Polygamy or Polyamory

[BeforeThereWas]

I ask the question because it bears upon your credibility and motive. Since you apparently approve of multiple wives, how would it be "ad hominem" to ask you?

Your question was coupled with that which was not a question. The non-question portion of your address toward me was a direct affront against me personally rather than the issue itself. As I recall, you made direct reference to my allegedly defending fleshly indulgences. THAT is where the ad hominem comes into your "question" (so-called). If I were defending fleshly indulgences, then I would be defending sin, which is an attack upon my character. No relationship between people should ever be based upon fleshly motives. To say that I'm defending such a thing is nothing but ad hominem, unless the charge were true. You did not ask as to if I was defending sin, but stated it outright.

Now, if you wish to withdraw the statement portion of your "question," then we can talk. Otherwise I'm left with nothing but to assume that you are still unreasonably antagonistic. I have dealt with many a snot-nosed punk who think themselves qualified to judge another's character they have never met, but someone of your age, I would think, would be above such petty nonsense.

BTW

 

[porcupine]

Your question was coupled with that which was not a question. The non-question portion of your address toward me was a direct affront against me personally rather than the issue itself. As I recall, you made direct reference to my allegedly defending fleshly indulgences. THAT is where the ad hominem comes into your "question" (so-called). If I were defending fleshly indulgences, then I would be defending sin, which is an attack upon my character. No relationship between people should ever be based upon fleshly motives. To say that I'm defending such a thing is nothing but ad hominem, unless the charge were true. You did not ask as to if I was defending sin, but stated it outright.

Now, if you wish to withdraw the statement portion of your "question," then we can talk. Otherwise I'm left with nothing but to assume that you are still unreasonably antagonistic. I have dealt with many a snot-nosed punk who think themselves qualified to judge another's character they have never met, but someone of your age, I would think, would be above such petty nonsense.

BTW

I dealt with you according to your own representation of yourself -- a man who wants his own way no matter what Scripture says. I pointred out that Jesus clearly set the standard by saying that God's standard was set "in the beginning." You didn't like that. I am antagonistic towards sin.

[Edited under protest.]

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I dealt with you according to your own representation of yourself -- a self-centered man who wants his own way no matter what Scripture says.

Your response clearly demonstrates why ad hominem is a no-win situation, because it always defeats intelligent conversation. I refuse to stoop to the level of attacking you, a person. You too are God's creation, and I will honor you as such.

I pointred out that Jesus clearly set the standard by saying that God's standard was set "in the beginning."

I accept that you personally believe that Jesus' words set such a standard, even though such is not supported by the text. You have that right. I, for one, choose not to buy into any man-made additions to the word of God. I have that right.

You didn't like that and like all goats, you "but." I am antagonistic towards sin.

None of what I said in response was based upon what I like or dislike. It had everything to do with an attempt at building constructive dialogue. You appear to have no desire for intelligent dialogue, so that is as it is. I can't force you to be reasonable, so I am left with the sound of you slamming the door (in a manner of speaking). That is as it is.

Have a nice life.

BTW

 

[Ave Maria]

There are those who argue that the license helps to protect women, etc. Actually, there are already laws in place to protect women and children without any need for that license. If a boyfriend beats up on his girlfriend, he goes to jail just like a husband beating his legally married wife. No difference whatsoever.

Ah ok. I think I already knew that but thanks for reminding me.

There are some biblical, harsh realities about marriage, divorce, property, the children, etc., that most people have absolutely no clue. I prefer not to go into those things here since they would violate the sensibilities of many professing believers. All I will do is encourage people to read their Bibles for themselves, and for what is written, in order to glean these deeper truths that escape the vast majority. Putting aside the pervasive Westernized religious blinders is not an easy thing to do. It is these kinds of things that have driven people away from the faith, with the blame being placed upon seminary schools and Bible colleges. Granted, there are many falsehoods perpetrated by professors that contribute to many students becoming unbelievers, or followers after some other religion that caters to their particular likings, but there are deeper truths in the Bible that the weak of character simply can't accept without a violent upheaval within their hearts and minds against what they prefer to reject.

I agree. I think that one important thing is to take into consideration the culture of the time.

Not me. I love people, not history, although it does have intrisic value to help keep us from making the same mistakes........a lesson not well learned by most.

A cool

It wasn't my intention to say that there is no advantage to the license. What is sad is that there is any advantages at all. Why not recognize what God Himself recognizes?

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that. But you are right, we should recognize what God Himself recognizes.

Anyway, what I meant to say (and failed miserably due to lack of time) was that the disadvantages many time far outweigh the advantages. The particulars are too numerous to list, so I will leave this as a general statement for now.

Ah ok.

I can grant power of attorney to anyone I like. I don't have to be married to give a non-related friend power of attorney and/or executor of my estate, etc. There are also other legal avenues of allowance that parellel the marriage license.

Oh ok. I didn't realize that! Thanks for letting me know!

No. It was not at all my intent to say that she is lying. What I had in mind is that this is the same argumentation I have heard from supporters of legalized marriage between queers. They tried to use that argument, which is known to be little more than a red herring. I suspect that she has heard it from others and assumed it to be true. If I am mistaken, then I would like to hear what manner of hospital stopped a non-relative from visiting at any time to someone who was not related or a legal spouse. I have heard of ICU's keeping just anyone from visiting because of the condition of the patient, but I have never heard of one asking to see a marriage license. If a couple is married without a license, simply stating that one is the spouse gains them access from my experience.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to imply that you thought she was lying. I was simply trying to respond without sounding like I was calling her a liar. I was just trying to state what I wanted to state without making her sound bad or something.

You're right. This is the one area of advantage that a couple would have to weigh against the disadvantages. My main thrust was that the advantages simply do not make that license a matter of moral requirement.

OH ok.

Agreed. I will reiterate, however, that there is no law requiring a married couple to acquire legal recognition of their marriage. If there was, then we would truly be living under the reign of tyranny.

BTW

Ah yeah. I knew that. To me, all that matters is God's recognition.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that. But you are right, we should recognize what God Himself recognizes.

No problem, Holly. Just making sure that my words were not construed as being accusatory.

BTW

 

[rnmomof7]

Mod Hat on

Lets keep this discussion civil OK?

He is risen indeed!

 

[Ave Maria]

No problem, Holly. Just making sure that my words were not construed as being accusatory.

BTW

Oh ok.

Mod Hat on

Lets keep this discussion civil OK?

He is risen indeed!

Amen to both! He is risen indeed!

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Mod Hat on

Lets keep this discussion civil OK?

To whom are you speaking? I thought we were all getting along quite nicely, except for one individual who resorted to ad hominem. I tend to ignore people like that. Thanks for stopping by, though, and checking things out.

BTW

 

[RVincent]

Here's an old joke:

Do you know what the penalty for bigomy is?

Two wives!

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Here's an old joke:

Do you know what the penalty for bigomy is?

Two wives!

It can also be said that the penalty for monogamy is.....ONE WIFE.

After all, most men say that one is enough. Now, if that isn't a loaded statement.....

BTW

 

[.Mikha'el.]

So, am I the only voice of dissent here?

 

[horuhe00]

I think that it's clear that, in the Old Testament, it was ok to have more than one wife. The old testament says that a man can have as many women as he can sustain (does someone remember the text?).

My question is if it says anywhere in the New Testament that it is wrong and a sin. So far, I have seen nothing in the New Testament to change Poligamy from being something good to something bad.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

Did you see the verse I quoted at the start of this thread? Or, are you like some others, and question whether it indeed condemns polygamy?

 

[elizabethevangeline]

So, am I the only voice of dissent here?

I think you're the only one crazy enough to try to scale the cliffs of insanity in here.

 

[Protoevangel]

BeforeThereWas,

You appear to have your position worked out very well in your own mind. I would be very interested in reading a systematic exposition of your position on this issue, along with Scriptural references. I do enjoy reading your writing, so hopefully you would have time to do this in your own words, and not just point me to some book or article. But if you don't have the time, I do understand.

Thanks

 

[horuhe00]

Did you see the verse I quoted at the start of this thread? Or, are you like some others, and question whether it indeed condemns polygamy?

I read it but it didn't quite convince me.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I think that it's clear that, in the Old Testament, it was ok to have more than one wife. The old testament says that a man can have as many women as he can sustain (does someone remember the text?).

I disagree. I have never run across any text saying that. I do recall the Law restricting a man from showing favoritism among his wives if he has more than one, and commanding that he support each wife without holding back support and his marital duty from any of them.

My question is if it says anywhere in the New Testament that it is wrong and a sin. So far, I have seen nothing in the New Testament to change Poligamy from being something good to something bad.

First of all, I have been discussing polygyny, not polygamy in general. Polygamy also encompasses polyandry, which is a woman having more than one husband.

Secondly, there is the idea floating around among most professing believers that the coming of Christ somehow made shifts in the foundation of God's moral absolutes. This is false. I have challenged many people to show me where anything that was not sin in the OT suddenly became sin in the NT times. Nothing has been forthcoming as of yet, although many false claims have been made.

There are a couple of texts put forth, from 1 Timothy and Titus, as points of contention against polygyny, but the limitation is clearly stated as applying to leaders within the Church, not the general populace of believers. Many assume the idea that if such applies to the leaders, then we are all required to follow suit. This is indefensible from the texts. The language of those texts, as they appear in our English translations, is also debatable, but I will leave that one alone and accept, for the sake of argument, that the texts stand as they appear in our translations.

So, you are correct. There is no NT text stating that a plurality of wives is suddenly a sin in the NT times, based upon the coming of Christ.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I think you're the only one crazy enough to try to scale the cliffs of insanity in here.

Thanks. I didn't realize we were scaling anything.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

As you can all see, even the moderators and administrators, none of whom have engaged this issue, are subject to ad hominem attack.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

BeforeThereWas,

You appear to have your position worked out very well in your own mind. I would be very interested in reading a systematic exposition of your position on this issue, along with Scriptural references. I do enjoy reading your writing, so hopefully you would have time to do this in your own words, and not just point me to some book or article. But if you don't have the time, I do understand.

Thanks

Greetings, Dan.

That's a good point. I wish I had something of that sort put together, and the time to do so, but I don't. However, I do know a man who has put together such an exposition, although I don't know if he's published it as of yet, or even has it ready. He worked very closely with the man who helped me to understand this (being Dr. Don Dean, who is a conservative systematic theology professor). His name is Hugh McBryde. I can PM you his e-mail address if you like, so that you can find out from him as to if he has it ready for release as of yet. My understanding is that he and Dr. Dean worked together quite a bit in forums in order to get a good, rounded collection of objections against polygyny for a published work. (Not necessarily published in books, but on the net.) Since Dr. Dean has moved to Arizona, I think Hugh has been working with the owner of CTM on this and some other issues. Hugh and Dr. Dean did a masterful job of dealing with all the objections against polygyny, and this publication, to my understanding, is a compilation of those discussions, replete with biblical references and historic works.

Let me know if you would like his e-mail address.

BTW