Polygamy?

Hugh McBryde · May 18, 2007

(Lionroot;10839)
"So you do or do not think Hugh and his alleged wives are whoremongers?"
The problem for you chevy, is that if you say no, you've conceded my argument regarding Polygyny. If you say YES, you're OBLIGATED to show exactly how and it is no longer permissable for you to say "It's JUST MY OPINION". You accuse me, you must convict me and your opinion simply doesn't count. You must prove MY CRIME, and MY SIN from SCRIPTURE, for it is GOD'S WORD.If you want to avoid EITHER path, namely, that you concede defeat or wish to argue your case for my sin to the bitter end, then you must RETIRE from the discussion and admit, that while your opinion is that Polygyny is wrong, you have no basis for it other than your opinion. In which case I would point out that we need hear no more from you.

Lionroot · May 27, 2007

Hugh,I guess she took the latter option. Once these things become muddslinging they aren't very profitable. So I guess its for the best. I wish there was someone who could make a solid argument using "Sola Scriptura".God Bless,Robert(Hugh McBryde;10882)
The problem for you chevy, is that if you say no, you've conceded my argument regarding Polygyny. If you say YES, you're OBLIGATED to show exactly how and it is no longer permissable for you to say "It's JUST MY OPINION". You accuse me, you must convict me and your opinion simply doesn't count. You must prove MY CRIME, and MY SIN from SCRIPTURE, for it is GOD'S WORD.If you want to avoid EITHER path, namely, that you concede defeat or wish to argue your case for my sin to the bitter end, then you must RETIRE from the discussion and admit, that while your opinion is that Polygyny is wrong, you have no basis for it other than your opinion. In which case I would point out that we need hear no more from you.

betchevy · May 28, 2007

(betchevy;10769)
I was quoting scripture and not calling you or your wives anything... if you are convicted oh well....Esther was not ill treated by her husband that I see... If he had beat her or missused her, then not she had no recourse, but she lived in the previous times when when had no rights..even in a time before the scripture was written..... I was only showing you where the word states a woman can leave her husband and the reason are given in the above verses.... You really don't understand what you read very well do you Hugh? I am not attacking you personally.....but you do think its all about Hugh... I lived with and egomaniacal Father like you......Perhaps that is why I have blissfully remained unmarried and have GOD as the head of my home. I have nothing more to say on this subject....and you have nothing to learn thats obvious...
I SAID THIS AND I MEANT THIS.... YOU HAVE NOT WON ANYTHING YOU ARE JUST WNTING TO ONE UP ME OR ANYONE... MORE PROOF OF YOUR NEED TO BE LORDING OVER ANYONE AND EVERYONE.. AND MOST LIKELY THE REASON YOU NEED MORE THAN ONE WIFE... TO EXERCISE CONTROL....AGANI...... I DO NOT NEED TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE..

BeforeThereWas · Jan 1, 2008

(kriss;7604)
I agree with you Lionroot but persucution doesn't mean you are to break the law. If every person that thinks they are being persecuted broke the law there would be chaos and no laws.
This is nothing short of poisoning the well with extremes. This line of reasoning leads to self-defeat more than it deals with reality. Nobody was suggesting that anyone break all the laws on the basis of persecution. The bottom line falls within the merits of what Hugh had said: There are no laws on the books of any state in the United States that make it illegal for a man to have more than one wife, unless he attempts to gain legal recognition for more than one wife at a time. Apart from the latter, you have no leg upon which to stand, legally speaking.:naughty: This of course leads to yet another avenue to debate among some people, which has to do with the idea that there's some sort of moral crisis in the absence of a piece of paper from the government for ones marriage(s). We've all heard the usual rhetoric that those living together without a marriage license are guilty of the sin of "shacking up". It's also true that no law requires any couple to acquire governmental recognition of a marriage, unless they so desire such recognition. So, the age old deception of the presence of sin in the absence of a marriage certificate really is nothing more than preachers exercising the power of yet another false doctrine over the dormant critical thinking skills of their blind followers. The legal quagmire created by "common law" marriage in some states may yet become a problem if ever such a suit hits the courts. To date, I haven't heard of such a case. BTW&DM

BeforeThereWas · Jan 1, 2008

(Denver;7605)
Genesis 2:18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. Notice the singular use here. God created one wife for Adam and that is the natural example for all of us to bare in mind.
Are you sure that such a singular exists within the Hebrew from which that passage was translated? You appear to place much emphasis upon our English translations, which I've found to be quite problematic in most cases when it comes to various obscure particulars such as this. Apart from a genetive distinction, there really is nothing in the Hebrew texts that establish a singular rule. Therefore, the translators appear to have simply incorporated what was the social norm of their day rather than to create a firestorm of controversy.
I Timothy 3:2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife... Bare in mind the context here, but this is instruction to those who preach/teach that they should have only one wife.
Again, this is very unremarkable. If Paul had meant for this to be a rule for all, then he certainly was intelligent enough to have done so. Instead, it appears in only three places with not one preexisting groundwork for such a shift for all the people. Instead, we see it only as a possible restricting prequalification for being an overseer or a deacon. It's the only negative in a list of positives.Many have thought themselves qualified to therefore cast this forth as a blanket prequalification for being a follower or Christ. Without any support from any other portions of scripture, such an application fails the acid test of credibility.
The Biblical example is set for us - we're intended to have one companion. However, reading of the Bible yields that there are some examples of polygamy.
Oh, there's more than that. There's an example of God literally giving plural wives to a man who already had five. Are we, then, going to assume that the Lord allegedly violated His own ideal? I personally am not qualified to make such an accusation against the Most High.
Just like anything else, look at the whole picture.
It's my hope that you practice this very thing, given that you made use of an verses in 1 Timothy without any preexisting mandates against a plurality of wives. Not only did God's Law make governing provision for it, but He also directly involved Himself in it, with Judah and Israel being His wives (plural), actively gave plural wives, commanded the taking of plural wives in some instances, and made not one restriction to such a marital model except in the lives of kings, who were not to "multiply" wives to themselves, which does not mean that kings could not have had a more reasonable number of wives, such as two or three.We know that Abraham had several wives at the time of his death, so the idea that such a great man as Abraham had somehow blindly violated God's ideal for all men in marriage really pushes the envelope of credulity.When the word of God disagrees with our socially and religiously engineered sensibilities, then who really is at fault?BTW&DM

BeforeThereWas · Jan 1, 2008

(Denver;9008)
A type is nothing more than a type, an ideal. That differs greatly from a commandment or God's Word which makes it a sin.
Good point. I would agree that it's indeed an ideal for most men to have only one wife. Population ratios simply wouldn't allow for too many men to have more than one wife. Most men can barely handle having just one, let alone two or three.
Polygamy is not a sin.
Agreed.
Having a type is just that, a type. We have Nebuchadnezzar as the type of antichrist, but he is not the antichrist. We have Joshua as a type of Christ, but he is not the Christ. Monogamy is the ideal when it comes to man and woman, but that doesn't mean polygamy is a sin.
Types can indeed be pushed beyond the limit of proper application. What really is at stake with Adam having been given one wife? Is it truly monogamy, or is it monogenism?I personally would say that it's the latter. To say otherwise is to open a very nasty can or worms.BTW&DM

stlizzy · Apr 14, 2008

(BeforeThereWas;28546)
Are you sure that such a singular exists within the Hebrew from which that passage was translated? You appear to place much emphasis upon our English translations, which I've found to be quite problematic in most cases when it comes to various obscure particulars such as this. Apart from a genetive distinction, there really is nothing in the Hebrew texts that establish a singular rule. Therefore, the translators appear to have simply incorporated what was the social norm of their day rather than to create a firestorm of controversy. Again, this is very unremarkable. If Paul had meant for this to be a rule for all, then he certainly was intelligent enough to have done so. Instead, it appears in only three places with not one preexisting groundwork for such a shift for all the people. Instead, we see it only as a possible restricting prequalification for being an overseer or a deacon. It's the only negative in a list of positives.Many have thought themselves qualified to therefore cast this forth as a blanket prequalification for being a follower or Christ. Without any support from any other portions of scripture, such an application fails the acid test of credibility. Oh, there's more than that. There's an example of God literally giving plural wives to a man who already had five. Are we, then, going to assume that the Lord allegedly violated His own ideal? I personally am not qualified to make such an accusation against the Most High. It's my hope that you practice this very thing, given that you made use of an verses in 1 Timothy without any preexisting mandates against a plurality of wives. Not only did God's Law make governing provision for it, but He also directly involved Himself in it, with Judah and Israel being His wives (plural), actively gave plural wives, commanded the taking of plural wives in some instances, and made not one restriction to such a marital model except in the lives of kings, who were not to "multiply" wives to themselves, which does not mean that kings could not have had a more reasonable number of wives, such as two or three.We know that Abraham had several wives at the time of his death, so the idea that such a great man as Abraham had somehow blindly violated God's ideal for all men in marriage really pushes the envelope of credulity.When the word of God disagrees with our socially and religiously engineered sensibilities, then who really is at fault?BTW&DM
Where is the example of God giving a man more wives who already have five?And I have a question regarding what Jesus said about marriage in Matthew 19: 1-12:If a man becomes one with his wife- would a wife then be part of the "one" that a man would create with any other women that he would marry? Are polygamous arrangements to be considered as one person?

Hugh McBryde · Apr 14, 2008

(stlizzy;45443)
"Where is the example of God giving a man more wives who already have five?"
Interesting, because you seem to conceed that if God gave a man another wife, who already had one, that would be ok. Is the number then five and no more?(stlizzy;45443)
"If a man becomes one with his wife- would a wife then be part of the 'one' that a man would create with any other women that he would marry? Are polygamous arrangements to be considered as one person?"
No. An arm on a turnstile would be one with the hub. That does not mean it is one with another arm on the turnstile. A flower is the same, so is a propeller. There is certainly a connection between the wives as they are one with the same man but set theory tells us it is possible for a thing to be wholly included or partly included in another, yet not one with another set at all. Three intersecting circles could have two that do not touch each other but one that intersects with all. Infinite numbers of smaller circles could be included inside a larger circle and not one of them would be one with one another.

Unorthodox Christian · Apr 14, 2008

Like Denver Said, Eve was made for Adam, One woman for one man.Are you a follower of Christ?At the Final Marriage Supper, does Christ marry one Bride or Two?One

Hugh McBryde · Apr 14, 2008

(Unorthodox Christian;45490)
"Like Denver Said, Eve was made for Adam, One woman for one man."
Well, it's a good thing DENVER said it, because God didn't. God said Eve for Adam. He didn't say One man, One woman, he in fact never says that anywhere.(Unorthodox Christian;45490)
"Are you a follower of Christ?"
Yes.(Unorthodox Christian;45490)
"At the Final Marriage Supper, does Christ marry one Bride or Two? One."
You're making the error of analogy as fact. The scripture never says this analogy is instructive. There is also a necessarily polygynous example in 2nd Corinthians 11:2.

stlizzy · Apr 14, 2008

(Hugh McBryde;45457)
Interesting, because you seem to conceed that if God gave a man another wife, who already had one, that would be ok. Is the number then five and no more?No. An arm on a turnstile would be one with the hub. That does not mean it is one with another arm on the turnstile. A flower is the same, so is a propeller. There is certainly a connection between the wives as they are one with the same man but set theory tells us it is possible for a thing to be wholly included or partly included in another, yet not one with another set at all. Three intersecting circles could have two that do not touch each other but one that intersects with all. Infinite numbers of smaller circles could be included inside a larger circle and not one of them would be one with one another.
I was asking the writer ahead of me who had stated that there was an example where God have given multiple wives to a man who already had five. I wasn't stating any number as a limit... I was asking that guy where this example was...LOl.. but your example of how the circles don't touch one another is erroneous... of course they touch one another... and (most) polygamous relationships in the bible were set up in this manner... community living...

RaddSpencer · Apr 14, 2008

Well, you guys have already discussed that monogamy is God's ideal, but I'm going to add some more information to this discussion.Polygamy is just a bad idea -- It doesn't make since at all. Think about it.1. There is a 1 to 1 ratio of men to women (its actually 105/100 technically)So, how can polygamy work in this situation? If half the male population takes two wives as brides -- what will the other part of the male population do? Twiddle their thumbs? Does this seem remotely fair to you? NO!Instead -- the young men are forced out --- why? WELL because all the "wife" material has already been taken. You can't manufacture women like paper cups you know!!!http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/09polygamy.html2. The Golden RuleSo in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matt 7:12Have you ever met any polygamous men interested in polyandry (where one wife shares many husbands). Well, if you are not willing to share one wife with many other husbands --- why should you expect your wife to share you with many other wives?:naughty:

stlizzy · Apr 14, 2008

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html:"The clearest verse comes from Jesus in His teaching on divorce: Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (NIV Matt 19.8-9, pp. Mark 10.1-12) The key thing to note here is that this argument fails if polygamy is acceptable! Jesus' point is that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then a "second" marriage is adultery--and NOT simply 'polygamy'! This is very clear. "http://www.eadshome.com/polygamy.htm"You can only leave your parent's household once!Notice that God's definition of marriage involves a man "leaving his father and mother" to be united to his wife. Once a man has left his father and mother's authority and household to marry, he cannot leave that household again! This means that when a man first marries a woman, he does so upon leaving his parent's authority. If he were to subsequently marry another woman, he would not be leaving his parent's authority again, and thus would not fulfill the definition of marriage as outlined in Matthew 19 and Genesis 2:24."

Hugh McBryde · Apr 14, 2008

stlizzy;45538 said:
"LOl.. but your example of how the circles don't touch one another is erroneous... of course they touch one another... and (most) polygamous relationships in the bible were set up in this manner... community living..."

The example was about how someone could be one flesh without being one flesh with another wife. You equivocate. Besides, Rachel and Leah had separate tents, Gideon apparently rode the circuit and other kings had their wives spread out in the kingdom.

stlizzy;45561 said:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html:
"The clearest verse comes from Jesus in His teaching on divorce:"

I love it when people cut and paste thoughts not their own, proving they cannot articulate the refutation themselves. I'll quote myself then, from about four years ago.

Me said:
I now know why people cling to Matthew 19 as some sort of proof against polygyny. This material is found at this site; http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html

Glenn Miller said:

NIV Matt 19.8-9, pp. Mark 10.1-12

Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.'

Click to expand...

The key thing to note here is that this argument fails if polygamy is acceptable! Jesus' point is that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then a "second" marriage is adultery--and NOT simply 'polygamy'! This is very clear.

Click to expand...

Actually the point is that the obligations of marriage do not dissolve. To understand that we have to know first how Jesus views the law, and then go back and look at the law. For Jesus view we have Matthew 5:17-19(NASB)

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Click to expand...

Jesus view on the law is that it is still in place, in fact he proceeds from this statement to make his famous remark about lusting in your heart being equivalent in severity to adultery in your heart. If anything Jesus is prone to making the condemnations of the law more far reaching, touching on more of our activities, than we would. Thus, at least for the Jewish audience he speaks to, during his life on this earth, Jesus is more severe about the application of the law that most of his Jewish bretheren. The law then, is in place, so what does it say? Remember, that in stating that Moses gives the law, Jesus does not downgrade it, he and Moses are prophets in the same mold. He says this about Moses, Moses foretells Christ's coming as a prophet like himself. Now to the law of divorce, given to Moses, by God. Deuteronomy 24:1(NASB)

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Click to expand...

Since we know that Jesus does not (at least in this time frame) take away from the law, he has to be abiding by it. The Pharisees that asked about this question of law were seeking more liberty in it than it gave. They had made vague the "uncleanness" of the passage so that it allowed them a righteous divorce for virtually any reason. Christ does not, going back to Matthew 19 (NIV), Jesus says "except for marital unfaithfulness" and defines what uncleanness is. It's adultery. Jesus again defines the law as not permitting what we would like it to, instead being more restrictive and far reaching than we would prefer. Lusting after a woman is adultery. Divorce is not sanctioned for just any reason or displeasure of a husband, but only for her adultery which is the "uncleanness" of Deuteronomy.

Miller then makes the argument that the first marriage "Still stands." This does not reflect the structure of the Law Jesus honors. Deuteronomy 24:2(NASB)

...and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife..

Click to expand...

Is this a Polyandry then? No, becauses verses 3 & 4 say;

..and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

Click to expand...

The marriage ceased at the point of the writ of divorcement, but not until. The woman could go out and become another man's wife. It is clearly wrong for her to do so per Christ's comments, but she could do it. It's not a polyandrous marriage to two men, because if the second husband was to send her away or if he were to die, "her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled." This is likened to a defilement of God's land, which he gave to Israel. Remember, the argument of Glenn Miller is that the marriage "still stands." If it did, she might return to her former husband, and could. The following quote is thus disproved:

Glenn Miller said:

God does not accept divorce as valid, any man who divorces his wife is not really divorced, and if he marries someone else, he commits adultery.

Click to expand...

Obviously, God does accept divorce as valid. I would remind Mr. Miller that God does it himself in Jeremiah 3. His supposition that marriage cannot be disolved is disproved by the given example in Deuteronomy 24, and the permanent ratification of that disolving if the woman were to go on to become the wife of another man. The pollution is so severe that even if her next husband were to die, she could not return to the first. That second man must divorce her for her to go away from him, and how is it that a divorce from the second husband is necessary, if she were still in a marriage with the first? The argument disintigrates entirely with Jesus own words. John 4:16-18(NASB)

He said to her, 'Go, call your husband and come here.' The woman answered and said, 'I have no husband.' Jesus said to her, 'You have correctly said, "I have no husband"; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly'.

Click to expand...

How could the woman have had five husbands? Is Miller proposing the first four died? Why is she not the wife of the last man? Could it be number 5 has not divorced her?

Jesus upholds the double standard of divorce, again reiterating the permission as being only given to men. He clarifies the structure of the law to countenance remarriage by the man, only in the even of his wife's adultery. The verse clearly states there is an exception for all men whose wives have committed adultery against them and clears the path for them to marry again, provided their cause of action was adultery on the part of their wives. "Double standard" is used by Miller to endear himself to his audience. Why, who would endorse a double standard? Frankly, scripture has a number of double standards, repeated, reinforced, named as Godly and all throughout the New and Old Testaments. Miller goes on to cite numerous scholars, "early church fathers" and theologians of the early church. None are scripture. We all know that errors regularly creep into the church. Paul was already stamping them out before he even got the chance to write all his letters. He'd visit, teach, leave, and have to write a letter to crush already budding heresies and bad doctrines. The ancient writer is no more free from error than the new. The veneration of a "early church father" does not improve the nature of his work.

This next one is very lame.

stlizzy;45561 said:
Once a man has left his father and mother's authority and household to marry, he cannot leave that household again!"

So, if your parents die you can't get married, or if you are a widower, you can't marry again.

RaddSpencer;45560 said:
"Polygamy is just a bad idea -- It doesn't make since at all. Think about it.

1. There is a 1 to 1 ratio of men to women (its actually 105/100 technically)"

The ratio is worse for women, in the churches, and I never said that half the men should have more than one wife, I have no problem with about one or two out of a hundred having more than one wife.

Christina · Apr 14, 2008

1 cor 7:2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

Hugh McBryde · Apr 14, 2008

So, when you say, "My Own Language", do you say you own something exclusively? Perhaps you do if you are a pentecostal with a "private prayer" language, but even that you would supposedly share with God, who would supposedly understand you. At Pentecost people heard the apostles in their "own tongue" or language. Was that language ONLY theirs and no others? When Paul speaks in 1st Corinthians 7:2, the word used is the same Greek word translated to the English "own" as is used for "own tongue" in Acts two.Paul uses the same word as "own" as in "own tongue" that Luke used, for "own husband". A word that allows JOINT ownership, or perhaps even being "possessed by". When he says "Own Wife", he uses an entirely different word in Greek for "own". The facts are simple. Paul made a distinction, a distinction not clear in the English translation, but allowed for, and a distinction that is clear in the Greek. Here's another one for you, if a Slave said, "my own master", which word do you think he would use in the Greek? Even in the ENGLISH it is obvious that he doesn't "own" his master, more that he is owned by his master actually. Do you want to hazard a GUESS as to whether or not the phrase "own master" appears in scripture? Do you want to GUESS which AUTHOR might use that phrase? Romans 14:4:
"Quote:"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand."
Now, do you want to BET me money which of two Greek words for OWN he uses? It's IDIOS. The same word used by Luke in Acts 2 for "own" language or tongue, the SAME word used by Paul for "Own Husband" and "Own Master" in the above passage. When Paul says "Own Husband" he is using the PRECISE SAME PHRASING as he uses above for "Own Master". Now, does he use that word for "Own Wife" in 1st Corinthians 7:2? No HE DOES NOT. Instead, Paul uses "HEAUTOU".

RaddSpencer · Apr 15, 2008

OKAY.......So, Mr. Hugh, I don't know why this thread is still going. I really am stumped as to why this thread is still going. As I said above, polygamy is just flat-out unsustainable, and it deviates from God's standard of marriage (which Denver and the rest have already shown).If you really are that dead set on becoming a polygamist; then why are you here arguing with us? Its not like we can stop you.However, consider the following:Sins:AdulteryHomosexualityMurderGodly commands:Love your neighborMonogamous MarriageSpeak the truthThe easiest way to tell if something is a sin is to see what it does when everyone performs the said action (at one time).Adultery -- if everyone committed adultery at the same time. You can bet money that a nuclear war would break out. Homosexuality -- If everyone became homosexual. Humanity would die out within a generation.Murder -- if everyone attempted to murder someone else. Half of humanity would die instantaneously.Now lets look at the godly actions:Love Your Neighbor -- If everyone treated their neighbor as themselves (worldwide). Talk about peace. We would have peace in the middle east for sure.Monogamous Marriage -- Everyone would have one husband to one wife. The numbers of women to men would work out.Speak the Truth -- This is what people are supposed to do anyways. Without truth, civilization is un-sustainable.The basic idea is this. Sinful actions are damaging to human kind in a very real way. God is not a fool, He gave us instructions on how to live our lives ON PURPOSE. God did not give us rules for no reason!Now lets look at polygamy:If everyone practices polygamy at one time the following happens (lets say 3 to 1 ratio, women to men).1/3 of the male population will have wives2/3 will notIS THIS CIVILIZATION sustainable? NO, in fact it looks rather dangerous. Do you want to be a man with three wives when you are outnumbered 2 to 1 with unmarried men? It seems to me that war would instantaneously break out with the haves versus the have-nots.I could see why you would be for polygamy if the mathematics worked out ( for instance there were 3 women born to every one man). However, you are arguing for something where the mathematics does NOT ADD UP.If every man in the world cannot do it --- WHY should one man be able to do it? Why do you think that one man can run a red light while everyone else has to stop? Why do you think that one man can kill his annoying next door neighbor (and it be legally ok) when everyone else would go to prison for the rest of his life?It seems like to me that you think that God shows favoritism to some people. That he has a set of weights for one man, and a different set of weights for another. That is just bogus.Differing weights and differing measures, Both of them are abominable to the LORD. Prov 20:10Lastly, It seems to me that you are not really interested in finding out the truth. If these other brothers/sisters cannot convince you. Nothing I will say will matter. However, winning the argument is not what is important. Finding out the truth is what is important.

Hugh McBryde · Apr 15, 2008

RaddSpencer;45572]"So said:
"If you really are that dead set on becoming a polygamist; then why are you here arguing with us? Its not like we can stop you."

First, I only advocate Polygyny, second, AGAIN, I did not start this line of discussion. Who by the way, said I had to be Polygynous to advocate that it was a perfectly good idea? I wouldn't be or not be Polygynous based on what you felt about it.

RaddSpencer;45572]"However said:
Sins:[/b]AdulteryHomosexualityMurder"

Great, I don't advocate any of them. In Hebrews it is said the marriage bed is undefiled. So if Polygyny is marriage, it's not adultery.

"RaddSpencer;45572]"[b]Godly commands:[/b]Love your neighborMonogamous MarriageSpeak the truth."[/quote]Well said:
"The easiest way to tell if something is a sin is to see what it does when everyone performs the said action (at one time)."

Bwahahahaha... that goes entirely against Paul's statement about gifts and the body of Christ, all are not this or that, ARE THEY? It flies in the face of his encouragement for some to be single.

RaddSpencer;45572]"Adultery -- if everyone committed adultery at the same time. You can bet money that a nuclear war would break out."[/quote]Great said:
"Monogamous Marriage -- Everyone would have one husband to one wife. The numbers of women to men would work out."

You're LYING again.

RaddSpencer;45572 said:
"Speak the Truth -- This is what people are supposed to do anyways. Without truth' date=' civilization is un-sustainable."[/quote']Please do.

RaddSpencer;45572]"The basic idea is this. Sinful actions are damaging to human kind in a very real way. God is not a fool said:

Yes, but you're not demonstrating that your "test" reveals Polygyny to be a bad idea.

RaddSpencer;45572]"Now lets look at polygamy:If everyone practices polygamy at one time the following happens (lets say 3 to 1 ratio said:

IS THIS CIVILIZATION sustainable? NO, in fact it looks rather dangerous[/b]."

Click to expand...

Let's look at a civilization in which everyone tries to be a pastor. Oops. That won't work either. Don't be ridiculous.

RaddSpencer;45572]"It seems like to me that you think that God shows favoritism to some people. That he has a set of weights for one man said:

That's the parable of the talents.

RaddSpencer;45572]"[i]Differing weights and differing measures said:

Prov 20:10"

Click to expand...

That would be measuring talents in a different way for different people. Saying, for instance, that I gave you two talents when I gave you one and a half and then giving one and a half to another, and claiming I gave him one. That would be what an unjust weight would be about. Tell me how your evaluation squares with the parable of the workers, in which they are all paid the same, but some work all day, and some work only the last few moments of the day?

RaddSpencer;45572]"It seems to me that you are not really interested in finding out the truth. If these other brothers/sisters cannot convince you. Nothing I will say will matter. However said:

Apparently, reason has nothing to do with finding out the truth, having YOU declare it to ME is the way I find out the truth, when I agree with YOU, then I am submitting to the truth. Reason with me, and if you cannot, I suggest it is because you are not an appropriate representative for your point of view, or perhaps, you are wrong.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

RaddSpencer · Apr 15, 2008

You said:No, you haven't. You've CLAIMED that monogamy is God's standard for marriage, you haven't shown that God SAID it was his standard for marriage. It's really a lie to say you've shown it and that it's God's standard for marriage, so please, stop LYING.Okaaaaay....So I'll have to chalk this up to a "swell". I had no idea that 1 Cor 7:1-4 was a flat out lie.Disagreeing with me -- is fine. I can agree to disagree. However, I draw the line when people call me a liar (especially when I am not trying to deceive anyone at all). So you go ahead and have a nice thread -- and a nice life as well. Goodbye! Goodbye!

Hugh McBryde · Apr 15, 2008

Radd,Here is the way a discussion goes. You assert something with whatever evidence you bring to the table, I deal with it, either I accept it, or I refute it.I have offered a refutation for which you come back with your original assertion. That's called "Argumentum ad nauseum", namely, you just keep restating your original position.You have NOT shown anything to anyone's final satisfaction and you're now quoting the address of a scriptural passage that I have dealt with in detail. namely, I've shown how 1st Corinthians 7:2 is not saying the same thing about men and women with respect to their roles in marriage, it's actually saying there's something different about them. This is because the Apostle Paul uses different words that are translated into english as "Own". Because Paul uses two variables in each otherwise similar statement, he is contrasting the nature of a man's relationship to his wife with the nature of a woman's relationship to her husband. The type of word to describe "own" varies with regard to what comparison is being made.Given the FACT, the utterly incontrovertable fact that the english word "own" can be used to mean "I own" or the inverse "I am owned by" and Paul uses the same word that he elsewhere uses to indicate the LATTER meaning. Namely, he uses a word that says "own master" in the same way he says "own husband", Paul is quite clearly saying that the relationship of women to men is different that men to women. He may even be saying that women are "owned by" their husbands. This completely blows up the premise that I owe my wife exclusive sexual and marital fidelity.So you HAVE NOT dealt with it. You speak falsely and say that you HAVE. You've only repeated your original position which has been answered in detail. This means unless you answer in detail, YOU are DEFEATED. Perhaps another can rise to deal with the arguments you cannot deal with, but you are defeated.

Polygamy?

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Similar threads