something I could handle and even actually desired. Having since grown to the realization that my sexual desires (because that's what that desire purely was) are no longer paramount whereas God and my present wife most certainly are, that fleshly desire no longer actively exists. Although it still rears its head on occasion.
I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression about how I feel about polygamy.

I agree with everything you stated here, especially where you state polygamy could be disastrous in many ways. Of course the model for marriage is one man and one woman. Even though the Bible doesn't come out and state polygamy is wrong, it does indirectly show the problems associated with the practice. It doesn't take much effort to see that almost every time a polygamous relationship exists that problems are directly linked or associated solely as a result of the polygamy. The issue or uncertainty I have is to what extent should the church exert its influence on society or government on this issue. Before I felt I had a clear understanding of the position the church should take and that was to oppose any attempt to legitimize such activity, now I'm just not so sure anymore. The reason being is that there are bigger far more important fish to fry. Abortion and homosexual marriage are but two which Scripture does address much more clearly and where the church is clearly not doing a good job taking a stand. If we can't do so with issues that are more clear I don't think we should be pursuing those which are not. However, that doesn't mean as individuals we shouldn't be standing up for our beliefs.

BTW, I just don't see this being much of an issue today. How many women today would follow such a path? Most women today are far too independent and selfish to share their man with someone else. Does anyone expect this to become some sort of phenomenon? I hope not, but that doesn't mean I necessarily want to open that door either.

LOL Oh heaven help us all.

I honestly don't believe that the Bible HAS to come out & say "this is sin" in order for it to be sinful. I also take into account that some of the most noted polygamists were the men who initiated Mormonism... I think that's pretty interesting.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I also take into account that some of the most noted polygamists were the men who initiated Mormonism...

And the entire Caliphate, not to mention just about every Asian, Indian and African civilisation...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnemyPartyII
I strongly suspect that Nadiine has fallen so far into the intricacies of confabulating explanations to show why her opinion is TRUTH that no amount of reasoned discussion will convince her that while her beliefs are certainly valid, anyone elses may ALSO have validity, even if different to her own.

As always, I may yet be proved incorrect

And yet another insult lol

I'm sorry... insult? Where?

Your statement of "victory" here doesn't float just becuz you claim you're correct.

What statement of victory? I'M specifically accepting that there can be validity to MORE than one point of view... something you seem unhappy to consider... wheres the claimed victory?

 

[Nadiine]

I'm sorry... insult? Where?

here:

I strongly suspect that Nadiine has fallen so far into the intricacies of confabulating explanations to show why her opinion is TRUTH that no amount of reasoned discussion will convince her

I haven't "fallen" so far into anything, what I've stated, I believe is undeniable proof to polygamy not being condoned.
How is that being so bullheaded that I can't see any room for your "reasoned" issues?
The truth is this, I'm not persuaded by the reasoning given here to support polygamy being approved by God in the NT church.
That's why i found it insulting - the issue isn't me, it's that the support for it - and rebuttals to me didn't weren't strong enough to persuade me the other way.
Maybe they are to others - but it doesn't make me any "problem child" or defective in my little box of a worldview.

What statement of victory? I'M specifically accepting that there can be validity to MORE than one point of view... something you seem unhappy to consider... wheres the claimed victory?

And.... if others don't (ie. me), they have a problem?
There can be other points of view - and in some issues (such as Christian liberties, i.e. tattoo's, music, dancing, drinking, etc. or other more clouded minor doctrines such as gifts of the Spirit) there isn't just one side.

In this issue, I don't find that plausible - nor do I have to. I don't think the text bears that out.
As i read your post due to the first paragraph, I did take it that way - & as you have given insult in other posts, one does tend to lean on that understanding of your posts after awhile.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And.... if others don't (ie. me), they have a problem?

Out on a limb here... Yes. Anyone who isn't at least open to the possibility that he may be mistaken, or at least that a different POV is eqyually valid to his own has a problem.

 

[ShermanN]

Well Nadiine, our debate doesn't seem to be going anywhere. IMO, you keep making the same arguments based on bad exegesis of scripture - taking scripture out of context and interpreting it to say more than the author meant. I could go through your post point by point but I've already discussed each in previous posts.

It would be interesting to have a bibilical scholar whom we both respect to review our arguments and give us his/her opinion, but that's just dreaming. So I'll gracefully bow out of the debate not seeing any progress towards reaching agreement.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[Nadiine]

Out on a limb here... Yes. Anyone who isn't at least open to the possibility that he may be mistaken, or at least that a different POV is eqyually valid to his own has a problem.

So... if I take the stand that 2 plus 2 is ALWAYS 4, I have a problem too?
Spiritually then, the entire bible has to be up for grabs in what we know as TRUTH from it.
Wrong.
And I'll once again take this ripe opportunity to fully disagree with you.

PS. your claim is also self refuting - becuz you just made an emphatic truth claim to something always being 'a problem' if others don't see it another way; and THIS very claim has to fall into that category of possibly being "wrong"....

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So... if I take the stand that 2 plus 2 is ALWAYS 4, I have a problem too?

If you aren't prepared to listen to other ideas, yes. In this example, I assume you aren't familiar with the mathematics standing joke..."2+2=5 for a suficiently high value of 2"?

Spiritually then, the entire bible has to be up for grabs in what we know as TRUTH from it.

Some parts ARE clearer than others... but yes. Because our entire understanding comes to us via our interpretation of the Bible.... Even if, for arguments sake, the Bibkle IS 100% accurate, undiluted word of God... that doesn't mean that people will read it and get the message straight. Otherwise how come no two people can read the Bible and come away with the same message?

And I'll once again take this ripe opportunity to fully disagree with you.

So... you disagree with me when I say people unprepared to listen to new PsOV have a problem? In the interest of clear understanding... am I therefore right in my understanding that you are saying anyone with a different opinion to your own is therefore wrong?

 

[Nadiine]

Well Nadiine, our debate doesn't seem to be going anywhere. IMO, you keep making the same arguments based on bad exegesis of scripture - taking scripture out of context and interpreting it to say more than the author meant. I could go through your post point by point but I've already discussed each in previous posts.

It would be interesting to have a bibilical scholar whom we both respect to review our arguments and give us his/her opinion, but that's just dreaming. So I'll gracefully bow out of the debate not seeing any progress towards reaching agreement.

Blessings,
Sherman

This is false Sherman. ANY verse that defines what a married couple is, isn't "out of context" where a polygamy subject is in view becuz it DIRECTLY relates in its definition by GOD. The issue it's given is out of context only.
The FACT goes straight to the argument. & THAT usurps all other combinations man may think God desires or approves of. (incl. homosexuality). So it's directly fitting in this subject.

It's not bad exegesis either - they are all points that when combined make a very strong case against it - which a majority of Christians already agree that it's not right. (conscience is a good indicator in a majority of Christians). And we know that multiple sex partners is the major motivator behind it. (flesh).

Then we have direct Greek that I gave you in the outline of a Bishop/Elder from 1 Tim. not being able to have more than 1 wife (*in order to be blameless).
That makes it pretty obvious that the lifestyle was already taboo or not widely accepted and looked down upon - otherwise that shouldn't have even been in there & they should have been able to have several wives like any other Christian and still be considered blameless.

Obviously you don't agree, but each passage I've used is very clear and directly relates.
So we'll agree to disagree, I haven't persuaded you and a few others and you haven't persuaded me & a few others.

The issue becomes when you 'teach' or condone something to other people that may be stumbled by it and cause other problems in their worldview in the area of sexual liberties they think they may have - or in what they may do.
That's where I'd be a little wary of my position; I feel much safer standing in this side where others are concerned.

James 4:17

 

[vossler]

I'm only a pitbull on some issues - not everything.

Nah, I could never see you as a pit bull, more like a retriever. Loyal and always keeping your focus, then ready and willing to go where others won't dare.

I honestly don't believe that the Bible HAS to come out & say "this is sin" in order for it to be sinful. I also take into account that some of the most noted polygamists were the men who initiated Mormonism... I think that's pretty interesting.

True, however there are things that may be sinful for me and at the same time not for you. Sin can be many times something very personal between us and God.

I'm glad you mentioned the Mormons because I think how we see them greatly affects how we see this issue too and that can be a problem. Anyway, I used to be more complete or firm on this issue, today I'm not quite as dogmatic as I once was and am actually willing to more readily listen to other arguments. I hope I'm not going soft.