Polygamy or Polyamory

[BeforeThereWas]

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

Careful. Some folks, when looking long and hard through a dense fog, can see things that aren't there. You sometimes have to humor them in order to avoid the inevitable backlash.

Hey, just kidding.

But seriously, why not requote that verse and discuss what you DO see in it? That way he may better understand your lack of agreement with his analysis of that verse allegedly being a discontinuance of polygyny. I agree with the administrators, in that keeping everything in context is a better practice prather than everyone having to go back and find an elusive post, the post number of which was not provided. Petrarch, can you give us the post number you are referring to?, or better yet, requote that verse?

Thanks

BTW

 

[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?

You said...

You are wrong. It is condemned. Paul wrote, in 1 Corinthians 7:2 "Let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband."

I said...

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

If you read further down that chapter, Paul says that he says this as a suggestion, not as a command. Since it is a suggestion, it came from Paul and not a revelation of God. So God didn't say that.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

If you read further down that chapter, Paul says that he says this as a suggestion, not as a command. Since it is a suggestion, it came from Paul and not a revelation of God. So God didn't say that.

horuhe00, this, of course, is in reference to 1 Cor. 7:2. Thanks for clarifying this for everyone. This was a good response.

Now, Petrarch, I personally will say that the language of that verse, and the surrounding texts, doesn't at all deal with the number of wives a man is limited to. If Paul's intent was to address a plurality of wives, then he was more than intelligent enough to address it directly rather than beating around the bush with cryptic insinuations, hoping that everyone would catch on to his use of singular wording, therefore catching onto his "drift." The context of that verse is clearly stated within its very wording, which is FORNICATION, not a plurality of wives.

Now, if you (Petrarch) are going to try and draw a line connecting fonication to a man having a plurality of wives simply on the basis of the singular wording in that or any other verse, then you are creating a new rule of interpretation not at all in keeping with the known and accepted standards for proper interpretation. As a matter of fact, I can demonstrate where this new rule you are trying to use can backfire on you when applied to other verses. So, you might want to consider withdrawing your attempt at using this verse as proof that God now considers polygyny unacceptable, or even sin.

So, yes, I too reject that verse as condemning polygyny because of your creation of an illigitimate rule of interpretation. So far, I haven't seen anything else from you that backs your position. If you have anything legitimate, then I for one would like to see it.

BTW

 

[.Mikha'el.]

As far as I am concerned, we just must "agree to disagree," as cliché as that might sound. The reason why I continue to refer to that verse is because I see it as the heart of the issue. Either one believes that the verse condemns polygamy, or one does not. After all, that verse seems to me to be the one most often cited as the condemnation of said practise.

 

[TheDag]

Heres an interesting thought. Generally people acknowledege that we have to follow the authority (law) of the country/state in which we live unless it goes against Gods word. If the law says you can only have one wife or husband then it would indeed be a sin.

 

[horuhe00]

Heres an interesting thought. Generally people acknowledege that we have to follow the authority (law) of the country/state in which we live unless it goes against Gods word. If the law says you can only have one wife or husband then it would indeed be a sin.

If God permits certain things but the country prohibits them, by doing those things, you are breaking Man's law. You are not breaking God's law. So it might be illegal but it's not a sin

 

[BeforeThereWas]

As far as I am concerned, we just must "agree to disagree," as cliché as that might sound. The reason why I continue to refer to that verse is because I see it as the heart of the issue. Either one believes that the verse condemns polygamy, or one does not. After all, that verse seems to me to be the one most often cited as the condemnation of said practise.

Well, like I said before, I can demonstrate the fallacy of that kind of interpretation, and you appear to not be interested. I won't push the issue. My opinion is that it's just sad that anyone would cast aside any kind of inquiry while standing behind the roadblock of "we must agree that we disagree." I know that there is a point that agreeing to disagree must be reached after all avenues of dialogue have been explored, but this is premature. If there was even the outside possibility that I'm wrong, then I try to engage dialogue in order to see if there is anything to the opposing view. If I run and hide behind cliche's, then I am ignoring the possiblity that I just might be wrong. That's why I'm here discussing this issue at all.

As for that verse, I think I have good reason to reject your interpretation, or whoever taught you that style of interpretation. I'm not offended, just saddened that inquiring dialogue is being rejected outright.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Heres an interesting thought. Generally people acknowledege that we have to follow the authority (law) of the country/state in which we live unless it goes against Gods word. If the law says you can only have one wife or husband then it would indeed be a sin.

That sounds good on the surface.....until one realizes that the law only disallows the acquisition of more than one civil marriage license at a time. There is no law against a man having more than one wife in God's eyes. That piece of paper from City Hall has no moral implications tied to its presence or absence in a marriage. Quite frankly, more than half of all professing belivers here in the West practice serial polygamy, with all the divorces and remarriages (outside of biblical allowances) going on inside our multitudes of institutional "church" organizations.

BTW

 

[TheDag]

If God permits certain things but the country prohibits them, by doing those things, you are breaking Man's law. You are not breaking God's law. So it might be illegal but it's not a sin

The bible tells us all authority in heaven and on earth comes from God. The people who make man made laws are in positions of authority. Therefore to go against that law is to go against Gods authority.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

The bible tells us all authority in heaven and on earth comes from God. The people who make man made laws are in positions of authority. Therefore to go against that law is to go against Gods authority.

But there's no law against a man having more than one wife in the eyes of God, so long as he doesn't try to acquire a civil license for more than one at a time. So what, may I ask, is your point? Are you saying that it's a sin for a couple to not have a civil "license" for their marriage?

BTW

 

[horuhe00]

The bible tells us all authority in heaven and on earth comes from God. The people who make man made laws are in positions of authority. Therefore to go against that law is to go against Gods authority.

So according to you, people living in Germany in the 1930's and 40's would have sinned if they haddn't followed Hitler's laws. It would be a sin to help a jew instead of dehumanizing them. It would be a sin to reject a direct order from Hitler himself to kill all the jews you laid your eyes on.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

So according to you, people living in Germany in the 1930's and 40's would have sinned if they haddn't followed Hitler's laws. It would be a sin to help a jew instead of dehumanizing them. It would be a sin to reject a direct order from Hitler himself to kill all the jews you laid your eyes on.

Actually, horuhe, it appears that he's assuming four things, three of which are incorrect:

1) that it's illegal for a man to have more than one license at a time, which is correct

2) that is it immoral (a sin) for a couple to not have a civil license for their marriage, which is incorrect

3) that there is a law making it illegal for a couple to be married without a civil marriage license, which also is incorrect.

4) for a man to have more than one wife, he must have a license for each one at the same time, which, again, is incorrect, because #2 and #3 are both incorrect.

He must first establish that there is a moral requirement tied to that piece of paper from City Hall (which there isn't), and that the law requires that all married couples acquire that piece of paper in order for them to live together as a married couple (which no law requires any such thing). It is only compulsory to have that license if the couple desires that the civil government and the IRS recognize their marriage. Apart from all that, he has no case as far as I can see.

BTW

 

[Lee Fey]

How about the idea that Adam and Eve were the first married couple. Just the two of them. They were created perfectly, or, as God would put it: "good". And Adam did not have more than one wife. So, if they are the image of what men and women should be, as they were the perfect man and woman, until they fell, then the perfect marriage would be between one man and one woman, not between one man and several wives, or one woman and several husbands.

I see it as a clear indication from God and from the Bible that marriage is truthfully only meant to be between one man and one woman.

On top of that, consider the image that man and wife are like head and body, in Ephesians 5:23. I have never met a human being with one head and more than one body. And truthfully, although some forms of Siamese twins have two heads to one body, that is, I would say, a genetic devient from how God originally created man and women. Again, I use Adam and Eve as example. So, there you have it.

 

[porcupine]

How about the idea that Adam and Eve were the first married couple. Just the two of them. They were created perfectly, or, as God would put it: "good". And Adam did not have more than one wife. So, if they are the image of what men and women should be, as they were the perfect man and woman, until they fell, then the perfect marriage would be between one man and one woman, not between one man and several wives, or one woman and several husbands.

I see it as a clear indication from God and from the Bible that marriage is truthfully only meant to be between one man and one woman.

On top of that, consider the image that man and wife are like head and body, in Ephesians 5:23. I have never met a human being with one head and more than one body. And truthfully, although some forms of Siamese twins have two heads to one body, that is, I would say, a genetic devient from how God originally created man and women. Again, I use Adam and Eve as example. So, there you have it.

Bravo! You are quite right to point to the creation as the emblem of what God desired. Jesus did this when asked about divorce. The same works for plural marriage. I brought this up early in the debate, but some people simply won't believe that is that standard.

 

[porcupine]

Actually, horuhe, it appears that he's assuming four things, three of which are incorrect:

1) that it's illegal for a man to have more than one license at a time, which is correct

2) that is it immoral (a sin) for a couple to not have a civil license for their marriage, which is incorrect

3) that there is a law making it illegal for a couple to be married without a civil marriage license, which also is incorrect.

4) for a man to have more than one wife, he must have a license for each one at the same time, which, again, is incorrect, because #2 and #3 are both incorrect.

He must first establish that there is a moral requirement tied to that piece of paper from City Hall (which there isn't), and that the law requires that all married couples acquire that piece of paper in order for them to live together as a married couple (which no law requires any such thing). It is only compulsory to have that license if the couple desires that the civil government and the IRS recognize their marriage. Apart from all that, he has no case as far as I can see.

BTW

All this depends on where you live. Some states (like Florida) still have active adultery laws on the books. Different states also define "marriage" in different ways when it comes to what are called "common law." At least one state says that when you "hold yourself forth" as married, you are married. This is true if you sign as man and wife on a motel register or if you simply say it aloud that you are married. If you lived in the "hold forth" states, and said you were married to more than one woman, it would violate bigamy laws.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

How about the idea that Adam and Eve were the first married couple. Just the two of them. They were created perfectly, or, as God would put it: "good".

I would then have to ask you what criteria governs your choices of Adam's situation that should apply to us today? Are we authorized to pick and choose at our own whim? Did God ever make mention of Adam's having only one wife as a model for all mankind? I don't recall such a statement anywhere in the Bible.

And Adam did not have more than one wife. So, if they are the image of what men and women should be, as they were the perfect man and woman, until they fell, then the perfect marriage would be between one man and one woman, not between one man and several wives, or one woman and several husbands.

If Adam's pre-fall conditions were to be modeled by all mankind who followed after the fall, from the Lord's perspective (which is authoritative) rather than any of our perspectives (which are not authoritative), then why did the Lord give plural wives to David, and why did He identify Himself with polygyny with Israel and Judah as His wives (plural), and why did He make governing provision for a man to have more than one wife in His written Law given to Moses if Adam's having only one wife were, to God's thinking, to be a model we are all supposed to follow. The Lord Himself violated that alleged "model," not to mention His servants the prophets, who, I would think, would never have violated that alleged "model" if it were indeed God's ideal for all mankind in a fallen world.

I see it as a clear indication from God and from the Bible that marriage is truthfully only meant to be between one man and one woman.

Then you are pointing your finger of accusation against the Lord Himself for His own alleged violations of the one man/one woman ideal. I don't consider myself qualified to stand as an accuser against the Most High.

On top of that, consider the image that man and wife are like head and body, in Ephesians 5:23. I have never met a human being with one head and more than one body.

That was spoken in relation to authority, not as a measure of the number of wives a man is limited to. Paul was well aware of the fact that when God gave to David plural wives, there was no violation of the head and body spiritualization. What you've missed is that the Church itself is comprised of MANY INDIVIDUALS, and yet one body. We are joined together into one body through a common Lord, Christ. The same applies to a man with plural wives. Each wife is joined togeter into one family through a common husband. The imagry is unmistakably consistent.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Another friend of mine has already done the homework on the "bigamy law" issue, and that applies ONLY to the marriage license itself, not to common law marriages in those states that still recognize common law marriages. Since common law marriages do not involve the acquisition and signature on any legal documents, there is no violation of any laws for a man to have more than one wife where common law is concerned.

So, if a man is successful in acquiring a license for more than one wife at a time, then he is in violation of the laws against bigamy.

BTW

 

[.Mikha'el.]

As far as I am concerned, BTW, morals ultimately originate from God. I could be wrong on the polygamy issue. However, I leave it to God to judge me. I also do not try to convince anyone else of my position. If I have done that here, I apologize.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

As far as I am concerned, BTW, morals ultimately originate from God.

I completely agree with you here.

I could be wrong on the polygamy issue. However, I leave it to God to judge me.

Understood.

I also do not try to convince anyone else of my position. If I have done that here, I apologize.

No need to apologize, petrarch. If you're right and I'm wrong, then some serious rethinking needs to be done on my part. That's why I discuss issues such as this, because I want to know if there's something I've missed that someone else may be aware of. We're all fallible, therefore prone to being wrong. What you have observed is my rejection of conventional arguments that simply defy reason because of their tendency to rely upon inconsistent argumentation that the practitioner would never think to use elsewhere. I've done my homework on this, and just want to make sure I haven't left any stone unturned.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

PART 1

The Bible tells us that Yahweh-Elohim created the first man, Adam, and gave him one wife, Eve (Havah). Though Hebrew tradition mentions an earlier wife, Lillith, who rebelled against Adam’s headship and murdered their children, to become a demon and consort of Satan (the “Mother of Heaven” in pagan traditions), and although another tradition mentions a third wife, Sarah (not to be confused with the wife of Abraham), the Bible as we have it speaks only of one companion. Accordingly, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant theologians and scriptorians have argued that inspite of the “permissive” practice of polygyny early in the Bible because of the supposed “hardness of the hearts” of the first patriarchs and Israelites, that Adam and Eve, who existed in a perfect state of bliss, are the ultimate reference Christians should have in marriage - namely, monogamy. Thus ideal marriage - according to the perfect model of Adam and Eve in Paradise - is monogamy.

In answer to this proposition, J. Guilford writes:

• I want to refute one of the most common religious fallacies against polygamy, namely that monogamy is the family arrangement preferred by God, because God gave only one wife to Adam.
  
  I have to say about it:
• 1. If it has any basis, it would be the typical fundamentalist fallacy of a cult.
• 2. It is based on another fundamentalist assumption, namely that God wants ALL men to have the same situation or status (in this case, all Catholic priests are living in sin), namely, the one of Adam.
• 3. It also presupposes that, by giving a wife to Adam, God wanted to preach monogamy, rather than monogenism, in which case, He would not have forced Adam’s children to live in incest. He would have, in that case, created, at least, two monogamous couples.
• 4. It presupposes that, unlike with all other human characteristics, God WAS OBLIGED to differentiate men from all primates by creating a rate of two or more women for every man, in case He wanted to admit polygamy. Let us see this in detail.
• 1. The atrocious fundamentalist fallacy. Every person with a little common sense knows in practice, what is known in mathematics (and in economy) as “The second best theorem”. To forget it, is the typical basis of every fundamentalist sect or cult. In other words, what is valid in ideal circumstances does not need to hold (and almost never holds) in non-ideal circumstances. If God had considered monogamy ideal in Paradise (and in point 2 and 3, I will show, there is no reason to believe it), it DOES NOT MEAN AT ALL that He would have still considered it ideal, once men were out of Paradise.
  
  If we would go on with this logic (and it is curious, we ONLY reason this way in respect to monogamy), we would destroy this world: no remarriage of widows or widowers, no private property, no police, no army, no hospitals, no doctors, no keys or locks for houses, no government, no taxes, no money, no burials, of course, we should go all naked,……we would make up a kind of naïve-stupid world, WHICH WOULD NOT WORK AT ALL….because we are not in Paradise anymore. Of course, incest should be permitted, because it is the way God wanted for Adam’s children…..
  
  In respect to clothing, we get a clue, that God finds obvious that, once out of Paradise, men had to behave in a different way than in Paradise: “They got dressed up, because they started to get ashamed”. So, once you lost the primitive purity and innocence, you could not behave the same way as before. WHAT WAS RIGHT BEFORE - be naked - WAS WRONG AFTERWARDS.
  
  In respect to private property, we all know, that it is wrong, when we are in quasi-Paradise circumstances. In a family, where the degree of love and communion is very high, private property is ridiculous. You do not have it in respect to your wife and children, when the family works perfectly. When marriage and parents-children lose this high degree of communion, private property appears among them. First century Christians, we read in the Bible, “had everything in common”. If you try to enforce it now among today’s Christians, you get communism, which is the worst of all dictatorships. Here we see most clearly that ENFORCING IN SUBOPTIMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHAT IS THE IDEAL IN OPTIMAL CIRCUMSTANCES IS A TYRANNY, which does not please God at all.
  
  In convents, there is no private property, as Jesus told to the rich young man in the Gospel: “If you want to be perfect, give all your possessions to the poor”. If you cannot be perfect, you have to go by the property rules.
  
  If God had considered monogamy the ideal in Paradise (I will show that it is a presupposition contrary to commonsense), it was so in a world, where circumstances which make polygamy an ideal for some people today, did not exist:
• (1) He would have created a woman for every man, being she is his perfect match (as in Paradise).
• (2) No widows, who could not remarry in monogamy, because there are not enough men (as St. Paul recommends, when they burn of passion).
• (3) No oversexed men, who could not live in monogamy without burning in passion.
• (4) No single mothers.
• (5) No forced spinsters (the same number of men and women).
• (6) No sterile women.
• (7) No danger of prostitution.
• (8) No death. So, please, stop saying fundamentalist nonsense.