Polygamy and Christianity

[RBPerry]

Even though poligomy is riddled everywhere throughout the old testament. It is now a sin in Christianity. Don't fool yourself.

Who made it a sin, and upon who's authority? Personally I think it is a very bad idea, but I don't see it as sin. In America the sin would be breaking the law of our country because it is illegal here. However in the middle Eastern countries many allow it. In India a man can have up to four wives. As for me, one wife is all I can handle.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Who made it a sin, and upon who's authority? Personally I think it is a very bad idea, but I don't see it as sin. In America the sin would be breaking the law of our country because it is illegal here. However in the middle Eastern countries many allow it. In India a man can have up to four wives. As for me, one wife is all I can handle.

Therein is the root of what I've been getting at. However, socially engineered theologies routinely undermine the Bible and perceived theological truths taught by the Bible. Many people, including Th.D degreed professors, seem prone to the power of social pressures.

Where it's true the law of the land does not allow a man to have more than one active marriage certificate at a time, there is no law against NOT having one at all, from any state, for his marriage. Those certificates are only for the purpose of gaining legal recognition for one's marriage. No verse in the Bible demands all married couples acquire a certificate from the government, and no laws on the books of any state, nor at the federal level, require all married couples acquire legal recognition for their marriages. It's just something people do, and many a false teaching has emanated from pulpits through the years talking about how immoral it is for couples to be married apart from the silly piece of paper from City Hall, as if governmental laws define marriage. I have yet to find in the Bible where the Lord ever once relinquished His sole authority over marriage and its definition to mankind and his earthly laws and traditions.

So, in the West, a man can still have plural wives without violating the law. That clearly violates the SOCIAL sensibilities of many people to the extent that they try to argue their point from scripture, as if proof for their beliefs were on almost every other page of the NT when, in fact, it is utter silence apart from an injunction against deacons and bishops having plural wives, and OT kings excessively acquiring wives as also applies to horses.

The self-authorized expansionists, of course, will argue that such an injunction against bishops and deacons having plural wives also applies to all other believers, thus subjectively picking and choosing what instructions aimed at those hand full of people apply to all others, and which do not.....as if the Lord were incapable of inspiring His REAL intent to be written if that injunction were to be expanded outward as applying to all others. They will always try the tactic of speaking as if it were a no-brainer for everyone to glean their expansionistic corruptions. They ridicule those who choose to read scripture for what it actually says without riding along on the religious bandwagon of group-think.

It's indeed interesting how many professing believers will apply the same tactics similar to those utilized by mormons and jehovah's witnesses, and yet call mormons and jehvoah's witnesses out onto the carpet when they apply those same tactics in defense of their warped beliefs.

There's a word for that phenomenon.....

Oh, and I fully agree that most men should avoid acquiring plural wives, especially here in the West given the tragic lack of masculine fatherhood to sons corrupted by feministic/feminized weaknesses in their thinking. So, yes, it should be avoided by the vast majority. Being content with one is also a good thing.

Jr

 

[RBPerry]

In Pauls letter to Timothy he was laying down guidelines.
1 Timothy 3:2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, .........

One could argue that this was an opinion of Paul's and not necessarily a law. It's like the denominations that refuse to ordain someone because they were divorced and had remarried, they are splitting hairs. It is funny that the beginning of Paul's letter to Timothy his first warning was to watch out for false teachers, there are more than a few running around today. I have always loved Wesley's comment, "Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself, all the rest is just commentary."
In main stream Christianity if a pastor was to preach a sermon stating the polygamy isn't a sin, he would be looking for a job Monday morning.

 

[SwordmanJr]

In Pauls letter to Timothy he was laying down guidelines.
1 Timothy 3:2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, .........

One could argue that this was an opinion of Paul's and not necessarily a law. It's like the denominations that refuse to ordain someone because they were divorced and had remarried, they are splitting hairs.

Wellllll, I don't think we can settle on that one for sure. The one place where Paul stated that it was him talking, not the Lord, was in relation to divorce. So, it's reasonable to say that, when Paul said nothing about a particular teaching coming strictly from himself rather than the Lord, all other is from the Lord.

It is funny that the beginning of Paul's letter to Timothy his first warning was to watch out for false teachers, there are more than a few running around today.

You got that right, which includes those who teach a moral crisis in the absence of a "marriage license" from local government. The accusation has always been that those who don't have one are merely "shacking up." That level of hatred and animus toward those who don't ride that bandwagon has been going on for FAR too long, especially now that we're faced with a governmental system that endorses perverse lifestyles to which they're granting governmental recognition for the secular definition of "marriage."

In main stream Christianity if a pastor was to preach a sermon stating the polygamy isn't a sin, he would be looking for a job Monday morning.

Absolutely. No professing group of feminized believers will ever put with any narrative of truth that bucks their socially engineered theologies about marriage and family. Some of the modern vows alone have run shivers up my spine as to just how low this culture has sunk, thanks to feminism and other evils that have crept into the fabric and framework of modern thought.

Jr

 

[summerville]

Please before commenting read through this whole post.

I am wondering if polygamy is okay according to the Bible. You see many old testament leaders and devotees to God practicing polygamy.

It is a heavy debate in many areas of Christianity- some branches of the church saying it is alright and some not.

I am asking for SCRIPTURE not personal opinions or preference.

I will continue researching on my own on top of this.

Thank you in advance for your input.

LETS KEEP THIS CIVIL PLEASE.

Religion hasn't always challenged the cultural status quo.. or maybe norms is a better word.. The Bible didn't condemn slavery or multiple wives and concubines for MEN.. Women on the other hand really took it in the neck..

Wife beating was frowned upon by most churches, but it wasn't actually forbidden and men weren't censured by the church congregation.

Historically girls and women were shunned and shamed for a child out of wedlock.

My own mother who was in college paying her own way at 16 was shamed in front of the whole congregation (Southern Baptist) for smoking cigarettes in the early 1930s.

Muhammed didn't approve of female circumcision, but he didn't forbid it either.

Polygamy today? Not a chance. If my husband came up with such an idea, I would set him free instantly. I would also hire a good lawyer and take half of our assets. No further discussion needed. An affair I might forgive and forget, but if he advocated polygamy, he's toast. I consider that abuse.

 

[summerville]

Wellllll, I don't thin we can settle on that one for sure. The one place where Paul stated that it was him talking, not the Lord, was in relation to divorce. So, it's reasonable to say that, when Paul said nothing about a particular teaching coming strictly from himself rather than the Lord, all other is from the Lord.



You got that right, which includes those who teach a moral crisis in the absence of a "marriage license" from local government. The accusation has always been that those who don't have one are merely "shacking up." That level of hatred and animus toward those who don't ride that bandwagon has been going on for FAR too long, especially now that we're faced with a governmental system that endorses perverse lifestyles to which they're granting governmental recognition for the secular definition of "marriage."



Absolutely. No professing group of feminized believers will ever put with any narrative of truth that bucks their socially engineered theologies about marriage and family. Some of the modern vows alone have run shivers up my spine as to just how low this culture has sunk, thanks to feminism and other evils that have crept into the fabric and framework of modern thought.

Jr

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults.. The State is NOT party to the contract. The marriage license is simply a way to register the contract once it is ratified. The State doesn't care about your marriage. You can live it any way you choose. They just don't want to raise your offspring or bear the expense.

So the state doesn't get involved unless they have to mitigate the dissolution of the contract.. and then there are few issues that have to be addressed. Division of assets, custody and maintenance of minor children and conduct of the parties.

I am 30 years away from working divorces so I am a bit foggy, but I would invite an attorney or competent family law paralegal to jump in here and clarify this issue.

 

[RBPerry]

Polygamy today? Not a chance. If my husband came up with such an idea, I would set him free instantly. I would also hire a good lawyer and take half of our assets. No further discussion needed. An affair I might forgive and forget, but if he advocated polygamy, he's toast. I consider that abuse.

As would most women in societies where polygamy isn't practiced, (Mormons excluded). My wife worked domestic violence sexual assault cases for many years, she also knows the laws of our state well.

I disagree that a couple can live together without a marriage license. It gives either party the ability to walk out with little or no repercussions, and that is wrong in my opinion. Too many men have walked out on their girlfriends, or wives when they decided to move on and sow their oats somewhere else. Children get devastated and some women end up in poverty because of it. Our marriage laws are written to protect the rights of both parties and the children.

 

[summerville]

As would most women in societies where polygamy isn't practiced, (Mormons excluded). My wife worked domestic violence sexual assault cases for many years, she also knows the laws of our state well.

I disagree that a couple can live together without a marriage license. It gives either party the ability to walk out with little or no repercussions, and that is wrong in my opinion. Too many men have walked out on their girlfriends, or wives when they decided to move on and sow their oats somewhere else. Children get devastated and some women end up in poverty because of it. Our marriage laws are written to protect the rights of both parties and the children.

I didn't advocate for shacking up.

Most States don't recognize Common Law Marriage so there is no protection under the law of the land.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Religion hasn't always challenged the cultural status quo.. or maybe norms is a better word.. The Bible didn't condemn slavery or multiple wives and concubines for MEN.. Women on the other hand really took it in the neck..

It's also important that polygyny not be aligned with slavery, because they are not the same thing. Most people, when thinking about the term "slavery" most generally see it as defined by what went in here in the West, with people having been kidnapped, sold to Dutch ship captains, who then brought them to Europe and America for sale.

Polygny, on the other hand, is a marital form not at all comparable to slavery. The Lord even gave some men plural wives, but I don't read where the Lord ever placed anyone in slavery, although He did send enemies against Israel and Judah to punish them for their adulteries and paganism.

Wife beating was frowned upon by most churches, but it wasn't actually forbidden and men weren't censured by the church congregation.

Wife beating is the antithesis to marriage. It's a violation of the marital bond, very much like fornication and adultery.

Historically girls and women were shunned and shamed for a child out of wedlock.

It is a shame for girls and women to engage in sexual activity with any man outside of a marital bond with the man....unless he died at some point during the pregnancy.

My own mother who was in college paying her own way at 16 was shamed in front of the whole congregation (Southern Baptist) for smoking cigarettes in the early 1930s.

Hmm. Did those people know of an injunction against smoking within the Bible?

Muhammed didn't approve of female circumcision, but he didn't forbid it either.

Well, the world has always had its share of freaks.

Polygamy today? Not a chance. If my husband came up with such an idea, I would set him free instantly. I would also hire a good lawyer and take half of our assets. No further discussion needed. An affair I might forgive and forget, but if he advocated polygamy, he's toast. I consider that abuse.

Are you saying, then, that you don't have a genuine marital bond to your husband, given that his merely discussing the topic with you is grounds for divorce? That's exactly what I'm seeing in your words, but I want to give you the opportunity to clarify the reality.

I also note, with interest, that you are honest enough to at least say that you personally consider polygyny a form of abuse. I've heard that from feminists, but have never found one yet who can defend such a belief with actual, legitimate apologetics that don't dabble in, or are utterly immersed in, the realm of emotional thought processes in the place of rationality.

This brings up an interesting phenomenon that most people never consider in our post-modern age: There are MANY couples out there who are living together in fornication and adultery, even though they have one of those pieces of paper from City Hall called a "marriage license." Interestingly, such people are married in the eyes of the Government, but not in the eyes of God. That should be a sobering thought to many out there who so easily run to the divorce courts at the drop of a hat....so to speak.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Jr

 

[summerville]

It's also important that polygyny not be aligned with slavery, because they are not the same thing. Most people, when thinking about the term "slavery" most generally see it as defined by what went in here in the West, with people having been kidnapped, sold to Dutch ship captains, who then brought them to Europe and America for sale.

Polygny, on the other hand, is a marital form not at all comparable to slavery. The Lord even gave some men plural wives, but I don't read where the Lord ever placed anyone in slavery, although He did send enemies against Israel and Judah to punish them for their adulteries and paganism.

Wife beating is the antithesis to marriage. It's a violation of the marital bond, very much like fornication and adultery.



It is a shame for girls and women to engage in sexual activity with any man outside of a marital bond with the man....unless he died at some point during the pregnancy.



Hmm. Did those people know of an injunction against smoking within the Bible?



Well, the world has always had its share of freaks.

Are you saying, then, that you don't have a genuine marital bond to your husband, given that his merely discussing the topic with you is grounds for divorce? That's exactly what I'm seeing in your words, but I want to give you the opportunity to clarify the reality.

I also note, with interest, that you are honest enough to at least say that you personally consider polygyny a form of abuse. I've heard that from feminists, but have never found one yet who can defend such a belief with actual, legitimate apologetics that don't dabble in, or are utterly immersed in, the realm of emotional thought processes in the place of rationality.

This brings up an interesting phenomenon that most people never consider in our post-modern age: There are MANY couples out there who are living together in fornication and adultery, even though they have one of those pieces of paper from City Hall called a "marriage license." Interestingly, such people are married in the eyes of the Government, but not in the eyes of God. That should be a sobering thought to many out there who so easily run to the divorce courts at the drop of a hat....so to speak.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Jr

I said religion often did NOT go against cultural norms LIKE slavery or Polygamy or female circumcision. I didn't make any claim that polygamy was LIKE slavery.

To remain with a husband who is advocating for polygamy is beyond absurd.. and since you can't change a spouse its stupid to subject yourself to such abuse.

Loving someone who is pressing for polygamy is tolerating abuse... so no the "marital bond" doesn't give a husband the right to do that anymore than a husband should tolerate that from a wife who advocates for multiple husbands.

Its NOT a feminist issue and should NOT be dismissed as such. Further, Common Law Marriage is not recognized by most states.

As for polygamy among Muslims.... The woman writes the marriage contract in Islam. If she writes into the contract that her husband can't take other wives, she has immediate grounds for divorce if he does anyway.

The reasons for polygamy in Islam are that every girl, woman, widow and/or spinster has to belong to a family, clan and tribe in order to survive in an extremely harsh environment. Its not like Western thought at all. Belonging to a family is protection.

The Bible says a person should NOT be unevenly yoked.

 

[SwordmanJr]

To remain with a husband who is advocating for polygamy is beyond absurd.. and since you can't change a spouse its stupid to subject yourself to such abuse.

You believe that, hypothetically speaking, your current husband being convinced that polygyny (not polygamy) is ok, that he would then be guilty of abusing you? How so? What defining authority (outside of yourself) establishes that as fact?

Loving someone who is pressing for polygamy is tolerating abuse... so no the "marital bond" doesn't give a husband the right to do that anymore than a husband should tolerate that from a wife who advocates for multiple husbands.

You're mixing and matching in that. A woman having what she thinks is "plural husbands" falls well within the realm of adultery. However, I'm trying to first get past your initial statement that were your husband to even "believe" polygyny is ok, you would consider that a form of abuse and divorce him.

Its NOT a feminist issue and should NOT be dismissed as such. Further, Common Law Marriage is not recognized by most states.

That's two different arguments. Taking them one at a time:

1) Feminism is indeed behind much of modern thought here in the West concerning polygyny and many other aspects of what most call "marriage." I'm not saying feminism is anything new, because it existed in the Garden.

2) Common Law is a lesser consideration in all this because a) there is no law requiring legal recognition of a marriage through licensure, and b) it does not define morality.

God's definition of marriage has EVERYTHING to do with the moral imperatives surrounding TRUE marriage and sex. When I counsel couples who come to me about their marriage, the first thing I dive into is their understanding of what marriage truly is within their respective belief systems. If they don't have that right, then anything else I may counsel them is rendered meaningless and of no value.

As for polygamy among Muslims.... The woman writes the marriage contract in Islam. If she writes into the contract that her husband can't take other wives, she has immediate grounds for divorce if he does anyway.

What those within islam do is of no consequence to the Bible and it's defining authority for marriage and morality. Social contracts do not, in the wildest stretch of the imagination, negate nor make null and void the higher authority of God's word....whether they believe and follow Christ Jesus or not. They will ALL be judged on the same basis no matter what they may have believed and followed here in this life.

The reasons for polygamy in Islam are that every girl, woman, widow and/or spinster has to belong to a family, clan and tribe in order to survive in an extremely harsh environment. Its not like Western thought at all. Belonging to a family is protection.

Again, so what? The muslims are all responsible for their own beliefs, and so they will stand in judgment like all other as unbelievers and deniers of Christ Jesus before men.

The Bible says a person should NOT be unevenly yoked.

As an example: Abraham, in relation to his plural wives, was not in any way unequally yoked. He and his wives were blessed, regardless of what you or anyone else may believe about polygyny. God gave some men plural wives, which clearly speaks of His not being so opposed to it as so many seem to think. The Lord even commanded the taking of an additional wife in one particular circumstance, so one is barking up the wrong tree to think God is opposed to men having plural wives. I will agree that plural wives is not at all a good idea for most men, but to try and force that marital form into the shadows of sin and ill repute is a stab against what that one clearly does not understand.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

I said religion often did NOT go against cultural norms LIKE slavery or Polygamy or female circumcision. I didn't make any claim that polygamy was LIKE slavery.

I'm not sure what "religion" you're talking about, for there are many, all of which are false. So, it's of no consequence what those within mere "religion" think or do in relation to cultural dogmas.

The fact that you chose slavery as the comparative item with what you call "polygamy," which nobody in this forum ever endorsed from what I've seen, that alone speaks loud volumes to your core thinking. Were I to align a conceptual comparative between women and homosexuality, you too would likely find some problem with that since they are not aligned in any empirical fashion apart from some in that sex having willingly given themselves over to the other. Womanhood, therefore, is not at all conceptually comparable to homosexuality.

To clarify: Polygamy is the umbrella term that covers several marital forms, all but one of which fall well within God's definitions for sin. Polygyny is one man with more than one wife. So, it can be somewhat manipulative to not make that distinction. You have repeatedly parroted the term "polygamy" as if that is what I was arguing. Your continual diatribe in relation to that term, contrary to my repeatedly shining the light on polygyny, is also a suspect tact.

Speaking of marriage, whether it be with plural wives or just one, most who attend denominational and nondenominational churchianity in modern times have, are about to, or will in the future, practice serialized polygamy. Divorced men and women are remarrying in droves, most of whom acquired a divorce decree from our corrupt legal system, issuing divorces that the Lord clearly does not endorse nor recognize (for things such as non-compatibility) and they unknowingly end up living in sin under the false belief that a piece of paper from government makes their present relationship right in God's eyes. Having moved on to other adulterous and fornicative relationships, all without a peep from that scoundrel who preaches to them from behind his or her pulpit each week, never saying a word about this phenomenon to warn those living in it, they sit idly in their pathetic pews believing that their having acquired a "licesne" from City Hall makes it all right and holy in the sight of God. Your words about marriage being some sort of heavenly, legal arrangement, as sterile as that is, perpetuates this gross misunderstanding about what marriage truly is in the thinking of the Most High.

It is my hope that those who read this and who are living in such a "marriage," will understand their need to go before the Lord and confess before Him the denial of Genesis 2, and its shouting out God's definition for marriage. Present relationships can be sanctified, made pure, if only one will confess it all before the Lord. We have that promise, unless one is living with someone of the same sex. That clearly is condemned in the word of God. A corrupt perception of "love" in those relationships does not make it right. Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments," meaning that TRUE love is always obedient unto the Lord at ALL costs.

May the Lord bless and keep you all.

Jr

 

[Kenobi]

Mark 10:7-9 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”…

If two are to become one, then they cannot become one with others involved.

This was the verse that came to my mind as well.

It is singularly clear in these verses what marriage is... And in Ephesians when Paul talks of marriage, he says he is not speaking of marriage, though it is a great mystery, but the marriage of the single body of Christ married to Christ. He portrays it in a 1:1 fashion when we are joined to God, as well as the 1:1 marriage when man and woman, two individuals, become one flesh.

There's a lot of things in the Bible that should be taken literally, taken metaphorically, taken as a prescription, and taken as a description. It's the help of the Holy Spirit that teaches us what is what and which is which (1 John 2:27)

When it describes what people did. Sometimes it's just describing what people did. Not that it should be done. In fact, there's a lot in Genesis that you don't know if it's a good thing or bad thing without the cultural context...

 

[SwordmanJr]

This was the verse that came to my mind as well.

It is singularly clear in these verses what marriage is... And in Ephesians when Paul talks of marriage, he says he is not speaking of marriage, though it is a great mystery, but the marriage of the single body of Christ married to Christ. He portrays it in a 1:1 fashion when we are joined to God, as well as the 1:1 marriage when man and woman, two individuals, become one flesh.

There's a lot of things in the Bible that should be taken literally, taken metaphorically, taken as a prescription, and taken as a description. It's the help of the Holy Spirit that teaches us what is what and which is which (1 John 2:27)

When it describes what people did. Sometimes it's just describing what people did. Not that it should be done. In fact, there's a lot in Genesis that you don't know if it's a good thing or bad thing without the cultural context...

There's a difference between taking something literally and forcing MEANING into the text that is nowhere upheld nor even implied. Show me where the text even hinted at the idea that its inclusive aim was to limit ALL men to just one wife. If polygyny were in any way opposed to God's ideal for SOME men, then we should expect to see almost every one of the Patriarchs of our faith burning in the pits of Hell, for it is written that adulterers and fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Abraham stood there with Christ Jesus on the "mount of transfiguration" as it is called, a man who died with plural wives, and who was nonrepentent for it.

So perpetrating forms of interpretation that one would never allow a mormon or jehovah's witness to get away with is highly suspect, for they too do the same thing some here are doing; which is to put weight of meaning that the context does not uphold nor even imply...except in the minds of those whose belief system is greatly influenced by socially engineered theologies.

Generally speaking, I've heard numbers of people claim things to the effect that God "winked" at some "marital and sexual sins (plural)" for a time, and then rushed in to put a stop to them. Frankly, that's a doctrine of demons! Those whose beliefs are governed by the pits of Hell are not believers in what's written in the Bible, and therefore believers in what is written. The only marital form that was eventually disallowed at the time Moses penned the Law is incest. We today have a very good understanding as to WHY the Lord made that disallowance. Apart from that, the word of God is silent, except in the minds of those who force meaning into the text what isn't there. Reading between the lines is often fraught with great error and misunderstanding.

To deny that God gave some men plural wives is to dismiss the very Lord they claim to believe in. The Bible shows not only what people did, but also what God did, and what He commanded of some men in relation to taking plural wives.

So, if one is going to parade the idea of reading the Bible literally, then do it! Read it for what it says without the filters of social and cultural dogmas created by Western society and feminism. So many fail to recall what Paul said in relation to prostitutes. Recall where he stated that when a man lies with a harlot, he has become ONE FLESH with her. Nowhere did Paul state that a man had to be single for that one flesh reality to become active in that man's life with that woman.

So, let's all take a clue from not only what is written in the word of God, but also the hypocrisies rooted within socially engineered theologies that have been drilled into all our heads through the years, and thus stop being products of a feminized culture. Some men had and HAVE plural wives even today here in America and Canada, and the word of God nowhere speaks against it. Modern culture seems to have no problem with SERIALIZED POLYGAMY by way of all the couples out there divorcing for unscriptural reasons (that God Himself does not recognize nor endorse), and shacking up with an additional spouse not theirs for the taking. That means that there are hosts of couples out there living in the sins of fornication and adultery who, even though they have one of those pieces of paper from their local City Hall claiming that they are married, are still living in sin together.

It's interesting how people will so easily harangue about polygyny, and yet say not one peep about all the divorce and remarriage (POLYGAMY) going on right under their own noses, right there in the same pews where they sit each week, winked at by their corrupt and wicked "pastors" who lie routinely while standing behind their pulpits of wickedness and evil. Not all pastors are that way, but the "turning away" is well under way right before our eyes in these modern times.

Jr

 

[Kenobi]

There's a difference between taking something literally and forcing MEANING into the text that is nowhere upheld not even implied. Show me where the text even hinted at the idea that its inclusive aim was to limit ALL men to just one wife. If polygyny were in any way opposed to God's ideal for SOME men, then we should expect to see almost every one of the Patriarchs of our faith burning in the pits of Hell, for it is written that adulterers and fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Abraham stood there with Christ Jesus, a man who died with plural wives, and who was nonrepentent for it.

So perpetrating forms of interpretation that you would never allow a mormon of jehovah's witness to get away with is highly suspect, for they too do the same thing some here are doing; which is to put weight of meaning that the context does not uphold nor even imply...except in the minds of those whose belief system is greatly influenced by socially engineered theologies.

Generally speaking, I've heard numbers of people claim things to the effect that God "winked" at some marital and sexual sins (plural) for a time, and then rushed in to put a stop to them. Frankly, that's a doctrine of demons! Those whose beliefs are governed by the pits of Hell are not believers in what's written in the Bible, and therefore believers in what is written. The only marital form that was eventually disallowed at the time Moses penned the Law is incest. We today have a very good understanding as to WHY the Lord made that disallowance. Apart from that, the word of God is silent, except in the minds of those who force meaning into the text what isn't there. Reading between the lines is often fraught with great error and misunderstanding.

To deny that Gods gave some men plural wives is to dismiss the very Lord they claim to believe in. The Bible shows not only what people did, but also what God did, and what He commanded of some men in relation to taking plural wives.

So, if one is going to parade the idea of reading the Bible literally, then do it! Read it for what it says without the filters of social and cultural dogmas created by Western society and feminsm.

Jr

My comment on taking the Bible literally, was not meaning take the ENTIRE Bible literally. Hence why I talked about several ways we need to take the Bible.... We need to take it literally, metaphorically, prescription, and description. These are 4 different ways, there are probably more.

I had to get that out there first before I read the rest of your rant

 

[Kenobi]

There's a difference between taking something literally and forcing MEANING into the text that is nowhere upheld nor even implied. Show me where the text even hinted at the idea that its inclusive aim was to limit ALL men to just one wife. If polygyny were in any way opposed to God's ideal for SOME men, then we should expect to see almost every one of the Patriarchs of our faith burning in the pits of Hell, for it is written that adulterers and fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Abraham stood there with Christ Jesus on the "mount of transfiguration" as it is called, a man who died with plural wives, and who was nonrepentent for it.

So perpetrating forms of interpretation that one would never allow a mormon or jehovah's witness to get away with is highly suspect, for they too do the same thing some here are doing; which is to put weight of meaning that the context does not uphold nor even imply...except in the minds of those whose belief system is greatly influenced by socially engineered theologies.

Generally speaking, I've heard numbers of people claim things to the effect that God "winked" at some "marital and sexual sins (plural)" for a time, and then rushed in to put a stop to them. Frankly, that's a doctrine of demons! Those whose beliefs are governed by the pits of Hell are not believers in what's written in the Bible, and therefore believers in what is written. The only marital form that was eventually disallowed at the time Moses penned the Law is incest. We today have a very good understanding as to WHY the Lord made that disallowance. Apart from that, the word of God is silent, except in the minds of those who force meaning into the text what isn't there. Reading between the lines is often fraught with great error and misunderstanding.

To deny that God gave some men plural wives is to dismiss the very Lord they claim to believe in. The Bible shows not only what people did, but also what God did, and what He commanded of some men in relation to taking plural wives.

So, if one is going to parade the idea of reading the Bible literally, then do it! Read it for what it says without the filters of social and cultural dogmas created by Western society and feminism. So many fail to recall what Paul said in relation to prostitutes. Recall where he stated that when a man lies with a harlot, he has become ONE FLESH with her. Nowhere did Paul state that a man had to be single for that one flesh reality to become active in that man's life with that woman.

So, let's all take a clue from not only what is written in the word of God, but also the hypocrisies rooted within socially engineered theologies that have been drilled into all our heads through the years, and thus stop being products of a feminized culture. Some men had and HAVE plural wives even today here in America and Canada, and the word of God nowhere speaks against it. Modern culture seems to have no problem with SERIALIZED POLYGAMY by way of all the couples out there divorcing for unscriptural reasons (that God Himself does not recognize nor endorse), and shacking up with an additional spouse not theirs for the taking. That means that there are hosts of couples out there living in the sins of fornication and adultery who, even though they have one of those pieces of paper from their local City Hall claiming that they are married, are still living in sin together.

It's interesting how people will so easily harangue about polygyny, and yet say not one peep about all the divorce and remarriage (POLYGAMY) going on right under their own noses, right there in the same pews where they sit each week, winked at by their corrupt and wicked "pastors" who lie routinely while standing behind their pulpits of wickedness and evil. Not all pastors are that way, but the "turning away" is well under way right before our eyes in these modern times.

Jr

Maybe it's the fact you quoted me, but was much of what you said directly focused toward me? Because I never said polygamy was a straight up sin.

I don't think it's what God intended, at all.

Just as he didn't intend for Saul to be King. Or intend for Adam to fall. Or intend for Sampson to go blind. Or intend for people to go to hell. Yet he allows it. Yet it happens.

The very beginning of Genesis we see how God intended for life to be... And he talks of monogamy there, not polygamy.

And yes, divorce and remarriage is awful. If someone's against polygamy, doesn't mean they're fine with divorce either...

Jesus said examine the fruit of something to know whether or not it is good.

Which is good in your eyes... What monogamy yields or polygamy? Or both? I'd love for you to share where God said "Yes! Do this!" on the flip side of the verses people have said here where God would lean toward monogamy.

In my prescriptive/descriptive the only thing I found of polygamy described in the Bible is just that. A description of what happened.

If polygamy was a sin, then Israel is in trouble, because the tribes derived from multiple mothers. But if it is not a sin, then we have to examine whether or not it was a preferred route of God. And I'm saying scripture seems to point to it not being a preferred route.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Maybe it's the fact you quoted me, but was much of what you said directly focused toward me? Because I never said polygamy was a straight up sin.

As I said in that regard, I stated that I was "Generally speaking..."

I don't think it's what God intended, at all.

Perhaps we can agree that it matters not at all what any of us "thinks." What matters is what God DID and what He COMMANDED. On both counts the Lord did what is counter to any idea that polygyny is something that the Lord did not intend for at least SOME men. When you say "at all," I simply pointed out that such a belief is utterly false. It has no grounding in scripture. Obviously the Lord did NOT intend for MOST men to have more than one wife, but some He did.

Just as he didn't intend for Saul to be King. Or intend for Adam to fall. Or intend for Sampson to go blind. Or intend for people to go to hell. Yet he allows it. Yet it happens.

When speaking of intent in relation to the Lord, one generally falls into the pits of error, for we are not qualified to dictate His intents. The Lord KNEW Adam was going to fall, and that fall was well within the scope of the Lord's overall design for all of mankind. Had that not been the case, the Lord could easily have prevented it. Instead, He intentionally placed into the garden what He knew would bring about the result that we look back upon in retrospect. He is never surprised by anything. The Lord knew Sampson would be blinded, and did not prevent it because, as it is written, ALL things work for the good to those who love God, and are called according to His purpose.

The very beginning of Genesis we see how God intended for life to be... And he talks of monogamy there, not polygamy.

God gave to Adam one wife, but to David plural wives. So what? Chronology of events do not always make room for injected meaning into the text. You will search in vain where the perfectly articulate Lord ever spoke of such an intent behind His having given Adam one wife. It could also be said that He gave Adam only one wife to ensure that all mankind came from only one pair of parental figures rather than several. Can you imagine how much worse racism would have been had Adam had more than one wife? The text does not declare either assumptions, but there is more wisdom in my posit than trying to apply it to the idea that it was meant to convey monogamy only for all men. After all, as I pointed out already, some men God commanded the taking of more than one, and actively gave to others plural wives. So the assumption you've put forth here is seen for the weakness in its assumptive authority it attempts to convey.

And yes, divorce and remarriage is awful. If someone's against polygamy, doesn't mean they're fine with divorce either...

I never said anything of the kind. Many are practicing polygamy within almost every church organization out there, and it goes mostly ignored. That shines a very bright spotlight on their hypocrisy when they harangue against polygyny practiced within the moral constraints of biblical teaching while they practice polygamy at will.

Which is good in your eyes... What monogamy yields or polygamy? Or both? I'd love for you to share where God said "Yes! Do this!" on the flip side of the verses people have said here where God would lean toward monogamy.

Well, in light of your making an issue from a non-issue, I will say this: I have stated numerous times throughout, and even in answer to you, that I would never say polygyny is for all men. Most men can't handle more than one wife, and many can't even handle one. Polygyny is a marital form that very few men should ever even consider for themselves. All marriages where the husband is totally committed to his wife or wives, that is what is good, "till death do them part" as opposed to "till dawn do them part" as is practiced in almost every Hollywoodesque church organization on this earth. There is the difference between the good and the bad. The marital form of polygyny is not the problem. The REAL problem is most people's lack of understanding and acceptance of God's definition of marriage in Genesis 2.

In my prescriptive/descriptive the only thing I found of polygamy described in the Bible is just that. A description of what happened.

Yes, and that is so very typical of most, for when one reads the texts with the cultural blinders on, they will see only what the culture mindset allows them to see. Fellow bandwagoneers will always cover your eyes and ears for you when you show them any weakness in your commitment to continue riding along with them. Dare you jump off to read for yourself without their blinders, and you will be labeled and chastised for being a "lone star" believer who refuses to be goaded into conformity by the crowd.

If polygamy was a sin, then Israel is in trouble, because the tribes derived from multiple mothers. But if it is not a sin, then we have to examine whether or not it was a preferred route of God. And I'm saying scripture seems to point to it not being a preferred route.

I will agree that monogamy is indeed God's preferred route for most men. I've said that all along, but it gets lost in the cacophony of foaming-at-the-mouth yammering so many engage when trying to cast in their worthless harangues that are rooted in nothing any deeper than assumption, innuendo and hearsay. I had hoped to get that across to you before, but you too seem to have missed it as it slipped by your thoughts mired in coming up with a rebuttal.

Jr

 

[pearl234]

Maybe it's the fact you quoted me, but was much of what you said directly focused toward me? Because I never said polygamy was a straight up sin.

I don't think it's what God intended, at all.

Just as he didn't intend for Saul to be King. Or intend for Adam to fall. Or intend for Sampson to go blind. Or intend for people to go to hell. Yet he allows it. Yet it happens.

The very beginning of Genesis we see how God intended for life to be... And he talks of monogamy there, not polygamy.

And yes, divorce and remarriage is awful. If someone's against polygamy, doesn't mean they're fine with divorce either...

Jesus said examine the fruit of something to know whether or not it is good.

Which is good in your eyes... What monogamy yields or polygamy? Or both? I'd love for you to share where God said "Yes! Do this!" on the flip side of the verses people have said here where God would lean toward monogamy.

In my prescriptive/descriptive the only thing I found of polygamy described in the Bible is just that. A description of what happened.

If polygamy was a sin, then Israel is in trouble, because the tribes derived from multiple mothers. But if it is not a sin, then we have to examine whether or not it was a preferred route of God. And I'm saying scripture seems to point to it not being a preferred route.

Hi Please message me i need to speak to you

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Recently I heard Dr Jordan Peterson say that polygamy if it were practiced today
limits the spread of DNA by males and that only the few elite would be doing so.
This would cause a small gene pool which is bad for any society.

In early Biblical Days, they were ignorant of the effects of small gene pools,
but social groups were smaller to begin with.

 

[stevevw]

1 Timothy 3 has polygamy as a disqualifier for overseers and deacons. This is among other high standards which Christians should all shoot for. Furthermore, the way adultery is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 7 and Matthew 5:27-28, I am not seeing a practical way to obtain a second spouse without committing adultery.

Plus doesnt it go against what Christ said when he mentions that a man and women will become one in spirit, mind and body when they marry. So how can someone with more than one with more than one wife. They are not becoming one but many.