Polygamy?
- Thread starter Savate
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
there is in the qu'ran although when you read the bible there are those who have more than one wife, like abraham i have not read any specifc though.
Oh there absolutely are. Take for instance...If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. -Exodus 21:10If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. Dt 21:15-16There is a couple. What were you looking for specifically?God Bless,Robert
I think in evaluating the view of Israelites regarding marriage you have to be brutally honest first, with yourself.Do any of you seriously think that there was ONE Israelite who regarded what we now call "Polygyny" or "Polygamy" as anything other than one of the normal family configurations? If you think there was someone (other than God) that had trouble with the notion that you could be married to more than one woman at a given time, please name him.If you CAN'T, then you have to realize that over thousands of years, right OR WRONG, there wasn't anyone in God's people who had a clue that it was wrong and they would have been amazed that you were asking the question. It's my contention that Israelites would have regarded multiple wives as something similar to having lots of kids.
That would work for me kriss, and I do that, however that does not speak to the issue of it being right or wrong in and of itself. If for instance we were to move to a country that didn't forbid it, what then? There are many Christians in countries that do not forbid Polygyny. It may not be illegal to formally register such marriages in this country much longer as well.On top of that, it's argued credibly by some people who currently practice Polygyny in this country that they do so in a form that is not illegal. It is impossible to prosecute people for Polygyny itself, unless they seek to gain legal recognition for their plural marriages, if they do not, there's nothing that can be done. Check into it. Polygynists are prosecuted for breaking other laws, not laws against bigamy in most cases. Only when they try to marry both wives legally do they get prosecuted for their Polygyny.
Kriss,Will you say this when they come to get your Bible, because they have legally dicided it is hate speach? Or when like in parts of Asia where your only alotted 1 child, and must abort the others. Will you be so complacent?(kriss;7601)
We are supposed to obey the civil laws of where we live now and then.
Tell that to Daniel.
We are supposed to obey the civil laws of where we live now and then.
Tell that to Daniel.
8 Now, O king, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered—in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed." 9 So King Darius put the decree in writing. 10 Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before.
Consider Peter who wrote:Acts 5:29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!
Of course I am not advocating breaking the civil laws, but I worry about Christians that take this attitude towards the things of God. God Bless,RobertI 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. I'm not saying the laws are all nessarily right.Just that we are told to obey the civil laws unless they go directley against Gods Laws. Even Jesus followed Roman laws of the time.
Lion - welcome to CB by the way - what kriss said works just like anything else. God's law supercedes all of man's law but we are given the responsibility to follow the laws of man when they are within reason. We pay taxes because it keeps the government afloat to allow us the safety that we have including that to worship our Father, for example. Obviously, it becomes an issue when they come around to take your Bible or attempt to command you to abort your children. We are blessed with the benefit of one very important thing about our government. It was mostly founded on God's law. The laws of places like China are not. Getting back to the subject, keep in mind a couple things: 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. 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. 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. Just like anything else, look at the whole picture.
(kriss;7604)
"...we are told to obey the civil laws unless they go directley against Gods Laws. Even Jesus followed Roman laws of the time."
We are to obey the laws up until the point where they tell us to disobey God. I would say that is a situation that rarely occurs, but does. Certainly no one is compelled to be polygynous by our God at this particular time, unless you count it still the right of a father to arrange a "shotgun" wedding. The questions on the table would still be; does the law forbid Polygyny (provided we don't register our marriages civilly)? What about the general moral quality of Polygyny? Namely, would a change in the law produce Polygynous Christians in the mainstream? If made legal, would you say there would be nothing FURTHER wrong with the practice? What about other countries? I find the citing of legality to be an avoidance of the issue. Let's suppose, that it WASN'T illegal. Just for the sake of discussion.(SwampFox;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."
The pasage is descriptive of a particular circumstance, it's never extrapolated to be an instruction to pair off one on one, and only in that fashion. That would be necessary, or we would have to emulate Adam and Eve in all respects. Not just in their archetypal (for that is what you say it is) monogamy.(SwampFox;7605)
"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."
You're pulling this out of context. Is "Blameless" one of the things on the list, or it is it a description of things on the list? Careful, because contained in "husband" is the mandate that a Bishop also be a man. So do you say that it is blameless to be a man as well, and thus sinful to be a woman? The construction of this instruction either leads to misogyny or an interpretation that makes "blameless" one of the things a Bishop must be, but not descriptive of other things he must be. Even if taken as descriptive, there are other things on the list which have to do with how he is perceived in the community at large. You would agree that some men could be perceived unfavorably in the community at large (Christ springs to mind) yet are not really bad people.(SwampFox;7605)
"The Biblical example is set for us - we're intended to have one companion."
So you can't be single? I'm confused a bit here. I disagree with you that this is a Biblical example, it is an instruction for Bishops. Scripture is full of instructions to specific groups of people to behave differently than other groups. The Bible is not a "Sauce for goose and gander" type document.(SwampFox;7605)
" However, reading of the Bible yields that there are some examples of polygamy."
Clearly the men living in that time didn't intepret it the same way you do. A most prominent example would be Jehoiada, High priest and savior of the Davidic line. He gives Joash two wives and both are blessed by the immediate context of a benediction that says they "Did Right".(SwampFox;7605)
"Just like anything else, look at the whole picture."
The whole picture shows that no one saw it as a problem. It could be argued that it wasn't a problem until after Charlemagne, in the 800 AD area.Hugh McBryde
"...we are told to obey the civil laws unless they go directley against Gods Laws. Even Jesus followed Roman laws of the time."
We are to obey the laws up until the point where they tell us to disobey God. I would say that is a situation that rarely occurs, but does. Certainly no one is compelled to be polygynous by our God at this particular time, unless you count it still the right of a father to arrange a "shotgun" wedding. The questions on the table would still be; does the law forbid Polygyny (provided we don't register our marriages civilly)? What about the general moral quality of Polygyny? Namely, would a change in the law produce Polygynous Christians in the mainstream? If made legal, would you say there would be nothing FURTHER wrong with the practice? What about other countries? I find the citing of legality to be an avoidance of the issue. Let's suppose, that it WASN'T illegal. Just for the sake of discussion.(SwampFox;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."
The pasage is descriptive of a particular circumstance, it's never extrapolated to be an instruction to pair off one on one, and only in that fashion. That would be necessary, or we would have to emulate Adam and Eve in all respects. Not just in their archetypal (for that is what you say it is) monogamy.(SwampFox;7605)
"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."
You're pulling this out of context. Is "Blameless" one of the things on the list, or it is it a description of things on the list? Careful, because contained in "husband" is the mandate that a Bishop also be a man. So do you say that it is blameless to be a man as well, and thus sinful to be a woman? The construction of this instruction either leads to misogyny or an interpretation that makes "blameless" one of the things a Bishop must be, but not descriptive of other things he must be. Even if taken as descriptive, there are other things on the list which have to do with how he is perceived in the community at large. You would agree that some men could be perceived unfavorably in the community at large (Christ springs to mind) yet are not really bad people.(SwampFox;7605)
"The Biblical example is set for us - we're intended to have one companion."
So you can't be single? I'm confused a bit here. I disagree with you that this is a Biblical example, it is an instruction for Bishops. Scripture is full of instructions to specific groups of people to behave differently than other groups. The Bible is not a "Sauce for goose and gander" type document.(SwampFox;7605)
" However, reading of the Bible yields that there are some examples of polygamy."
Clearly the men living in that time didn't intepret it the same way you do. A most prominent example would be Jehoiada, High priest and savior of the Davidic line. He gives Joash two wives and both are blessed by the immediate context of a benediction that says they "Did Right".(SwampFox;7605)
"Just like anything else, look at the whole picture."
The whole picture shows that no one saw it as a problem. It could be argued that it wasn't a problem until after Charlemagne, in the 800 AD area.Hugh McBryde
The pasage is descriptive of a particular circumstance, it's never extrapolated to be an instruction to pair off one on one, and only in that fashion. That would be necessary, or we would have to emulate Adam and Eve in all respects. Not just in their archetypal (for that is what you say it is) monogamy.
God created Adam and Eve - not Adam with Eve, Sue, and Shirley to be his wives. My point here is simply that God created nature to function in a certain way and he laid the archetype right here for the family. There's nothing to do here with imitating Adam and Eve. I'm referring specifically to what GOD created and that alone. GOD created Eve for Adam and he only created one. This is the natural order for things that GOD created.
You're pulling this out of context.
Not at all. I don't see how you would pervert "the husband of one wife" but have a wack at if you so desire. That's between you and God. My reference to context was for the obvious; read the passage yourself.
Careful, because contained in "husband" is the mandate that a Bishop also be a man.
That my friend, is your wording. That's not said in the passage and that is something that you're implying and ignoring who the letter was written to. It works both ways and we've gone through this female prophets/teachers in several other threads so refer to those with our handy little search feature. It does say "the husband of one wife." I don't quite know how you'd like to dispute that? The thing I don't get here is we in essence about the idea of a preacher's/teacher's appearance to his congregation community - I'm simply saying look at what's said here and apply it. Once again here is an example for us.
So you can't be single?
No offense meant here my friend, but you really do read into a lot of statements and draw some really strange conclusions. That's clearly not what I said, in fact, it's not even an issue so back to the topic we go. If you'll kindly notice, I stopped short of saying it was a problem Hugh. You read so far into some words of mine but ignore the others. What I said is that there are examples in the Bible for us to follow the natural order of things. However, there are other places where it's (polygamy) practiced by mean looked upon rather favorably. The simple point is, you're not going to hell for being a polygamist. I feel like this is trying to be turned into an argument when it is not for some odd reason.
God created Adam and Eve - not Adam with Eve, Sue, and Shirley to be his wives. My point here is simply that God created nature to function in a certain way and he laid the archetype right here for the family. There's nothing to do here with imitating Adam and Eve. I'm referring specifically to what GOD created and that alone. GOD created Eve for Adam and he only created one. This is the natural order for things that GOD created.
You're pulling this out of context.
Not at all. I don't see how you would pervert "the husband of one wife" but have a wack at if you so desire. That's between you and God. My reference to context was for the obvious; read the passage yourself.
Careful, because contained in "husband" is the mandate that a Bishop also be a man.
That my friend, is your wording. That's not said in the passage and that is something that you're implying and ignoring who the letter was written to. It works both ways and we've gone through this female prophets/teachers in several other threads so refer to those with our handy little search feature. It does say "the husband of one wife." I don't quite know how you'd like to dispute that? The thing I don't get here is we in essence about the idea of a preacher's/teacher's appearance to his congregation community - I'm simply saying look at what's said here and apply it. Once again here is an example for us.
So you can't be single?
No offense meant here my friend, but you really do read into a lot of statements and draw some really strange conclusions. That's clearly not what I said, in fact, it's not even an issue so back to the topic we go. If you'll kindly notice, I stopped short of saying it was a problem Hugh. You read so far into some words of mine but ignore the others. What I said is that there are examples in the Bible for us to follow the natural order of things. However, there are other places where it's (polygamy) practiced by mean looked upon rather favorably. The simple point is, you're not going to hell for being a polygamist. I feel like this is trying to be turned into an argument when it is not for some odd reason.
Swamp, let me preface this by saying I really don't want to be argumentative, but this is an important subject. I don't think debate constitutes acrimony and I hope you see it the same way.(SwampFox;7607)
"God created Adam and Eve - not Adam with Eve, Sue, and Shirley to be his wives."
Swamp, this SOUNDS good, and the crowd laughs and cheers, but it's just a sound bite.(SwampFox;7607)
"My point here is simply that God created nature to function in a certain way and he laid the archetype right here for the family. There's nothing to do here with imitating Adam and Eve. I'm referring specifically to what GOD created and that alone. GOD created Eve for Adam and he only created one. This is the natural order for things that GOD created."
Ok, this is just an assertion Swamp, you say and so do a lot of others, that this is the case, what I would look for is SCRIPTURE saying that we should be married only as one man and one woman at a time because Adam and Eve were. Otherwise, we should be naked because Adam and Eve were. If you say "But they're not, because of sin", then you have to acknowledge that a lot of things change because of the fall, and essentially all things in their life are archetypes and must either be cast aside or "rebooted" as it were. Bottom line, unless you go around naked, you can't claim monogamy as an archetype. If you claim that sin intervenes, therefore we do not go around naked, then you say things changed. If things changed, archetypes are only valid unless re certified. Christ does this in Matthew 19 for instance, when he says that marriage was meant to be permanent, in this lifetime, because that was what it was like in the beginning. What he doesn't say is "Be MONOGAMOUS" like Adam and Eve were, because "it was like that in the beginning".(SwampFox;7607)
"Not at all. I don't see how you would pervert 'the husband of one wife' but have a wack at if you so desire. That's between you and God. My reference to context was for the obvious; read the passage yourself."
Um, no perversion here. Could we leave words like that out of the discussion until a little later perhaps? The context is NOT as obvious as I just pointed out. A Bishop/Elder is to be "Husband of One Wife". Cool. I'm not a Bishop. Next case.As far as the bit about "Blameless", I get that, really, I do, but either "Blameless" is one of the things on the list of qualifications for Bishop, or it's descriptive of the items on the list, as I said. The trouble with that is you make it wrong to be a convert to Christ, since a Convert to Christ is a Novice and a Bishop is not to be a Novice, you make it wrong to be a woman, since a Bishop is to be a man, as described in the clause making a Bishop a "husband" (therefore a man). So either it is "Blameless" (Comma, new characteristic on the list) Husband of one wife (Comma) and so on, or the list of qualifications are in fact things that constitute being blameless. Great, but there's problems with that analysis, as I just pointed out.(SwampFox;7607)
"It does say 'the husband of one wife.' I don't quite know how you'd like to dispute that?"
Of course it does, but again, is a Bishop, who is MALE by this description, and MARRIED, "Blameless" Because of that? How do you make his gender not part of the "blameless" bit and his monogamy part of the blamelessness? Do things following "husband of one wife" NOT constitute blamelessness? That's my point about the novice.(SwampFox;7607)
"The thing I don't get here is we in essence about the idea of a preacher's/teacher's appearance to his congregation community - I'm simply saying look at what's said here and apply it. Once again here is an example for us."
Oh, I agree, part of what a preacher/teacher is to be is good for appearances. Keep in mind that Roman Citizenship required Monogamy, but Monogamy didn't entirely catch on until after Charlamagne. It doesn't mean that someone who's public palatability is low is a bad person or engaged in immoral practices, it means "pick a poster child". Someone NO ONE can find fault with. Paul's saying that Politics are a REALITY.(SwampFox;7607)
"That's clearly not what I said, in fact, it's not even an issue so back to the topic we go."
Yeah, but it COULD be interpretted that way.(SwampFox;7607)
"What I said is that there are examples in the Bible for us to follow the natural order of things."
I agree. They're named. Clearly.(SwampFox;7607)
"However, there are other places where it's (polygamy) practiced by mean (men) looked upon rather favorably. The simple point is, you're not going to hell for being a polygamist. I feel like this is trying to be turned into an argument when it is not for some odd reason."
Great. I rarely run into people that say it's at least morally tolerable. However, I have a feeling that you're leading up to saying it's not ideal. Great thought, but you need scriptural support for that and I don't know of any beyond the speculative remarks people make about Adam and Eve being monogamous. That cut's both ways though since you imply by taking that as an "ideal" that all should be married, something clearly refuted by Christ and Paul.You should know that I am NOT an idealist by the way many define the term. I don't want to get back to Eden, we can't do that. The way was shut, the gate was barred for a reason, a sword was posted next to the tree of life, we can't go back. Many things were destroyed by the fall, some things that were intended by design in our perfection are forever lost to us. Nakedness is the most perfect example. Prior to the fall it was perfectly fine and right to romp around in your birthday suit. After the fall it is shameful. We cannot educate ourselves in doctrine up to the point where we can return to that ideal. I admit ONLY that monogamy MIGHT have been the ideal of creation. MAYBE. In doing so I stress that we DON'T know that because it's never said (whereas being naked is mentioned) and even if it was, we can't go back. Polygyny may be a perfect solution for imperfect people. Obviously not ALL of them as the math doesn't work. But it could very well be a product of the fall, but a divine solution for now imperfect man, just like clothing. Or it could have been intended all along, even in a perfect world.Hugh McBryde
"God created Adam and Eve - not Adam with Eve, Sue, and Shirley to be his wives."
Swamp, this SOUNDS good, and the crowd laughs and cheers, but it's just a sound bite.(SwampFox;7607)
"My point here is simply that God created nature to function in a certain way and he laid the archetype right here for the family. There's nothing to do here with imitating Adam and Eve. I'm referring specifically to what GOD created and that alone. GOD created Eve for Adam and he only created one. This is the natural order for things that GOD created."
Ok, this is just an assertion Swamp, you say and so do a lot of others, that this is the case, what I would look for is SCRIPTURE saying that we should be married only as one man and one woman at a time because Adam and Eve were. Otherwise, we should be naked because Adam and Eve were. If you say "But they're not, because of sin", then you have to acknowledge that a lot of things change because of the fall, and essentially all things in their life are archetypes and must either be cast aside or "rebooted" as it were. Bottom line, unless you go around naked, you can't claim monogamy as an archetype. If you claim that sin intervenes, therefore we do not go around naked, then you say things changed. If things changed, archetypes are only valid unless re certified. Christ does this in Matthew 19 for instance, when he says that marriage was meant to be permanent, in this lifetime, because that was what it was like in the beginning. What he doesn't say is "Be MONOGAMOUS" like Adam and Eve were, because "it was like that in the beginning".(SwampFox;7607)
"Not at all. I don't see how you would pervert 'the husband of one wife' but have a wack at if you so desire. That's between you and God. My reference to context was for the obvious; read the passage yourself."
Um, no perversion here. Could we leave words like that out of the discussion until a little later perhaps? The context is NOT as obvious as I just pointed out. A Bishop/Elder is to be "Husband of One Wife". Cool. I'm not a Bishop. Next case.As far as the bit about "Blameless", I get that, really, I do, but either "Blameless" is one of the things on the list of qualifications for Bishop, or it's descriptive of the items on the list, as I said. The trouble with that is you make it wrong to be a convert to Christ, since a Convert to Christ is a Novice and a Bishop is not to be a Novice, you make it wrong to be a woman, since a Bishop is to be a man, as described in the clause making a Bishop a "husband" (therefore a man). So either it is "Blameless" (Comma, new characteristic on the list) Husband of one wife (Comma) and so on, or the list of qualifications are in fact things that constitute being blameless. Great, but there's problems with that analysis, as I just pointed out.(SwampFox;7607)
"It does say 'the husband of one wife.' I don't quite know how you'd like to dispute that?"
Of course it does, but again, is a Bishop, who is MALE by this description, and MARRIED, "Blameless" Because of that? How do you make his gender not part of the "blameless" bit and his monogamy part of the blamelessness? Do things following "husband of one wife" NOT constitute blamelessness? That's my point about the novice.(SwampFox;7607)
"The thing I don't get here is we in essence about the idea of a preacher's/teacher's appearance to his congregation community - I'm simply saying look at what's said here and apply it. Once again here is an example for us."
Oh, I agree, part of what a preacher/teacher is to be is good for appearances. Keep in mind that Roman Citizenship required Monogamy, but Monogamy didn't entirely catch on until after Charlamagne. It doesn't mean that someone who's public palatability is low is a bad person or engaged in immoral practices, it means "pick a poster child". Someone NO ONE can find fault with. Paul's saying that Politics are a REALITY.(SwampFox;7607)
"That's clearly not what I said, in fact, it's not even an issue so back to the topic we go."
Yeah, but it COULD be interpretted that way.(SwampFox;7607)
"What I said is that there are examples in the Bible for us to follow the natural order of things."
I agree. They're named. Clearly.(SwampFox;7607)
"However, there are other places where it's (polygamy) practiced by mean (men) looked upon rather favorably. The simple point is, you're not going to hell for being a polygamist. I feel like this is trying to be turned into an argument when it is not for some odd reason."
Great. I rarely run into people that say it's at least morally tolerable. However, I have a feeling that you're leading up to saying it's not ideal. Great thought, but you need scriptural support for that and I don't know of any beyond the speculative remarks people make about Adam and Eve being monogamous. That cut's both ways though since you imply by taking that as an "ideal" that all should be married, something clearly refuted by Christ and Paul.You should know that I am NOT an idealist by the way many define the term. I don't want to get back to Eden, we can't do that. The way was shut, the gate was barred for a reason, a sword was posted next to the tree of life, we can't go back. Many things were destroyed by the fall, some things that were intended by design in our perfection are forever lost to us. Nakedness is the most perfect example. Prior to the fall it was perfectly fine and right to romp around in your birthday suit. After the fall it is shameful. We cannot educate ourselves in doctrine up to the point where we can return to that ideal. I admit ONLY that monogamy MIGHT have been the ideal of creation. MAYBE. In doing so I stress that we DON'T know that because it's never said (whereas being naked is mentioned) and even if it was, we can't go back. Polygyny may be a perfect solution for imperfect people. Obviously not ALL of them as the math doesn't work. But it could very well be a product of the fall, but a divine solution for now imperfect man, just like clothing. Or it could have been intended all along, even in a perfect world.Hugh McBryde
Howdy Sirs,I was gone for a while and I had not gotten any responses to my thread...now I see lots of good information and discussion (thanks!)
I don't think I have too much to add here since I'm just absorbing this great discussioin, but I also wonder about certain practices that are not mentioned in scripture, but that we can all agree are "immoral" in God's eyes (such as bestiality or pedophilia)...or are there scripture referring to these as well?I bring this up because in my discussions with a minister friend, his defense of "tolerance" is always "well adultery is mentioned as a sin more than polygamy or homosexuality, so why do we no condemn adultery"....my response has always been that there are countless other things not mentioned in the scriptures that I think we are endowed with enough to all agree are not "good" in God's eyes.Advice.....?
(Savate;7804)
"I bring this up because in my discussions with a minister friend, his defense of 'tolerance' is always 'well adultery is mentioned as a sin more than polygamy or homosexuality, so why do we no condemn adultery'."
Except that adultery IS mentioned as a sin, so is homosexuality, but Polygyny (the form of Polygamy mentioned in scripture) is NEVER said to be a sin.
"I bring this up because in my discussions with a minister friend, his defense of 'tolerance' is always 'well adultery is mentioned as a sin more than polygamy or homosexuality, so why do we no condemn adultery'."
Except that adultery IS mentioned as a sin, so is homosexuality, but Polygyny (the form of Polygamy mentioned in scripture) is NEVER said to be a sin.
If any of you truly believe God's laws and commandments should be followed over Man's, then, please, don't ever read Leviticus.
:bible: (Prometheus;8976)
"If any of you truly believe God's laws and commandments should be followed over Man's, then, please, don't ever read Leviticus."
Too late, I've read it 30 + times.
"If any of you truly believe God's laws and commandments should be followed over Man's, then, please, don't ever read Leviticus."
Too late, I've read it 30 + times.
Similar threads
