Polygamy or Polyamory

[BeforeThereWas]

PART 2

• 2. Did God want all men in Mao uniform? (all married the same way) We all know that God does not want all men to be equal: some have been created to be poets, some engineers, some workers, and so on. Why should God have wanted all men to be monogamous?
  
  If God had wanted to stress it, He would have made it clear, by creating 100 men and 100 women and made them to live in monogamous marriages (in fact, polygamous men have never been but 5-15% of all men). But He did not.
  
  He did say very clearly that He wanted ALL human beings to be married (“It is not good for man to be alone”). But, alas!, the catholic church interprets this very clear and direct command and forces priests to be single. But Jesus said that the ones who understood it could stay single (not the forced ones, as it has happened to so many priests and nuns, thrown into convents by their families for XVIII centuries), rectifying this way the Genesis. But Jesus never rectified the consent of polygamy, shown 1,000 times in the Old Testament. On the top of it, no church treats as a public sinner, a man, who decides to remain single.
  
  Why? If polygamy is a sin, because Adam got a wife, why is singleness not a public sin, where, again, Adam got a wife and God said that to be single is not good? WHAT A DELICIOUS DOUBLETHINK have the Churches in respect to polygamy!
  
  The fact is that God gave to us genes, that produce more male than female births and more women than men through death in marriage age. This is the way things are after Paradise.
• 3. If something is clear of Adam’s one wife, it is that God wanted all humanity to descend from one pair (monogenism), for obvious anti-racist reasons, putting up with the incestuous marriage of Adam’s children. By which, by the way, He showed that, unlike church leaders, He knew the “Theorem of the second best” and that, confronted with two evils, you have to choose the smallest one (by which the argument that polygamy is bad, because it WOULD HAVE BEEN bad in Paradise, disappears).
• 4. Once God decided to create JUST one man (and not 100), He could not give to him more than one wife, for instance, two, because it would have meant that this was to be THE GENERAL RULE or that God considered monogamous men as half-married, by which He would have condemned 90-95% of men to half-marriage (the more we progress in this argument, the more ridiculous it is). That the GENERAL RULE is one man one wife, does not need the Paradise story to be understood: the population pyramid does not allow more than 5-10% of polygamous men. If Adam would have got two wives, would this have outlawed monogamy? What if a man did not find two compatible women he fell in love with? Here we see how ridiculous the argument is.
  
  Again, the more we develop and consider this “argument”, the more absurd and ridiculous it gets.
  
  SUMMARY: Nature gave us a ratio of 1.10 women to 1 man. God could not give more than a wife to Adam, because the women:men ratio only allowed 5% of men to have more than one wife. If God wanted to show something with this fact, it, presumably was, that all men came from only one couple (monogenism) and this desire seems to be so strong, that He forced Adam’s children to commit incest. If He had wanted to show monogamy for everybody, He would have created 100 monogamous couples. Even if He had wanted to show monogamy for Paradise, as many other things were to be observed in Paradise (no army, no private property, going naked), simple common sense proves that, outside Paradise, different customs had to rule.

We thus see, from simple logic and mathematics (quite apart from scripture) a divine purpose in which Yahweh has ordained the creation, viz. that up to 5% of men are to live polygynously and the rest - 95% - monogamously. That polygyny is enshrined in the Law (Torah) proves that polygyny is a part of the divine will. As a corrollary of this study we see that polyandry (a woman having multiple husbands) is excluded as also multiple (mixed) marriage. This data is irrefutable. We may, however, freely debate the reason for this state of affairs since clearly polygyny was designed into marriage and the scriptures bless many of those living the practice. Of course, polygyny has its own failure stories as monogamy does, and so we must not fall into the trap of judging a principle simply because some people bungle it - otherwise we must judge and condemn monogamy in the same way.

Although there are certainly many “naturalistic” reasons to explain the need for polygyny - men with high testosterone levels, a surplass of women caused by war, etc. - and whilst Yahweh may very well have legislated for polygyny for these cases to prevent sin - there must be another, altogether more spiritual reason as well, that parallels the need for the creation of a companion for lonely Adam. As Eve was designed for Adam, could it also be that some men were designed to have several women, and some women to share a single man? And if so, what clues are we given to this in Scripture?

Yah'shua/Jesus is called the “second Adam” and His “Eve” is the Church, or Assembly of Believers. His relationship to the Church is described as an allegorical marriage. This marriage is, on one level, a monogamous one (1:1) but on another a polygynous one (1:millions). This allegorical marriage awaits a heavenly consummation wherein Bride and Bridegroom become perfectly one. The Christian faith is, therefore, the marriage of One to the many who are themselves “one” in their love and adoration of their Messiah.

We can see from this that both monogamy and polygyny are natural reflections of this heavenly marriage and that both are necessary. Those who are called to be married monogamously are therefore called to reflect this oneness between Bridegroom and Bride: Similarly, those who are called to be married polygynously are called to reflect the miracle of oneness between many and their oneness with their Head.

To be sure, the demands made of both husbands and wives in polygynous and monogamous households are very different, though the principle of Christ-like love is the same for both. If both monogamy and polygyny are in God’s will, then we must expect to find other reflections in the Church also. And this we do indeed find. For just as every marriage must have a head, so the local assembly must have headship also. The Pastor has a similar kind of allegorical marriage to his congregation as Christ has to the whole Body, and both are composed of male and female. And we are told that when Christ returns to rule and reign in the 1,000 years of millennial peace, a special appointment of Christians who have kept themselves unspotted from the world to be co-rulers will be made. Many, like ourselves, believe these to be the 144,000 mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

But there are two other classes of people mentioned in this book as well - the “great multitude” of Christians (numbering in the millions, we suppose) and those who are the survivors of the Great Tribulation. There will almost certainly be three levels of society in the New World to come - the 144,000 (from amongst the faithful polygynist Christians) princes (and princesses - if we include the wives in the 144,000), some 3,000,000 mostly monogamist Christian administrators (based on the 5% figure), and the rest - the suvivors of the holocaust. Though this is admittedly speculation, it does at least correspond with the biblical patterns.


(http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/CPM026-AdamEve.html)

 

[Lee Fey]

You argue very well. Perhaps, then, you can help with the idea that as a marriage is compared to the relationship between the head and the body, how is it that one head can have two bodies.

This also applies to Christ's relationship with the Church. We, as a group, are considered to be his Body. And thus, as collectively his Body, we have one head, how is it that one head has two or more bodies?

 

[BeforeThereWas]

You argue very well. Perhaps, then, you can help with the idea that as a marriage is compared to the relationship between the head and the body, how is it that one head can have two bodies.

This also applies to Christ's relationship with the Church. We, as a group, are considered to be his Body. And thus, as collectively his Body, we have one head, how is it that one head has two or more bodies?

Observing from the perspective of the physical, observable realm:

* Each believer of a common Lord is a seperate individual.

* Each wife of a common husband is a seperate individual.

Observing from the perspective of the allegorical, spiritual realm:

* Each believer is joined together into one body under the Headship of a common Lord.

* Each wife is joined together into one family (body) under the headship of a common husband.

The imagry is consistent. There is no disparity between the two. Many have tried to uphold a contrived disparity, but without success. The family is a singular entity with the husband as the head and the wives as the body, and never spoken of in distinct terminology in the allegorical, just as the Church is a singular entity with the Lord as the head and the each believer as the body, and never spoken of in distinct terminology in the allegorical.

I hope that answers your question?

BTW

 

[Prakk]

I entered this discussion in the middle of it but I have made more thorough defenses of this point of view elsewhere. We're actually talking about Polygyny if you want to be strict about definitions. To start from where I usually start.

Polygyny is:

"The condition or practice of having more than one wife at one time."

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

It is my declaration that the practice of Polygyny is just as valid today as it was when it was practiced in the Old Testament. Here are some hopeful guidelines and recommendations about this thread. This is not a topic about the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) or the Muslims. Neither of these religions is Christian, and I don't care what they do or think. It's not relevant to this discussion. Next, there are a couple of tired arguments against it that I would like to discourage up front. In that I am addressing these arguments up front, the simple repetition of them would be to engage in one of the most ancient fallacies known as "argumentum ad nauseam." Since I have made the argument already, repeating it is now a fallacy since the argument is answered and that answer must now be replied to.

"It's only allowed (with regret) by God, we shouldn't do it" This is a simple "non sequitur" This argument is based on the absolutely inexplicable connection most people have in their minds between this subject and Christ's statements on divorce. Somehow because Christ says divorce is reluctantly permitted, it is also true that Polygyny is reluctantly permitted. This is an extremely pervasive belief but no proof is ever offered for the connection. There is a secondary connection between this topic and divorce but it has nothing to do with whether or not God merely permits Polygyny in a grudging fashion. Please don't bring it up unless you find the verse that states it. This verse has proved completely hidden to me though I read scripture daily and have for years, cover to cover, front to back, over and over again, version after version. It's probably not there.

"One Flesh" Supposedly this is a devastating argument against polygyny. It assumes a definition of the phrase "one flesh" and thus "begs the question" or is a "circular argument." The reasoning is based on the unfounded notion that One Flesh is made of two components only, and that the function closes after that. No evidence in scripture exists to support that notion, but it's advanced anyway. God is three in one, Christ unifies with the church, which is his bride, and is many many people. The notion that the two become one and nothing else can ever happen after that is a subjective notion, not a scriptural one.

"Cleaving" This is a use of the word in a "Colored" way (Emotive Language). Cleave conjures up certain images and preferred definitions but cleave has definitions that are near polar opposites. , one meaning to cut or divide, the other to cling to. You'd need a philologist to know why. There are many gradations of meaning between those two poles. Context dictates the meaning you select and the context doesn't support the notion of a bilateral exclusiveness. If you're going to go there, you're going to have to prove to me that cleave means only what you want it to mean. This argument could also be termed "Idiosyncratic Language."

"It's Adam & Eve, not Adam & Eve & Amber & Crystal" which is a variation of the "Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve" argument against homosexual "marriage." This is a "Faulty" or "Hasty Generalization." Neither argument holds water. This is not to say I condone Adam & Steve, I don't. There are other reasons why Adam and Steve should stay away from one another, but they aren't spoken to in the creation story. Using the Adam and Eve monogamy example assumes the story in all it's details, before the fall, to be an archetype for all marriage that we must follow without deviation. It is not possible to argue monogamy from their example unless you embrace all parts of the example. Unless you got married buck naked, I urge you not to go there. There are other ways this supposed archetype get strained as well. You're probably not named Adam, or Eve, you aren't made from a rib or you're not missing one. The list goes on. Adam and Eve's marriage is an archetype ONLY in ways stated elsewhere in scripture to be an archetype or ideal.

"It's bad to divide love" To which I reply it is thus wrong to even have your first child, much less two or more. There's no arguing this, really, but I know some of you will try. This is essentially a use of a "False Dilemma."

"It leads to Strife" An example of "non causa pro causa." This is the human condition. It's also a deceptive argument when appealing to scripture, very few of the patriarchs in scripture can be demonstrated to have been monogamous. Thus all family strife can be conveniently placed at the feet of their polygyny. Never mind that Isaac and Rebecca were monogamous, wow, what problems they had in their family.

"Solomon’s problems are traced to Polygyny" This is a "red herring." His problems are actually traced to his foreign marriage alliances, in which he took wives that had not renounced their various religions. This was the warning and purpose of the Law against it, and it was what happened to Solomon.

"Deuteronomy 17:17" No, read verse 16. Having read verse 16 it is obvious that you must "Equivocate" to reach the conclusion that a King must be monogamous. Take a deep breath. You're arguing that a King could only possess one horse. The admonition is against many wives, not more than one. The only open ended question in this verse is this: How much is many? Also unless you're a King, it doesn't apply. To make it apply to most people you must engage in "dicto simpliciter." You're ignoring the context of the rule and applying it to a specific situation, namely one that it isn't said to apply to.

"Elders are to be husbands of one wife" Again, "dicto simpliciter." This is a condition of office, not a rant against polygyny. Again, take a deep breath. The argument using this verse employs the notion that it is an ideal to be strived for. Credible, until you realize you've just said women are sub creatures. Besides it's virtual proof that there were polygynous couples in the early church. Otherwise why say anything about it?

"Why can't women have more than one husband?" Because Sarah called Abraham Lord, no one can serve two masters, and man is to woman as God is to man. If you don't recognize where I source these things, you don't belong in this thread. "Faulty generalization," 'red herring & "dicto simpliciter."

"It's Adultery!" This depends on "word magic", "begging the question" and "subjectivism" No, it's not, if you can marry 20 women you can have sex with all of them and it's not adultery, the marriage bed is undefiled. First you must prove that it's wrong to marry more than one woman at a time, then you might have a case. Don't mention this until you can prove polygyny is wrong.

"Lamech was the first Polygynist" The logical fallacy engaged in here is "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" which asserts that because two things occur together, they are related. Lamech is the first Polygynist mentioned in scripture. Nothing is ever said about his Polygyny other than he engaged in it. The argument is that Lamech was a bad dude, and he's the "First Polygynist", therefore Polygyny is bad.

"It's against the Law" This speaks to an issue related fallacy known as "Impossible Condition." Those raising this argument don't want to debate the subject until the law changes, thereby postponing the argument they are answering, instead of dealing with its merits. On top of that, it's actually debatable that Polygyny is against the law. It is also important to deal with it because it may not be against the law soon.

"It's against the Vows of Marriage" Again, a "faulty generalization" because not everyone takes these vows. If you did then you have a promise you need to keep, it doesn't make Polygyny wrong, it makes it wrong for whoever took that vow. Besides, those vows are not from scripture anyway.

Up until this point, I've made the milder of the arguments with regard to the practice of polygyny. It is in fact signifigant when you have ALL the written revelation that God intended us to have, that God has not condemned the practice and he has chosen to do so in the face of numerous examples. We're not examining an infinite universe and claiming we haven't SEEN the proof yet, we're examining a finite universe for which I can look at all the proofs that exist. We know the rules of the game, we have the entire book of rules. There ARE NO OTHER RULES. Then there is this, 1st Corinthians 4:6,(NASB)

"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."

That we do not exceed what is written? Part of Romans 14 is dedicated to not imposing restrictions, though mostly to with regard to food. Several places in scripture warn against changing the scripture through subtraction, AND addition, so to say that it is not forbidden, refering to scripture, is a COMPELLING argument. Deuteronomy 4:2,(NASB)

"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Just to be sure, in case we missed it, Deuteronomy 12:32,(NASB)

"Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it."

But the we're not done yet. Let's stop off in the middle of the scriptures, Proverbs 30:5 & 6,(NASB)

"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

Ouch, that's strong stuff. As a parting shot, in this continuing theme, though it is about the book of Revelation, we can see that God is sensitive about his word getting changed, because he continues with Revelation 22:18 & 19,(NASB)

"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book."

Yikes.

The logic is this. God meant to say everything he was going to say in terms of law. He emphasizes this by forbidding additions and subtractions. Thus if he has not banned something, he forbids you, as Christians, from doing so. In discussing the popular arguments against Polygyny I have always been doing it as a courtesy to the people who think they have valid objections. The first part of this post deals with the various arguments people raise against polygyny and their initial refutations. There is of course the possiblity that these arguments can be advanced and an intial refutation does not mean that they could not be advanced. This has in fact been done on occasion and I have modified my argument to deal with those insights.

The last part of this post deals with the roadblock of God's own word when it comes to adding conditions. We can argue about the first part, and of course it is my position that I have trumped everyone's arguments there. This could be proved false someday by a good analysis of the scriptures, but then we would still have to deal with the total absence of condemnation by God in the face of numerous examples of the practice by God's people.

In summation I can say that the second part of the argument, dealing with no condemnation is an Iron Clad proof. It cannot be said that this would be like God never saying "Don't Smoke Marijuana" since no example of pot usage exists in scripture. Many examples of polygyny in every walk of Hebrew life exist. Priests practiced it, common people practiced it and Kings practiced it. Zero condemnation.

Hugh McBryde

P.S. As I have mentioned, I have posted elsewhere on this topic, you can view a good treatment of it at "forums.5solas.org", "theologyweb.com" and "beckman-ministries.com" among others. You can also find discussions based on using my name as a search term formatted like this "Hugh McBryde" combining it with the term Polygyny. Do me a favor and don't reply to this post unless you regard every word of scripture as true as I do. In doing a Google or Yahoo or MSN Search you're also going to find that there are people out there who don't like me. Oh well.

 

[horuhe00]

You argue very well. Perhaps, then, you can help with the idea that as a marriage is compared to the relationship between the head and the body, how is it that one head can have two bodies.

This also applies to Christ's relationship with the Church. We, as a group, are considered to be his Body. And thus, as collectively his Body, we have one head, how is it that one head has two or more bodies?

You have just explained how "one head can have two bodies" as you said.

We as a group are considered to be his body and Christ is the head. Wouldn't that be one head with 6 billion bodies?

So one man with more than one wife would still be one head with one body

 

[Prakk]

Don't overdraw the "Body" analogy. We are all parts of the body in Paul's analogy, there is no necessity to make each wife a body over which the man is the one head.

Hugh McBryde

 

[BeforeThereWas]

The owner, who we both know, of CTM told me you'd probably be along sooner or later. Welcome aboard.

BTW

 

[Lee Fey]

I was always under the impression that no single one of us was Christ's Body, but only together do we become so. This means that the Chruch, itself, is a single head with a single body, not one head with millions of bodies.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I was always under the impression that no single one of us was Christ's Body, but only together do we become so. This means that the Chruch, itself, is a single head with a single body, not one head with millions of bodies.

The issue of one head and one body, and one head and multiple bodies is mostly an overexagerated one because most people are having a problem grappling with the idea of one man being one flesh with more than one woman. I know that others may be better authorities in dealing with this than myself, but from my perspective, if God thought it to be a violation of the one flesh-ness of marriage for a man to have more than one wife, then it seems reasonable to say that He would never have given plural wives to anyone if it violated His own thinking on marriage. I also understand that many consider themselves to be authorities over God's ultimate governance over spiritual realities clearly beyond all our control. The words of such people are mostly meaningless since we all know that God is the only authority over spiritual truths. All I can do is point at the Lord's own words and actions, both of which contradict present-day and historical dogma in the area of marriage.

For example, a recent news release from the AFA (American Family Association) expressed concern over polygamy becoming the norm in our country. Again, my take on this is that they have FAR more to fear from homosexual unions than they do about men having more than one wife, and vice versa.

The AFA, and many other Christian organizations, will spend loads and loads of money and energy fighting the wrong battles, all the while thinking they're fighting for the Lord. A battle against polygyny certainly qualifies as such a meaningless battle.

One can read, without confusion, the Lord's command against homosexuality, but not so with polygyny. Yes, there are those extreneous verses pulled out of context and magnified beyond the writer's/speaker's intent, none of which proves anything but how far some will go to try and win, even at the cost of their own integrity, but to miss the mark so far, with such blind indifference to the real threat, is quite mind-boggling.

BTW

 

[HeatherJay]

Closed indefinitely due to rudeness, insults, and flames, plus a failure to heed the moderator warnings.