Monogamy

[Nadiine]

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.

Awe, thank you - but I'm sure others see it differently (and I can understand that). Some things I don't cave or give in on... & definitely some I have when there was good scripture support & evidences.
There are lots of subjects I don't know the answers to and I basically hold a neutral position on them (ones that don't involve salvation that is).

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.

Yes absolutely. I keep quoting James 4:17 on purpose becuz that verse goes to personal conscience (I'd add on mainly issues of liberties; not what is spelled out clearly as wrong in the bible - we can't very well say "adultery is wrong for YOU, but I'm ok with it, so it's not wrong").

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.

Nope, I don't think it's going soft - we should be convinced in our own minds and that's what debate is pretty much for imo. To view other arguments & hopeful supports.

It's when I combine it all that it's clear (to me). But that doesn't mean it has to be for everybody else. I'm not arguing against other people's rights to seeing things differently, only why I disagree that there's room for this being condoned by God.

I understand that people view other sides, I just don't have to agree with the other sides after doing study on it myself.

As per the Mormons, the polygamy is the least of their issues - they preach another gospel entirely & that stands on it's own merit as to how we should view them.

 

[vossler]

There are lots of subjects I don't know the answers to and I basically hold a neutral position on them (ones that don't involve salvation that is).

That's a good approach and will always serve you well. I try to do the same but am not always successful.

Yes absolutely. I keep quoting James 4:17 on purpose becuz that verse goes to personal conscience (I'd add on mainly issues of liberties; not what is spelled out clearly as wrong in the bible - we can't very well say "adultery is wrong for YOU, but I'm ok with it, so it's not wrong").

Amen.

Nope, I don't think it's going soft - we should be convinced in our own minds and that's what debate is pretty much for imo. To view other arguments & hopeful supports.

It's when I combine it all that it's clear (to me). But that doesn't mean it has to be for everybody else. I'm not arguing against other people's rights to seeing things differently, only why I disagree that there's room for this being condoned by God.

Seeing things differently is the means God sometimes uses to help us grow. That's one of the main reasons I come here, to see what people are thinking and their reasoning for it. Sadly many times it has little or no scriptural support. When people knowingly argue from a position that isn't tenable via scripture I will usually bow out.

I personally believe the most dangerous people aren't atheists but people who profess Christianity but don't adhere to the Word of God and will actually look for ways to interpret or minimize it to fit their own personal views.

As per the Mormons, the polygamy is the least of their issues - they preach another gospel entirely & that stands on it's own merit as to how we should view them.

Exactly, sadly though the average person on the street when asked about the Mormons probably thinks of polygamy, this includes most Christians.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

we can't very well say "adultery is wrong for YOU, but I'm ok with it, so it's not wrong").

However what you define as sinful adultery may not be adultery to me, and vice versa

 

[Nadiine]

That's a good approach and will always serve you well. I try to do the same but am not always successful.

lol. We all fall short someplace - debate just happens to be a place we do it more often. lol

Amen.
Seeing things differently is the means God sometimes uses to help us grow. That's one of the main reasons I come here, to see what people are thinking and their reasoning for it. Sadly many times it has little or no scriptural support. When people knowingly argue from a position that isn't tenable via scripture I will usually bow out.

I've learned some great things here - & there's some subjects that I know little to nothing about that I'm able to learn from others here. The minute we think we know it all, we're in HUGE trouble!
I was helped alot by your verse on slavery in Exodus - I hadn't read that verse before, so thank you.
I think discussion can be wonderful and harmful at different times.

I personally believe the most dangerous people aren't atheists but people who profess Christianity but don't adhere to the Word of God and will actually look for ways to interpret or minimize it to fit their own personal views.

Oh I so agree! But then, Satan knows that doesn't he? He has LOTS of busy workers in most all Christian churches & ministries doing just that!
That's ok tho - those who will see and hear WILL be saved in the time God gives them here.
Ultimately, God's enemies win nothing - in fact, each day they operate against God & His truth, they're "heaping up sins" for harsher judgment when they meet up with Him face to face.
They're basically only keeping the people who WON'T ever be saved from God - not keeping those who will convert away. They lose all the way around.
Very tragic.

Exactly, sadly though the average person on the street when asked about the Mormons probably thinks of polygamy, this includes most Christians.

Do you really think so? As time goes on, I don't doubt people think they're a Christian church (judging from its growth) - 15 yrs ago they were widely called & known as a 'cult' but that's changing imo.

 

[Nadiine]

However what you define as sinful adultery may not be adultery to me, and vice versa

The issue isn't the status of YOUR personal conscience that makes it sin - since we know our consciences can be 'seared' (or dulled) to sin. The issue is, WHAT GOD SAYS IT IS - not how you personally view it in your private little moral worldview.

The pharisees also thought adultery was restricted to the confines of physical sexual intimacy with another other than a spouse. But Jesus was sure to broaden the definition of adultery - to be married and look at another person in lust (lusting for them) constitutes adultery.
The heart has betrayed their spouse without the action being fulfilled. Just wanting someone else is the sin.

So it doesn't matter what you personally consider adultery to be, it is what it is by God's definition, not YOURS or mine.

 

[vossler]

We all fall short someplace - debate just happens to be a place we do it more often. lol

Yes, some more often than others. I've learned that lesson, repeatedly.

I've learned some great things here - & there's some subjects that I know little to nothing about that I'm able to learn from others here. The minute we think we know it all, we're in HUGE trouble!
I was helped alot by your verse on slavery in Exodus - I hadn't read that verse before, so thank you.
I think discussion can be wonderful and harmful at different times.

Your welcome. That's why we're here hopefully, to edify one another. Sometimes however that's not the impression one gets though is it. I do know that in the time I've been here I've learned far more than what I've contributed. By no means will I ever say or feel that I might know it all or even feel confident I might know it all in any one subject. Hah, now that would be arrogant.

BTW, I've learned much from you too. I've enjoyed your posts, the energy and fortitude you have for defending the Word of God is such a joy to see. That's one thing I've really enjoyed seeing is how this isn't about you but all about Him and His Word. Keep up the good work!

Oh I so agree! But then, Satan knows that doesn't he? He has LOTS of busy workers in most all Christian churches & ministries doing just that!

Yes unfortunately they're busier than ever.

That's ok tho - those who will see and hear WILL be saved in the time God gives them here.
Ultimately, God's enemies win nothing - in fact, each day they operate against God & His truth, they're "heaping up sins" for harsher judgment when they meet up with Him face to face.

Without a doubt, yet it is sad to see such deception in the church of all places, much of it perpetrated by its leaders.

They're basically only keeping the people who WON'T ever be saved from God - not keeping those who will convert away. They lose all the way around. Very tragic.

I think they're not only keeping those who won't ever be saved but also handicapping many of us who already are. That's where the real tragedy is.

Do you really think so? As time goes on, I don't doubt people think they're a Christian church (judging from its growth) - 15 yrs ago they were widely called & known as a 'cult' but that's changing imo.

You're right many people do see them as just another mainline denomination today instead of the cult that they are. I was basing my statement primarily on my own limited experience and those few conversations I've taken part in, probably not a very accurate assessment.

 

[david_x]

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

So if you had a slave you would want them to act a certain way, that is the way you should behave as a slave.

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

It says it's bad?

 

[Romanseight2005]

Abraham after Sarah's death he married Katurah and had concubines. I'd say he liked the extra attention.

Gen.25:1-6

dayhiker

Show me the scriptures that prove he had sexual concubines.

 

[Romanseight2005]

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.

Yes this is true. Even in the regulated slavery, it still wasn't ever considered good and right by God. In fact that was what the year of Jubilee was all about. Setting them free. Also, they were indebted(hence paying off a debt) Scripture comes out strongly against being in someone's debt to begin with. So, in other words, slavery was a form of both retribution, and punishment. Unfortunately, children often had to pay the debt of their fathers.

 

[Romanseight2005]

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.

I disagree that they are so different. Concubines were essentially both, and both involved the ownership of another person in the sense that the ones owned gave up any and all rights to themselves.

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.

First of all you did not establish this in any posts. The scripture you were using to claim that "wife of one husband' was used and therefore nullified "one wife" from being used to exclude polygamists, was completely incomparable because they were talking about two completely different things, and the verse said widows. So, that argument has to be thrown out. Also, your version of what the husband of one wife verse was saying makes no sense. To say that it simply means to be faithful isn't at all logical. Why would the word, "one," be thrown in there at all if it was completely uneccessary as you are implying. That is just blatantly changing the the verse. This verse would have made perfect sense to the people of that time because they both understood polygamy, and monogamy.

 

[Romanseight2005]

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.
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.

I commend you for admitting that your motive would have been purely lustful. This kind of proves the point that some of us here were trying to make. Scripture clearly speaks strongly against indulging the lust of the flesh.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The issue is, WHAT GOD SAYS IT IS - not how you personally view it in your private little moral worldview.

But here's the issue... both you and I can still read God's word and interpret it two different ways... from reading precisely the same text.

So, who's interpretation is correct? Or are they BOTH valid?

 

[Nadiine]

But here's the issue... both you and I can still read God's word and interpret it two different ways... from reading precisely the same text.

So, who's interpretation is correct? Or are they BOTH valid?

How much clearer can the verse be for interpretation? If you are married, and you are lusting after another person in place of your spouse, it's sin.

The issue isn't interpretation, it's what God says it is. If you interpret it another way, does that make God CHANGE what His standard is just for YOU?
No. And, to go even further, why wouldn't a Christian led by the Holy Spirit on a spelled out sin NOT INTERPRET THAT VERSE CORRECTLY? Becuz it's His Spirit that lives within us CONVICTING US of wrongdoing.
If you don't have a conviction of what the Bible is plainly saying is sin, then there's a problem there.

Your personal interpretation doesn't CHANGE God's rules for you. In fact, Peter told us what happens:

2 Peter 3:15-16
...just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort (twist), as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
​

Even hard to understand verses can be distorted, manipulated, twisted, bent to mean something other than what they mean - biblically, it's to YOUR destruction, it doesn't make your interpretation "true for you" and it can be dangerous.​

Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge Because you have rejected knowledge,I also will reject you from being My priest Since you have forgotten the law of your God,I also will forget your children.
(in context this is the knowledge God is speaking of in vs. 1: "Or knowledge of God in the land"
​

I'd also venture to say that if someone doesn't feel inwardly convicted about sexual sin, their conscience is already seared (turned off/dead to feeling it's wrong anymore) from being in rebellion to Him, or they aren't even a genuine Christian w/ the Spirit of God working within them.

Personal interpretation on clearly spelled out sin changes nothing for us. & if one doesn't understand the plain meanings in the Bible, it's an indication that the Spirit isn't there leading them into all TRUTH in His word.​

 

[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

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

Nadiine, actually, it's very true, the key phrase in my post was "IMO" (In My Opinion). IMO you keep making the same arguments based on bad exegesis of scripture. And specifically, you're proof-texting, taking scripture out of context and assuming an interpretation that the author did not intend. Furthermore, IMO your extra-biblical arguments are based on your personal experience and some very sweeping assumptions. These extra-biblical arguments, beyond being extra-biblical and thus non-authoritative, are weak in that your assumptions (like the reason for polygamy is to fulfill the lust of the flesh of men) are not based on fact but upon your personal logical or illogical deductions. Also, your personal experience is completely one-sided; you've never been in a polygamous family, and you've been endoctrinated since childhood to perceive such as evil; others in other cultures have a very different perspective. But you claim your perspective as being universal, as opposed to recognizing just how much of it is based on your culture.

Again, that's "my opinion"; but of course it's up to the readers to determine for themselves which arguments make the most sense. And I see no value in repeating those arguments or continuing this debate. A point by point review presenting both views might be helpful but that would be difficult for either of us to write and give the opposing side it's due. So TTFN.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How much clearer can the verse be for interpretation? If you are married, and you are lusting after another person in place of your spouse, it's sin.

Mhmmm... really depends how you interpret "lust" though, doesn't it?

And I say again... if it weren't for lusting for non-spouses, just a bit... who would get married in the first place?

 

[dayhiker]

I was thinking about this threat over the past few days. I was thinking how well Nadiine writes her point of view. Then I remembered a couple years ago reading a guy who has his PHD and teaches that all Christians should keep the Sabbath. He used some of the same approaches that Nadiine uses. Nadiine, your in good company.
Those type of arguements used to bother me a lot and when I read two people with different views that used those approaches to applying the scritpure I'd be very confused.
As I've grown in my Christianity, I've come to see that this approach Bible interpretation can be used to teach any point of view. I even remember a Sunday School teacher saying that he could prove any site of an arguement from the Bible.
This is one of the reasons, I've moved away from trying to add to lists of sins and thereby thinking that the longer the list of sins I have and don't do the more pleased God is with me.
My list of sins is now about two. Most people sin by not living in faith. They don't love Jesus. If they tell me they lvoe Jesus, then I take them at their word. Then if those people involved with that Christian seem then as a loving person, then I'm fine with them. This allows me to fellowsihp with a very wide swath of Christians. Its been one of the great blessing of my life to know many believers.
Its interesting that the people that have a problem with me are the fundamentalists types. I once considered myself a fundamentalist. I still believe the fundamentals of the faith ... yet they call me a lier and others rather than fellowship with. They question if I'm saved. They position themselves as if they are superior to me in their relationship to God.
I've started to thank God for these experinces because its teaching me so much. I'm learning a whole know aspect of the Scriptures that I never knew before.

that's my humble observation
dayhiker

 

[Nadiine]

I was thinking about this threat over the past few days. I was thinking how well Nadiine writes her point of view. Then I remembered a couple years ago reading a guy who has his PHD and teaches that all Christians should keep the Sabbath. He used some of the same approaches that Nadiine uses. Nadiine, your in good company.
Those type of arguements used to bother me a lot and when I read two people with different views that used those approaches to applying the scritpure I'd be very confused.
As I've grown in my Christianity, I've come to see that this approach Bible interpretation can be used to teach any point of view. I even remember a Sunday School teacher saying that he could prove any site of an arguement from the Bible.
This is one of the reasons, I've moved away from trying to add to lists of sins and thereby thinking that the longer the list of sins I have and don't do the more pleased God is with me.
My list of sins is now about two. Most people sin by not living in faith. They don't love Jesus. If they tell me they lvoe Jesus, then I take them at their word. Then if those people involved with that Christian seem then as a loving person, then I'm fine with them. This allows me to fellowsihp with a very wide swath of Christians. Its been one of the great blessing of my life to know many believers.
Its interesting that the people that have a problem with me are the fundamentalists types. I once considered myself a fundamentalist. I still believe the fundamentals of the faith ... yet they call me a lier and others rather than fellowship with. They question if I'm saved. They position themselves as if they are superior to me in their relationship to God.
I've started to thank God for these experinces because its teaching me so much. I'm learning a whole know aspect of the Scriptures that I never knew before.

that's my humble observation
dayhiker

I think "outthinking" clear scripture is also dangerous - we give more honesty & common sense to understanding novels & fairy tales in their meanings sometimes.

I don't argue eloquently, but I do think the Bible is quite clear on a majority of serious subjects involving sin. Imo, it's people with agendas that warp its simplicity.

We also have a knack of justifying things for ourselves - and we also have a knack of searing our conciences.
Alot of times it's your FIRST thought & feelings about something or someone that the SPIRIT is speaking to us thru.
If we keep suppressing those 'checks in our spirit', we become dull of hearing the truth over time.

If the Clear & obvious verses aren't enough, nothing else will be.

 

[Nadiine]

Mhmmm... really depends how you interpret "lust" though, doesn't it?

And I say again... if it weren't for lusting for non-spouses, just a bit... who would get married in the first place?

I'll let God judge people's lusts - that's not my job. I only relay the message He gave.
It is what it is.

I guess according to you, everyone has to sin in order get married? I'll let you work that out with God - it's not my place.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I don't argue eloquently, but I do think the Bible is quite clear on a majority of serious subjects involving sin. Imo, it's people with agendas that warp its simplicity.

My irony meter exploded

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'll let God judge people's lusts - that's not my job. I only relay the message He gave.
It is what it is.

Its your willingness to interpret the message in line with your pre-existing understanding that I question