Search results

Many men today couldn't handle trying to love more than one wife as he should because so many today were not raised by a man who had that ability either. What keeps many men today from even considering that family model is their fear of all the satanic feminists out there waiting to pounce on...

The genealogies include men who had plural wives, however I do appreciate you stating that your input on this is on the basis of what "I think," rather than trying to prove from scripture what isn't there, such as your also thinking that a plurality of wives is a matter of the flesh, which is...

If you believe that, then would you mind sharing the relevant scripture(s) in support of that if you believe that's God's intent for all men? If having more than one is a matter of being fleshly, then surely the scriptures state that, right? Please share it. BTW

Very good question, and thank you for that. It's a thoughtful inquiry. 1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. I caution those out there of the feministic bent to be careful about trying to twist this passage...

I'm also bewildered at the eisegetical practices out there for attributing to Jesus the advent of some ethereal requirement for monogamy forced upon all men. Jesus clearly stated His purpose for coming, and never did He address any changes to His definition of marriage in Genesis 2, which also...

It is interesting how something the Koran, being far down the scale of integrity, can still reflect some things that are consistent with the Bible...especially when it is copied right from the Bible. BTW

Where does scripture say the original plan was one wife? I found where divorce was attributed that restriction, but never the number of wives for ALL men. Adam having one wife has far greater implications than the fabricated idea that his having one wife also means the original intent for all...

Meaning...what? Who are you not keeping up with in this thread? If you're talking about those who habitually add to the word of God what isn't there, such as taking Jesus' statements about divorce and transforming them into an address against polygyny, then please be that specific. So, clarity...

It's additionally interesting how ignorant most people are about the words they use. Polygamy is a term that encompasses what truly is sin given that the term polygamy serves as an umbrella term under which is polyandry (plural husbands, which is indeed within the realm of the biblical...

Good points. You did, however, leave out the fact that Abraham had more wives than just Sarah and Hagar. Concubines were just as much those men's wives as any other wife, the only difference being that the distinctive status of concubines were such that the offspring were not entitled to the...

You really have no idea what you're talking about, going around giving that kind of cruddy advice! Someone who misrepresents scripture as badly as you has no business advising anyone. BTW

Context, context, context. Jesus was talking about divorce, not polygyny. Please don't falsely represent the word of Christ. Remain intellectually honest, shall we? BTW

Wrong. Injecting salvation into that and other texts is nothing but what is so typical of promoters of false doctrines. It's always easy to assume something into the texts what isn't there when you've had that drilled into you for who knows how many years. Nope. Reading scripture for what it...

MatthewG hit it on the head in it's post above, #149. Paul didn't teach the requirement for water baptism unto the remission of sins. Paul's gospel was only about Christ's death, burial and resurrection on the third day. That Paul baptized a small handfull of people doesn't change his actual...

You really seem to not like it when someone dares to disagree with you. When Paul said that disbelief doesn't lead to Christ forfeiting His own Spirit by taking salvation away from any He has saved, you seem to disagree, and that's on you, not me or anyone else. Pulling up a slew of other verses...

That you're missing the forest for the trees is the point. There's nothing you have exposed apart from my unwillingness to recap the known historic doctrinal teachings from historic RCC dogma. So, the things you assume about me personally...whatever. BTW

Your guile openly betrays your bias and bent toward the historic revisionism of the leaders in your religion, which poisons the wells of discussion, therefore the reason for my lack of engaging with you on this topic. BTW

There you go again, playing the victim card. I didn't insult you by pointing out what you MIGHT believe about something. It was an indefinite since I dont know all the ins and outs of your belief system. Additionally, forcing salvation into that context is nothing more than eisegetical...

Good point. Thanks for this message. This brings to light the importance of rightly dividing the word of truth as Paul instructed. BTW

You misunderstand the point. All of scripture is FOR us but not all is TO us. I realize you may not like that, but it is what it is. I dealt directly with the scriptures you quoted, which is to say that injecting salvation into those as if they lend some ethereal support to some idea of losing...