Polygamy or Polyamory

PaladinValer · Mar 23, 2005

Holly,

1. The Old Testament is exactly that; old. Relying on it like you are is illogical and therefore invalid.
2. The reason why it was "allowed" was for the same reason divorce and remarriage was "allowed;" because of the "hardness of their hearts."
3. Christianity, since Day One (for the last time I'll say it), has always prohibited it through synod and council as Inspired by the Holy Spirit.

To deny these councils and synods declaring it wrong is to deny the Holy Spirit and to become a montanist.

BeforeThereWas · Mar 23, 2005

Holly3278 said:
And you don't think that monogamous marriage can be difficult too? Look at the divorce rate! I think that speaks for itself about the difficulty of monogamous marriage which is the "norm" here in America.

Don't be surprised at the convenient logic people will fall back upon, all the while thinking they have won the day. You haven't yet seen all the arguments that will be brought up. Just wait and see. I have not seen it all, but I have seen enough of it by reading through the threads on this subject in the archives. It makes for some interesting reading. What amazed of what I saw in the archives is the sheer lunacy of the arguments against polygyny that most people thought to be legitimate. I mean, there were arguments being used that the people using them would never have thought would hold water in any other debate but this one.

And besides, just because something is hard doesn't mean it can't be done. Any serious relationship can and will be hard at times. But that isn't a good reason to not have a serious relationship.

Ah, but then we are dealing with a social pet peave. Feminism has so infiltrated the fabric of our cultural sensibilities that most people do not see the contradictory nature of their own arguments. They talk much about how God "winked" at some sins in OT times, and yet are not allowed today. That is like saying that God allowed adultery in the OT times, but no longer. Well, He punished sin then just as He does today. That has to be a true statement if God is in fact the same today, yesterday, and forever. The coming of Christ did not change one iota of God;s moral absolutes. What was sin then is sin now, and what is sin now was sin then. Nothing has changed except the fulfillment of mankind's redemption through the blood of Christ Jesus. Not one jot has been disturbed within God's moral Law with the coming of Christ.

BTW

WhoeverLovesGod01 · Mar 23, 2005

polygamy is degrading

BeforeThereWas · Mar 23, 2005

PaladinValer said:
Holly,

1. The Old Testament is exactly that; old. Relying on it like you are is illogical and therefore invalid.

Really? Well, you better hurry and go tell Jesus that His reliance upon the OT scriptures renders His teachings to be invalid. Oh! Let me guess. It was ok for Jesus to use them since He is the Lord, right? Get real! Your casting aside of the very foundation of the Bible is nothing but the usual fare of liberal nonsense that seeks to justify a system of thought that cannot stand on its own even within the winds of change that it encourages.

2. The reason why it was "allowed" was for the same reason divorce and remarriage was "allowed;" because of the "hardness of their hearts."

More nonsensical assumption. Where is your scriptural backing for this? Come on! Don't you people ever get tired of making up verses when it suits your fancy?

3. Christianity, since Day One (for the last time I'll say it), has always prohibited it through synod and council as Inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I'm not surprised that this is the last time you will say it, because repeating an error does not make it true. The problem with your assumption is that you think that antiquity lends infallability to a dogmatic belief. If that were true, then Budhism would be far more true than Christianity.

Anyone can declare the Holy Spirit to be the author of man-made declarations, some of which are in fact in keeping with scripture, and some are not. It's no great feat. Anyone can do that. The difference is in what is actually taught within the scriptures. It is very telling indeed to observe you pointing at man-made encyclicals rather than the very word of God.

To deny these councils and synods declaring it wrong is to deny the Holy Spirit and to become a montanist.

Fortunately, you are not at all an authority to say that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with those synods and councils. Therefore, your words of accusation ring hollow.

BTW

BeforeThereWas · Mar 23, 2005

Middlemoor said:
polygamy is degrading

What is REALLY degrading is the ASSUMPTION that the pope speaks in the place of God on earth before men, or that he even represents God at all. Let's see. I cannot recall just how many popes actually had orgies in the vatican.....but there was more than one as I recall from history.

BTW

.Mikha'el. · Mar 23, 2005

own (

n)

n.

That which belongs to one: I wanted a room of my own.

Therefore, the verse does condemn polygamy. The definition I have given is taken from www.dictionary.com

Ave Maria · Mar 23, 2005

Middlemoor said:
polygamy is degrading

That's odd... I thought it would be uplifting for me and many others who may choose to practice this form of a relationship.

seebs · Mar 23, 2005

It is not condemned except by out of context prooftexts. David is upheld as a shining example of Godly behavior, who is specifically blessed by God with multiple wives; his error comes only when he tries to take someone else's wife, and God chastizes David, saying "I would have given you more."

Our social mores do not determine God's plan for us.

porcupine · Mar 23, 2005

BeforeThereWas said:
Relying upon what Adam was given is not a measure for all mankind in a fallen world. Adam lived within a ideal environment, we do not. So what?

What we see is that God gave to Adam one wife, but He gave to king David several wives. So, what exactly is your point?

Adam was given one wife from whom all mankind was to come forth. It was God's perfect wisdom to NOT create yet another reason for racism to exist. Imagine the wars and genocide if mankind had come forth from more than one woman. We would have had the Evites, and Maryites, the Ellenites, etc.

Also, Adam was given a wife who originated from his own side. I was not. Does that mean I was short-changed? Was it not God's perfect will for my wife to come only from my side since that is where Adam's was taken? Come now, let us not bounce off into nonsensical reasonings that have little to nothing at all to do with allegedly defining God's will for all mankind.

Jesus relied on this for his denunciation of divorce -- even the divorce ALLOWED BY GOD UNDER MOSES. That seems like a valid enough point to me.

Yes, well, this makes for a good rib-tickler, but hardly authoritative. It also pokes fun at a very real problem of so many men being spineless.

BTW

Go ahead! Live a little! Poke fun at spineless men. It's fun! I do it a lot.

Ave Maria · Mar 23, 2005

seebs said:
It is not condemned except by out of context prooftexts. David is upheld as a shining example of Godly behavior, who is specifically blessed by God with multiple wives; his error comes only when he tries to take someone else's wife, and God chastizes David, saying "I would have given you more."

Our social mores do not determine God's plan for us.

AMEN!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to seebs again.

seebs · Mar 23, 2005

Petrarch said:
own (

n)

n.

That which belongs to one: I wanted a room of my own.

Therefore, the verse does condemn polygamy. The definition I have given is taken from www.dictionary.com

The English usage of "one" as a generic pronoun does not tell us anything about relationships described in another language.

porcupine · Mar 23, 2005

BeforeThereWas said:
Really? Where is that in the Bible? If you think it, then what authority are you relying upon as foundation for that thought?

The same authority Jesus used -- the way it was "in the beginning" as God created it. God allowed that ideal to be violated temporarily under the Law of Moses. It is equally apparent that He did the same with many of the OT good guys concerning multiple wives. God calls us back to the ideal in the NT by telling us that no one can be a Christian leader if he has more than one life -- so that the Gospel is not evil-spoken of.

Are you then accusing God of sin? You can't have it both ways.

No. I am simply saying what God showed Paul -- that God overlooked some things for a time. I don't need to justify God. He does what He pleases without asking my (or your) advice.

This strikes at the heart of nothing we can deffinitely place our finger upon. Having more than one wife is far removed from one having to account when we observe the many examples throughout the scriptures, some of which directly involved the Lord Himself.

BTW

Again, I just use Jesus' example.

PetticoatLace · Mar 23, 2005

Alabaster Jar-
About some things you said:

alabaster jar said:
Each wife favors her own blood.

Um, does this mean if a woman who has kids marries a man with kids, that she cannot fall in love with those kids and feel about them just like her own children? I don't see any difference...

alabaster jar said:
Must be fun, too, to be around a house full of PMSing women!

If you ever are around a group of women, chances are some of them are PMSing just due to schedule. A group of women can even be found at church every sunday. Not all women get grouchy. Still, weird hearing that from a woman!

porcupine · Mar 23, 2005

PaladinValer said:
Holly,

1. The Old Testament is exactly that; old. Relying on it like you are is illogical and therefore invalid.

Then how come Jesus, Peter, and Paul all used the OT?

2. The reason why it was "allowed" was for the same reason divorce and remarriage was "allowed;" because of the "hardness of their hearts."

I agree with this point.

3. Christianity, since Day One (for the last time I'll say it), has always prohibited it through synod and council as Inspired by the Holy Spirit.

To deny these councils and synods declaring it wrong is to deny the Holy Spirit and to become a montanist.

Church traditions can be wrong like any other human endeavor. However, you are right that the NT Church struck an immediate course toward marriage of one man one woman. Jesus said the TWAIN (TWO for those of you in Miami/Dade County) shall be one flesh. Two is a specific number.

PetticoatLace · Mar 23, 2005

Middlemoor said:
polygamy is degrading

You are entitled to your personal opinion, but then shouldn't it be "Polygamy is degrading to me"?

It's okay to feel that something is not comfortable or right for you, but you can't try on everyone in the world's shoes and know what is right for them, you know?

When polyamory is done right, it is loving consentual relationships by all involved. I can't see what is degrading about that.

BeforeThereWas · Mar 23, 2005

Petrarch said:
own (n)

n.

That which belongs to one: I wanted a room of my own.

Therefore, the verse does condemn polygamy.

Nice try.

This time, try using the Greek dictionary for the word rather than the English dictionary. Relying upon the weaknesses of our English translations and our English dictionary is a common tool for trying to force the scriptures to say that which is not at all supported within the text.

BTW

BeforeThereWas · Mar 23, 2005

porcupine said:
Jesus relied on this for his denunciation of divorce -- even the divorce ALLOWED BY GOD UNDER MOSES. That seems like a valid enough point to me.

Once again, you are in gross error! God did not allow divorce under Moses. Read Matthew 19:8 again, and you will observe Jesus CLEARLY declaring that it was MOSES who made that allowance. You will search in vain to find one verse where the Lord ever took credit for allowing divorce for reasons of hardness of heart. God had Moses write down the ultimate stranglehold upon divorce in the written Law that put an end to that fleshly phenomenon.

BTW

Ave Maria · Mar 23, 2005

BeforeThereWas said:
Nice try.

This time, try using the Greek dictionary for the word rather than the English dictionary. Relying upon the weaknesses of our English translations and our English dictionary is a common tool for trying to force the scriptures to say that which is not at all supported within the text.

BTW

Yep, a word in Greek can be totally different in English.

BeforeThereWas · Mar 23, 2005

porcupine said:
The same authority Jesus used -- the way it was "in the beginning" as God created it. God allowed that ideal to be violated temporarily under the Law of Moses. It is equally apparent that He did the same with many of the OT good guys concerning multiple wives.

Then you must believe in a god of your own making, because the God portrayed within the pages of scripture violated what you claim to be His ideal for all mankind when He gave David multiple wives and He portrayed Israel and Judah as being His WIVES (plural). It is most interesting how you completely skirted these two issues.

God calls us back to the ideal in the NT by telling us that no one can be a Christian leader if he has more than one life -- so that the Gospel is not evil-spoken of.

That is a serioue stretch of credulity. Not all believers can be, nor desire to be, leaders within the Church. The vast majority are not. Therefore those passages in 1 Timothy and Titus can't be used with such broad brush strokes. Paul made it clear that he was speaking to a specific group of men in those instructions. If they were to be taken in general, then he was intelligent enough to apply them in that fassion within the language he used.

No. I am simply saying what God showed Paul -- that God overlooked some things for a time. I don't need to justify God. He does what He pleases without asking my (or your) advice.

This is a non-issue. It doesn't relate to the thrust of what I was saying. I figured you would avoid the central issue at hand.

Again, I just use Jesus' example.

I just wish you would do that consistently, and in accordance with what is written rather than adding meaning that goes so far beyond the scope of the writer's topical application.

BTW

porcupine · Mar 23, 2005

BeforeThereWas said:
Then you must believe in a god of your own making, because the God portrayed within the pages of scripture violated what you claim to be His ideal for all mankind when He gave David multiple wives and He portrayed Israel and Judah as being His WIVES (plural). It is most interesting how you completely skirted these two issues.

I have skirted nothing. I simply assert that God allowed something less than ideal in multiple wives as He did in marriage and divorce.

That is a serioue stretch of credulity. Not all believers can be, nor desire to be, leaders within the Church. The vast majority are not. Therefore those passages in 1 Timothy and Titus can't be used with such broad brush strokes. Paul made it clear that he was speaking to a specific group of men in those instructions. If they were to be taken in general, then he was intelligent enough to apply them in that fassion within the language he used.

This was only the beginning of the change. People usually follow the example of their leaders.

I just wish you would do that consistently, and in accordance with what is written rather than adding meaning that goes so far beyond the scope of the writer's topical application.

BTW

If you insist on slavish adherance to the "witier's topical application" then you must throw out many of the Scripture examples used by Jesus and Paul. In addition, you must never take a moral stand on issues God never specifically spoke about like child molesting and racism.

You are just looking for a way to justify fleshly indulgence. How many wives do you have?

Polygamy or Polyamory

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Seasoned Warrior

Veteran

Seasoned Warrior

Seasoned Warrior

7x13=28

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

God Made Me A Skeptic

Well-Known Member

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

God Made Me A Skeptic

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Seasoned Warrior

Seasoned Warrior

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

Seasoned Warrior

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency