Polygamy

[Selene]

I agree with Raeneske. Polygamy is a sin, and it was God who defined what marriage was since the very beginning when He created Adam and Eve. As I said, God did not take more than one rib from Adam and create multiple wives for him. He only created one wife for him. Marriage is sacred because it came from God. God was the one who defined marriage since the beginning, not man.

 

[Pelaides]

Whenever a man and women lie together(have sexual relations)they are officially married,if they leave each other to have sex with others,they now become adulterers,and fornicators.
If a man stays whith each women he lies down with,it is not a sin.
you dont need a church for it to be called a marriage.

 

[Foreigner]

Whenever a man and women lie together(have sexual relations)they are officially married,if they leave each other to have sex with others,they now become adulterers,and fornicators.
If a man stays whith each women he lies down with,it is not a sin.
you dont need a church for it to be called a marriage.

-- Unfortunately, you appear to actually believe that.
Not surprising that you can present no evidence to support that position.

 

[Pelaides]

Following the morality of the people of the OT is a great way to screw up your life - you can justify all kinds of sin based on their behavior. The primary message of the OT is God's Sovereignty, not morality. God is Good / We are not / God wants to be in relationship with us, which is the only way we will ever overcome sin.

so what are you trying to say?we should throw out the old testament?Jesus read and mastered the Old testament ,and followed most of its rules and ordinances.And so did Paul and the other apostles.

-- Unfortunately, you appear to actually believe that.
Not surprising that you can present no evidence to support that position.

Its written that when a man and women cleave together they become one in flesh,and let no man put asunder what God has put together.

 

[Foreigner]

Its written that when a man and women cleave together they become one in flesh,and let no man put asunder what God has put together.

-- It says first that that man would leave his mother and that woman leave her home.
According to you, every hit-and-run sexual encounter counts as marraige. It does not.

 

[Raeneske]

so what are you trying to say?we should throw out the old testament?Jesus read and mastered the Old testament ,and followed most of its rules and ordinances.And so did Paul and the other apostles.

Its written that when a man and women cleave together they become one in flesh,and let no man put asunder what God has put together.

Fornication is what the "hit and run" encounters are called. And that is SIN, not marriage. If it was marriage, God would not have a problem with it. But the fact that it happens to be a sex outside of marriage makes it a sin. God's Word is totally plain on that, which is why it's called, fornication.

No one is saying throw out the Old Testament. He's clearly saying it would be unwise to attempt to emulate Old Testament characters in way we know are sinful.

 

[Groundzero]

The fact that polygamy became so widespread doesn't mean it was any less of a sin. It ceased to be looked upon as sin by some of God's people, even His highly blessed. Polygamy is absolutely sinful, and is a lust of the flesh. Monogamy? Not so. The Bible tells you that it is not a sin that they marry.

When you start trying to add wives, you are adding sin. Jesus was very plain.

Not sure your stance Zebra, just saw that post, and thought you were trying to say Monogamy is of the world. No, the world may lay hands upon God's sacred marriage, but it's not of the world. Polygamy, and same-sex marriage are two examples of the world laying hands upon God's sacred ties.

Let me explain. Selene stated that polygamy is a 'common' practice of the heathen. What does that prove? Nothing.

Now as for these verses about marriage and adultery, permit me to attempt to address them.

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
This verse defines marriage. It doesn't restrict marriage. It doesn't say that a man may NOT have multiple marriages. It does stipulate that marriage is between a MAN and WOMAN, not man and man, or woman and woman. It also stipulates that marriage means that the man and woman involved become one flesh and should NOT be separated.

Now to address adultery. I really wish people would study their definitions more. Adultery refers to a woman who breaks wedlock. The ONLY way she can do that, is to have sexual relations with a man other than her husband.
And so there goes all that stuff I'm hearing about adultery. It has NOTHING to do with polygyny, so keep it out please.

Now for fornication. Fornication covers a wide range of sexual immorality. So let's think about this. David committed adultery with Baathsheba, and was punished severely. However, if that was the case, how is it that for all his other wives that he had, he wasn't punished? Did God overlook all his other instances of fornication? I would hardly think so. Clearly, if God dealt with David so harshly over adultery, then he would have dealt the same if it was fornication (since sin is sin), but that is NOT what we see.

If polygyny really was a sin, don't you think it would have been specified? Instead of put under fornication? God isn't going to leave us in the dark about sins. He took the time to tell us about homosexuality, about adultery, and so many other sins. Why would he leave polygyny out? or put it under a title when it already has a specific title for it?

Now you state that when we start adding on wives, it's plain that we are sinning. Umm, where is that stated?

In 2Sa 12:8, in David's infamous episode with Baathsheba, God tells David, that HE gave David Saul's house, his wives, and his wealth. And if David wanted more, God would have given him more. Would that have included wives? Yes, because that is what God was focusing on. Instead of asking God for another wife, David committed adultery with someone who was already married.

Once again, I must ask the question, if polygyny is wrong, how is it that men after God's own heart, heroes of faith, were polygynous? Let me refresh your memories from the Hall of Heroes in Hebrews 11: Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, David.
Has God changed his mind? Has he changed his bar of acceptance? Because Abraham was the father of the faithful, and David was a man after God's own heart. The God of Israel doesn't change, and it's time that humanity stops trying to change his rules.

 

[Raeneske]

Let me explain. Selene stated that polygamy is a 'common' practice of the heathen. What does that prove? Nothing.

Now as for these verses about marriage and adultery, permit me to attempt to address them.

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
This verse defines marriage. It doesn't restrict marriage. It doesn't say that a man may NOT have multiple marriages. It does stipulate that marriage is between a MAN and WOMAN, not man and man, or woman and woman. It also stipulates that marriage means that the man and woman involved become one flesh and should NOT be separated.

Now to address adultery. I really wish people would study their definitions more. Adultery refers to a woman who breaks wedlock. The ONLY way she can do that, is to have sexual relations with a man other than her husband.
And so there goes all that stuff I'm hearing about adultery. It has NOTHING to do with polygyny, so keep it out please.

Now for fornication. Fornication covers a wide range of sexual immorality. So let's think about this. David committed adultery with Baathsheba, and was punished severely. However, if that was the case, how is it that for all his other wives that he had, he wasn't punished? Did God overlook all his other instances of fornication? I would hardly think so. Clearly, if God dealt with David so harshly over adultery, then he would have dealt the same if it was fornication (since sin is sin), but that is NOT what we see.

If polygyny really was a sin, don't you think it would have been specified? Instead of put under fornication? God isn't going to leave us in the dark about sins. He took the time to tell us about homosexuality, about adultery, and so many other sins. Why would he leave polygyny out? or put it under a title when it already has a specific title for it?

Now you state that when we start adding on wives, it's plain that we are sinning. Umm, where is that stated?

In 2Sa 12:8, in David's infamous episode with Baathsheba, God tells David, that HE gave David Saul's house, his wives, and his wealth. And if David wanted more, God would have given him more. Would that have included wives? Yes, because that is what God was focusing on. Instead of asking God for another wife, David committed adultery with someone who was already married.

Once again, I must ask the question, if polygyny is wrong, how is it that men after God's own heart, heroes of faith, were polygynous? Let me refresh your memories from the Hall of Heroes in Hebrews 11: Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, David.
Has God changed his mind? Has he changed his bar of acceptance? Because Abraham was the father of the faithful, and David was a man after God's own heart. The God of Israel doesn't change, and it's time that humanity stops trying to change his rules.

Polygamy is absolutely, unequivocally, unacceptable. Selene made a valid point, that polygamy is commonly practiced among the heathen. The fact that just because God didn't censure everyone for every sin they committed doesn't prove that it's not sin. The Word of God is very plain on this matter.

Your definition of adultery is off.

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:11, 12 KJV)
It is not just a woman who goes off and has sex with some other man, other than her husband. If a man shall put his wife away, and marry another, he has committed adultery. There are no ifs, ands, and buts about that passage. Why would God call it adultery, to marry another person if you "put her away"? It's because in God's eyes, you are still married to the other person. That fact alone proves there is something absolutely wrong with polygamy. You cannot go and marry another, if you are already married.

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord , to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the Lord , Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. (2 Samuel 12:8-11 KJV)

Based off what you have said that God was focusing on, are you going to say it's okay to murder now? According to you, God was focusing only on the "wives" part. Was adultery the only error that David made? Was there no wrong in David slaying a man?

God is simply stating that He gave all to David in the house of Israel, that He greatly blessed David. He is not contradicting His testimony in which earlier he plainly stated that kings shall not multiply wives to themselves (Deu 17:14-17). Nor is He contradicting the testimony made within the New Testament, where it was adultery to marry another wife.

While he winked at their polygamy, the fact that David took another step and murdered a man, and took his wife, brought swift judgement upon David. We do not accept something as okay, simply because we have seen no censure the act immediatly. It's the same way you and I may sin, in ways we know not yet. It has not brought upon us immediate judgement.

Polygamy was specified. Just because it had not the wording we use today, does not mean the Bible says it's okay. It's a destructuon of marriage. In the beginning God made them male and female. And they two became one flesh. It is sexual immorality, the lust of the flesh that Satan promotes. And He will do it in all sorts of crafty ways that he possibly can.

The men of the Bible had flaws, save Jesus. The fact that they had multiple wives, does not prove that they were sinless, or that every course of action they took was okay. If you die, without the proper light being shined upon a certain subject, as Jesus says, that would be a "cloak for your sin". You could say, "Lord, I knew it not!" And he would be perfectly okay. You are only judged on the light you are given. Even men of the old days did not have the proper understanding of God's will, but their heart was set towards Him, and that's what mattered. We however, have the Word before us, and we can search the scriptures. Not seeing a censure for everything evil that someone does, does not promote sin. For God's reasons alone, he chose not to say things in the Word sometimes. But this gives no indication that everything we see them do, is okay. As 2 Kings 22:1-13 shows, there were times of absolute ignorance to God's Laws with Israel.

Hope this helps!

 

[Justin Mangonel]

Legalism does not listen to reason for it knows the truth so hard that nothing can assail it.

 

[Raeneske]

Legalism does not listen to reason for it knows the truth so hard that nothing can assail it.

Obediance is not legalism. Neither is strict obediance.

This would be legalistic:

"You cannot marry a girl 3 years younger than you, or 5 months older than you. It would be wise to keep the ages closely linked like that. You should not marry a woman who is 3 inches taller than you, or 3 inches shorter than you. You must marry between the ages of 19 and 22."

That's legalism.

Obediance in only having one wife, is not legalistic. It's honoring the wife you have, rejoicing with the wife of thy youth, giving her what she deserves, instead of treating her like a sex object, so that you can "love her" and "love many others".

It's obeying the Commandment of God. That's not legalistic.

Strange, we've gotten to the point where obeying not just one Commandment of God is legalistic (Talking about the 4th), but now obeying the adultery commandment is "legalistic". If anyone can see the dangerous area we are heading in, and have partaken in destroying the commandments of God, I would urge you, repent. There is no telling how far Satan will go with "legalism" while adhering to the 10 Commandments of our Creator God.

 

[Groundzero]

Polygamy is absolutely, unequivocally, unacceptable. Selene made a valid point, that polygamy is commonly practiced among the heathen. The fact that just because God didn't censure everyone for every sin they committed doesn't prove that it's not sin. The Word of God is very plain on this matter.

Your definition of adultery is off.

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:11, 12 KJV)
It is not just a woman who goes off and has sex with some other man, other than her husband. If a man shall put his wife away, and marry another, he has committed adultery. There are no ifs, ands, and buts about that passage. Why would God call it adultery, to marry another person if you "put her away"? It's because in God's eyes, you are still married to the other person. That fact alone proves there is something absolutely wrong with polygamy. You cannot go and marry another, if you are already married.

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord , to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the Lord , Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. (2 Samuel 12:8-11 KJV)

Based off what you have said that God was focusing on, are you going to say it's okay to murder now? According to you, God was focusing only on the "wives" part. Was adultery the only error that David made? Was there no wrong in David slaying a man?

God is simply stating that He gave all to David in the house of Israel, that He greatly blessed David. He is not contradicting His testimony in which earlier he plainly stated that kings shall not multiply wives to themselves (Deu 17:14-17). Nor is He contradicting the testimony made within the New Testament, where it was adultery to marry another wife.

While he winked at their polygamy, the fact that David took another step and murdered a man, and took his wife, brought swift judgement upon David. We do not accept something as okay, simply because we have seen no censure the act immediatly. It's the same way you and I may sin, in ways we know not yet. It has not brought upon us immediate judgement.

Polygamy was specified. Just because it had not the wording we use today, does not mean the Bible says it's okay. It's a destructuon of marriage. In the beginning God made them male and female. And they two became one flesh. It is sexual immorality, the lust of the flesh that Satan promotes. And He will do it in all sorts of crafty ways that he possibly can.

The men of the Bible had flaws, save Jesus. The fact that they had multiple wives, does not prove that they were sinless, or that every course of action they took was okay. If you die, without the proper light being shined upon a certain subject, as Jesus says, that would be a "cloak for your sin". You could say, "Lord, I knew it not!" And he would be perfectly okay. You are only judged on the light you are given. Even men of the old days did not have the proper understanding of God's will, but their heart was set towards Him, and that's what mattered. We however, have the Word before us, and we can search the scriptures. Not seeing a censure for everything evil that someone does, does not promote sin. For God's reasons alone, he chose not to say things in the Word sometimes. But this gives no indication that everything we see them do, is okay. As 2 Kings 22:1-13 shows, there were times of absolute ignorance to God's Laws with Israel.

Hope this helps!

Wow! U certainly are sure! I'm so glad that you are. Obviously it keeps rolling off you. God NEVER censured polygyny. That should raise questions immediately about the position you are trying to defend.

Have you considered the phrase 'put away'? To me, that speaks of divorce. If polygyny really was wrong, I think God would merely have said, he who marries another woman sins. This verse narrows down to a certain situation, where one spouse divorces the other and then remarries.

Obviously you mis-understood my statement. When God told David that he would have given him more of such if he had asked, he would have been including wives in that, since that was what the focus was on, another man's wife.

So according to Deut 17, does that mean a king should only have ONE horse as well? Does that mean that he should only have one piece of silver and one of gold? Think about what you implicate. Multiply speaks of excess.

How do you know God winked at polygamy????? May I put forward something: David was punished for merely counting the people of Israel! Thousands of people died as a result! So you're going to tell me that God picked up something so small, yet ignored polygamy? Hilarious.

Your quote, verbatim: Polygamy was specified. Groan. Ok, since all this is so 'obvious', where are all the Scriptures that address it? I can find Scriptures that address bestiality, fornication, adultery, homosexuality. But polygyny, a major component, is missing?

So what about this two become one flesh? In polygyny, that still happens, the only difference is the husband has several wives.

So in other words, you are claiming to have a closer relationship with God than Abraham? than David? No offence, but it really would be something to get that close to God. These men weren't just men struggling along. They were spiritual giants. God SPOKE to them personally. I think that if polygyny was an issue, God would have dealt with and addressed it, since he addressed much more minor defects.

So once again, I call your challenge. You have stated implicitly that evidence against polygyny is clear. So where is it?

 

[Raeneske]

Wow! U certainly are sure! I'm so glad that you are. Obviously it keeps rolling off you. God NEVER censured polygyny. That should raise questions immediately about the position you are trying to defend.

Have you considered the phrase 'put away'? To me, that speaks of divorce. If polygyny really was wrong, I think God would merely have said, he who marries another woman sins. This verse narrows down to a certain situation, where one spouse divorces the other and then remarries.

Obviously you mis-understood my statement. When God told David that he would have given him more of such if he had asked, he would have been including wives in that, since that was what the focus was on, another man's wife.

So according to Deut 17, does that mean a king should only have ONE horse as well? Does that mean that he should only have one piece of silver and one of gold? Think about what you implicate. Multiply speaks of excess.

How do you know God winked at polygamy????? May I put forward something: David was punished for merely counting the people of Israel! Thousands of people died as a result! So you're going to tell me that God picked up something so small, yet ignored polygamy? Hilarious.

Your quote, verbatim: Polygamy was specified. Groan. Ok, since all this is so 'obvious', where are all the Scriptures that address it? I can find Scriptures that address bestiality, fornication, adultery, homosexuality. But polygyny, a major component, is missing?

So what about this two become one flesh? In polygyny, that still happens, the only difference is the husband has several wives.

So in other words, you are claiming to have a closer relationship with God than Abraham? than David? No offence, but it really would be something to get that close to God. These men weren't just men struggling along. They were spiritual giants. God SPOKE to them personally. I think that if polygyny was an issue, God would have dealt with and addressed it, since he addressed much more minor defects.

So once again, I call your challenge. You have stated implicitly that evidence against polygyny is clear. So where is it?

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11 KJV)

Jesus mentioned the fact, that those who put their wives away, and marry another, sin. Those who seperate for reasons other than sexual immorality, have the chance to be reconciled back to their husbands and wives.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. (Mark 10:7-9, 11 KJV)

Whosoever shall divorce his wife, and marry another is in sin, and has committed adultery. The problem lies, in committing adultery. How can you commit adultery against someone you're supposedly not married to? Simple. You actually still are married to her, and that's how God views it. It has not been "put asunder," as they believe it has been. They are still cleaved. So to do something with someone else, to marry another wife, is absolute sin. It is adultery.

And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben–ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day. (Genesis 19:31-38 KJV)

Sin. Not censured. Please tell me how it was perfectly okay for Lot's daughters to get him drunk, so they could have sex with him.

When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (Deuteronomy 17:14-17 KJV)

Clever retort, but it's not saying "only one piece of silver and gold". We know we are not to love riches in that way, God's word is plain about that. This would fall in line with heaping treasure together for yourself. The kings were not to multiply wives themselves, at all. Why? Because that's Polygamy, that's sin. Howbeit, you don't see it as sin. Therefore, I am not sure if you can see what i'm seeing, so let me try to explain. As I said, polygamy is in there. Simply because it does not have the word "polygamy" there, does not mean it was not included. Multiplying wives unto yourself, is one of many times it is mentioned. Jesus also mentioned it, by calling it adultery to "put your wife away" and marry another. You have not really put your wife away, you are still married in God's eye's, and thus you have committed adultery.

God did deal with Polygamy. If it did not matter, Sarah's handmaid would never have had to leave. But Sarah, being the first wife, wanted the handmaid and her son out of the house. Sarah is the first wife, she is entitled to rights as the first wife, which no other woman can encroach upon. Abraham is a father, would he have so easily given up his son? No. And God honored the request of Sarah, by telling Abraham to cut her (the handmaid) loose. But God promised Abraham that though sent out and away, the child was not to be forsaken.

The Bible also talks about Deacons, and bishops being only the husband of one wife.

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. (1 Timothy 3:2, 8, 12 KJV)

I find it interesting, they were to have only one wife, and not given to filthy lucre, the same way the kings were not to multiply gold and silver, and were not to multiply wives to themselves.

Where have I claimed to have a closer relationship with God, more than what you refer to as "spiritual giants"? I have said, we have the scriptures. We study them (should) daily. We should be men after God's own heart. What? Think you, that because they talked to God, that means God pointed out every single flaw to them? God only judged them on the light they only had.

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: (2 Peter 2:9, 10, 14 KJV)

The wicked are reserved unto the day of judgement.

Simply because God did not alert one to their sins previously, and they were not %100 perfect, does not mean God sanctions sin. As we increase in spiritual knowledge, there is a constant growing.

Just because God did not immediatly wipe out David, and everyone else for their polygamy, does not mean he never cared about it. The Word of God shows that God very much so does.

Hope this helps!

 

[Justin Mangonel]

I am so glad it is illegal to burn people at the stake.

 

[Rex]

I am so glad it is illegal to burn people at the stake.

And since when has this become the recommended practice of true Christians towards unbelievers or those that differ with their message?


And since when do grown up christians become so concerned with multiple wife's?




Tell me how whether you believe on one side VS the other it contributes to the body of Christ? How will this knowledge edify Christ?
How can one man possibly edify, care for and hold up multiple wife's in the same manner as one? He couldn't
Your argument about practices in other countries is baseless Romans 14:22-23
The faith you have keep between yourself and God.

Do you think that multiple wifes needs to be included in this as well, or do suppose it might be implied?

Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits.
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away,[b] to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; 8 but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

You guys are just like the Pharisees you have to make an amendment to the law for everything that isn't clearly told you.
Where is the Promise of the Spirit in all of this? He is apparently absent,

 

[Justin Mangonel]

Grown up Christians, as you put it, are concerned with correctly dividing the scriptures and not just with foisting their cultural viewpoints upon others. They care about other humans and seek to bind up and heal rather than to pass judgement on situations they know little or nothing about.

 

[Raeneske]

I am so glad it is illegal to burn people at the stake.

I almost took this the wrong way. I thought you were saying something about burning us at the stake, because we disagree with the assertion that polygamy is okay. But, now I have a question. Are you asserting that we're actually going to try to burn someone at the stake?

I would hope I would appear as a Christian to you, and not as someone that would do something that... uh... I was gonna say horrendous, but i'm gonna call it like it is - absolutely stupid. I wish my vocabulary was better than that.

Grown up Christians, as you put it, are concerned with correctly dividing the scriptures and not just with foisting their cultural viewpoints upon others. They care about other humans and seek to bind up and heal rather than to pass judgement on situations they know little or nothing about.

I won't throw any accusations, but my eyebrow raises at comments like this. Having one wife is not just a cultural viewpoint. Please give me your scriptural facts, your absolute scriptural basis for accepting polygamy. And "he did it first" type of arguements don't count. We have seen many acts of wickedness, and craziness by Israel. Need I remind you, of the concubine story... Judges 19.

P.S. And please harmonize your basis with everything Jesus said in the New Testament as well, and Ephesians 5.

 

[Pelaides]

I almost took this the wrong way. I thought you were saying something about burning us at the stake, because we disagree with the assertion that polygamy is okay. But, now I have a question. Are you asserting that we're actually going to try to burn someone at the stake?

I would hope I would appear as a Christian to you, and not as someone that would do something that... uh... I was gonna say horrendous, but i'm gonna call it like it is - absolutely stupid. I wish my vocabulary was better than that.
Your views on polgamy are your personal views,they are the views of the culture you live in.which is understandable.But like it presented to you in earlier posts,if polgamy was o.k for Abraham then its o.k for everybody,t heir are few people who God loved as much as Abraham.

I won't throw any accusations, but my eyebrow raises at comments like this. Having one wife is not just a cultural viewpoint. Please give me your scriptural facts, your absolute scriptural basis for accepting polygamy. And "he did it first" type of arguements don't count. We have seen many acts of wickedness, and craziness by Israel. Need I remind you, of the concubine story... Judges 19.

P.S. And please harmonize your basis with everything Jesus said in the New Testament as well, and Ephesians 5.

 

[Raeneske]

Your views on polgamy are your personal views,they are the views of the culture you live in.which is understandable.But like it presented to you in earlier posts,if polgamy was o.k for Abraham then its o.k for everybody,t heir are few people who God loved as much as Abraham.

That's exactly the type of arguement I said not to give. Because there appears to be no censure, they assume it is okay. Please show me, where God censured Lot's daughters for getting their father drunk, so that they could have sex with him. Is it safe to assume, this is okay for us to do, because we saw no immediate censure for it? The wickedness of the wicked grows more bold for this exact reason. Because they are not met with swift judgement by God. Not being met with swift judgment does not mean that you have not erred. It may very well mean that you have erred, and that you have a lifetime to repent of such a deed. Or, you may be entirely ignorant to this command, and God is winking at it. Is it possible for someone, or a group of people to be completely ignorant of God's divine Law? Ask the Christians what happened during the Dark Ages, and you tell me if it's possible to be ignorant of what God truly wants from you.

Abraham was told by Sarah and God to kick the kid and the handmaid out of his house. His wife got fed up with them, and told Abraham to make them leave. This was one instance where God would not tolerate the polygamy, where Abraham's own son had to leave, with the "other mother".

 

[Groundzero]

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11 KJV)

Jesus mentioned the fact, that those who put their wives away, and marry another, sin. Those who seperate for reasons other than sexual immorality, have the chance to be reconciled back to their husbands and wives.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. (Mark 10:7-9, 11 KJV)

Whosoever shall divorce his wife, and marry another is in sin, and has committed adultery. The problem lies, in committing adultery. How can you commit adultery against someone you're supposedly not married to? Simple. You actually still are married to her, and that's how God views it. It has not been "put asunder," as they believe it has been. They are still cleaved. So to do something with someone else, to marry another wife, is absolute sin. It is adultery.

And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben–ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day. (Genesis 19:31-38 KJV)

Sin. Not censured. Please tell me how it was perfectly okay for Lot's daughters to get him drunk, so they could have sex with him.

When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (Deuteronomy 17:14-17 KJV)

Clever retort, but it's not saying "only one piece of silver and gold". We know we are not to love riches in that way, God's word is plain about that. This would fall in line with heaping treasure together for yourself. The kings were not to multiply wives themselves, at all. Why? Because that's Polygamy, that's sin. Howbeit, you don't see it as sin. Therefore, I am not sure if you can see what i'm seeing, so let me try to explain. As I said, polygamy is in there. Simply because it does not have the word "polygamy" there, does not mean it was not included. Multiplying wives unto yourself, is one of many times it is mentioned. Jesus also mentioned it, by calling it adultery to "put your wife away" and marry another. You have not really put your wife away, you are still married in God's eye's, and thus you have committed adultery.

God did deal with Polygamy. If it did not matter, Sarah's handmaid would never have had to leave. But Sarah, being the first wife, wanted the handmaid and her son out of the house. Sarah is the first wife, she is entitled to rights as the first wife, which no other woman can encroach upon. Abraham is a father, would he have so easily given up his son? No. And God honored the request of Sarah, by telling Abraham to cut her (the handmaid) loose. But God promised Abraham that though sent out and away, the child was not to be forsaken.

The Bible also talks about Deacons, and bishops being only the husband of one wife.

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. (1 Timothy 3:2, 8, 12 KJV)

I find it interesting, they were to have only one wife, and not given to filthy lucre, the same way the kings were not to multiply gold and silver, and were not to multiply wives to themselves.

Where have I claimed to have a closer relationship with God, more than what you refer to as "spiritual giants"? I have said, we have the scriptures. We study them (should) daily. We should be men after God's own heart. What? Think you, that because they talked to God, that means God pointed out every single flaw to them? God only judged them on the light they only had.

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: (2 Peter 2:9, 10, 14 KJV)

The wicked are reserved unto the day of judgement.

Simply because God did not alert one to their sins previously, and they were not %100 perfect, does not mean God sanctions sin. As we increase in spiritual knowledge, there is a constant growing.

Just because God did not immediatly wipe out David, and everyone else for their polygamy, does not mean he never cared about it. The Word of God shows that God very much so does.

Hope this helps!

And so we go over points I have already covered. I don't claim to understand these verses inside out, but I know more than enough, that to interpret these Scriptures as condemning polygyny, is a gross error. As I've pointed out again and again, how is it that some of God's greatest heroes were polygamous? and were never corrected?
And some more fuel for the fire: Why was provision made for polygamy in the Law???

I really don't know why you bring Lot up. From a historical narrative, you assume what is right and wrong, when Scripture says NOTHING about condemning or condoning their actions. I prefer to stay silent where Scripture is silent and speak where Scripture speaks.

Will you face the issue? In claiming that one must not multiply wives, he AUTOMATICALLY must use the same reasoning on the rest of the verse! Of course, you don't do that, because that wouldn't make sense! God was talking about excess. Not forbidding polygyny.

God dealt with polygyny? ROFL. What did Abraham actually do wrong? Let me explain. Abraham was told that he would have a son, but he tried to rush the process. Polygyny had nothing to do with it.

As for bishops and deacons, all that proves (if we want to go with your line of reasoning) is that it existed in the church, and instead of Paul saying, No, it's wrong. It was restricted. Certain offices couldn't do it. IF THAT IS the REASONING YOU WANT TO USE. There are other explanations which make more sense, but I'm a bit hands-on atm.

Obviously when God said David was a man after his own heart, he got some things wrong . . . . :blink:

Oops. And yes, I was being sarcastic.

 

[Selene]

Let me explain. Selene stated that polygamy is a 'common' practice of the heathen. What does that prove? Nothing.

Now as for these verses about marriage and adultery, permit me to attempt to address them.

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
This verse defines marriage. It doesn't restrict marriage. It doesn't say that a man may NOT have multiple marriages. It does stipulate that marriage is between a MAN and WOMAN, not man and man, or woman and woman. It also stipulates that marriage means that the man and woman involved become one flesh and should NOT be separated.

Now to address adultery. I really wish people would study their definitions more. Adultery refers to a woman who breaks wedlock. The ONLY way she can do that, is to have sexual relations with a man other than her husband.
And so there goes all that stuff I'm hearing about adultery. It has NOTHING to do with polygyny, so keep it out please.

Now for fornication. Fornication covers a wide range of sexual immorality. So let's think about this. David committed adultery with Baathsheba, and was punished severely. However, if that was the case, how is it that for all his other wives that he had, he wasn't punished? Did God overlook all his other instances of fornication? I would hardly think so. Clearly, if God dealt with David so harshly over adultery, then he would have dealt the same if it was fornication (since sin is sin), but that is NOT what we see.

If polygyny really was a sin, don't you think it would have been specified? Instead of put under fornication? God isn't going to leave us in the dark about sins. He took the time to tell us about homosexuality, about adultery, and so many other sins. Why would he leave polygyny out? or put it under a title when it already has a specific title for it?

Now you state that when we start adding on wives, it's plain that we are sinning. Umm, where is that stated?

In 2Sa 12:8, in David's infamous episode with Baathsheba, God tells David, that HE gave David Saul's house, his wives, and his wealth. And if David wanted more, God would have given him more. Would that have included wives? Yes, because that is what God was focusing on. Instead of asking God for another wife, David committed adultery with someone who was already married.

Once again, I must ask the question, if polygyny is wrong, how is it that men after God's own heart, heroes of faith, were polygynous? Let me refresh your memories from the Hall of Heroes in Hebrews 11: Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, David.
Has God changed his mind? Has he changed his bar of acceptance? Because Abraham was the father of the faithful, and David was a man after God's own heart. The God of Israel doesn't change, and it's time that humanity stops trying to change his rules.

The definition of marriage does have restrictions. God did not create more than one wife for Adam. He only created one wife for Him. According to God, marriage is between one man and one woman. You say that the only way a woman will break wedlock is when she has sexual relations with another man. This is false. Wedlock is broken when a husband or wife "puts away" their spouse.

We are Christians. As Christians, we follow God.. We are not followers of King David or King Solomon. Polygamy is a sin simply because it strips a female of her human dignity as a person, and she becomes more like an object. When a woman becomes an object, she is no longer "bones of the bones and flesh of the flesh of her husband," Those heros of faith were all sinners and in need of God's salvation just like all of us (See Hebrews 11).

Hebrews 11:13-40 All these died in faith. They did not receive what had been promised but saw it and greeted it from afar and acknowledge themselves to be strangers and aliens on earth.......... Yet all these, though approved because of their faith, did not receive what had been promised. God had foreseen something better for us, so that without us they should not be made perfect.