Polygamy?

  • 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!

Hugh McBryde

Member
Mar 5, 2007
56
0
6
69
Montana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(Prometheus;8983)
Have you ever stoned anyone?
I am not Hebrew, nor do I live under the earthly rule of an anointed King of Israel or Judah, nor do I live in the Promised land. I've also read Deuteronomy.:naughty:
 

Prometheus

New Member
Apr 12, 2007
7
0
0
37
Fair enough. That doesn't change the fact that God thinks blasphemers, adulterers, disobedient children and fortune tellers are worthy of death. Or has God changed His mind since then?Furthermore, if God commanded you to stone a child, would you?
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If any of you truly believe God's laws and commandments should be followed over Man's, then, please, don't ever read Leviticus.
It shouldn't be read or talked about when one doesn't know the difference between a statute, ordinance, and commandment, sure.
Furthermore, if God commanded you to stone a child, would you?
That's not a problem, so why play silly "what if" games about what is not?
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
(SwampFox;7607)
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. 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. 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. 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.
To requote Swampfox
 

Hugh McBryde

Member
Mar 5, 2007
56
0
6
69
Montana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(Prometheus;8987)
"Fair enough. That doesn't change the fact that God thinks blasphemers, adulterers, disobedient children and fortune tellers are worthy of death. Or has God changed His mind since then?"
No, but he has appointed those that bear the sword as ministers of God to deal with them. By his choice these people go unpunished, perhaps to serve as a test as the Philistines did to Israel, to see if we will serve Him.(Prometheus;8987)
"Furthermore, if God commanded you to stone a child, would you?"
Yes, but that's not going to happen, the next time we will judge with power, will be at the final judgment, at which point we are told we will judge even the angels.Hugh McBryde
 

Prometheus

New Member
Apr 12, 2007
7
0
0
37
(SwampFox;8988)
That's not a problem, so why play silly "what if" games about what is not?
Because it tells me what kind of person you are. Discussing hypothetical situations is a good way to demonstrate morality. And it is a very big problem if you really believe God tells you to do things like some people in this world whom we have classified as insane.(Hugh McBryde;8992)
Yes, but that's not going to happen...
This is why I believe religion is dangerous. It makes good people do evil things.Okay, getting back on topic. I was raised as a Mormon and anyone here who knows about this religion will know that they believe polygamy is actually commanded by God. I personally think God is neutral on the issue. Polygamy is neither a sin nor a commandment.
 

Hugh McBryde

Member
Mar 5, 2007
56
0
6
69
Montana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(Prometheus;8993)
"I was raised as a Mormon and anyone here who knows about this religion will know that they believe polygamy is actually commanded by God."
The LDS faith is false. There are situations in which God did command Polygyny of his people, but they were not blanket commands to all people.(Prometheus;8993)
"I personally think God is neutral on the issue."
Agreed, from God's point of view, the randomly selected human being could be single, monogamous or polygynous and those simple facts would be of no concern to him. They're all equally valid and moral.(Prometheus;8993)
"Polygamy is neither a sin nor a commandment."
With the exception of stating that what was practiced in the Bible is more properly termed "Polygyny", agreed.Hugh McBryde
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Because it tells me what kind of person you are. Discussing hypothetical situations is a good way to demonstrate morality. And it is a very big problem if you really believe God tells you to do things like some people in this world whom we have classified as insane.
We...or is it you? I know when it's God talking and when it's not. Perhaps you should do as you stated in the Homosexuality thread and worry about your own religion and me worry about mine.
I personally think God is neutral on the issue. Polygamy is neither a sin nor a commandment.
Then we are in agreement.
 

Hugh McBryde

Member
Mar 5, 2007
56
0
6
69
Montana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(SwampFox;9001)
"Then we are in agreement."
So, Swamp, does this mean that as far as your concerned, there is no inherent wrong in the practice of Polygyny?
 

Hugh McBryde

Member
Mar 5, 2007
56
0
6
69
Montana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(SwampFox;9003)
That would be correct. We have the type of two set before us by God, but there is nothing there against polygamy as an outright sin.
Swamp, the first marriage had to be one of two different types. Either it was to be Polygynous, in which case do we see that as Ideal and all marriages are less than Ideal if they are not Polygynous, or it had to be Monogamous, and all marriages are thus construed to be less than Ideal for that reason. Or, neither form is either better or worse than the other, neither would then be held up as a "type" to us by it being original in form but the first marriage would have had to be one or the other.So if we bring to the table the presupposition that God would make the first relationship instructive in all ways, then Monogamy is certainly upheld as better. If we bring to the table to the presupposition that God doesn't care one way or the other, then the form of the first marriage, with regard to endorsing one form or the other is utterly meaningless.I see a hedge in what you say, your use for instance of the terms "outright sin" suggests that polygyny is at least an "edgie, questionable" practice. Your care to point out that the first marriage was set up as a "type of two" suggests that you see this as a gentle nudge by God for us to "get the hint", and the hint appears to be "monogamy, know what I mean, nudge-nudge, wink-wink".I get nervous when people I don't expect to agree with me, seem to agree, because usually, they don't really agree with me. If you can bring to the table a basis for a presupposition to monogamy, then I'll say the first marriage is a type held up to us by God in the area of the monogamy it represents. Otherwise as I said before, the fact that the first marriage couldn't be BOTH at the same time, means that IF God has no preference for either form, there would be no meaning beyond God's intention for the first couple, in the fact of their monogamy.Hugh McBryde
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hugh, you're picking at words and missing what I am trying to say.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. Polygamy is not a sin. There's no hedge in what I say so please quit trying to make one. You're constructing the hedge, not me. It's not there.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.
 

Hugh McBryde

Member
Mar 5, 2007
56
0
6
69
Montana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(SwampFox;9008)
"You're constructing the hedge, not me. It's not there."
Yet you say this:(SwampFox;9008)
"Monogamy is the ideal when it comes to man and woman, but that doesn't mean polygamy is a sin."
We do not agree. Neither Monogamy or Polygyny or being single are ideals, they are plans for each individual life as constructed by God and to the extent that it is his righteous plan for each of us, they are ideal for the people he prepares such states.Hugh McBryde
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
question here if in your wedding vows you promise to forsake all others and cleve only to one another are you not breaking those vows if you marry another?
 

Hugh McBryde

Member
Mar 5, 2007
56
0
6
69
Montana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(kriss;9025)
question here if in your wedding vows you promise to forsake all others and cleve only to one another are you not breaking those vows if you marry another?
There are no wedding vows as are spoken in many weddings, recorded in scripture. Scripture does not even contain a mandate, suggestion or example for a wedding presided over by Church or State officials or in a court room or church. I spoke no such vow at my wedding.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
In general the majority of wedding vows say at least the forsaking all othersand whether its in the bible or not if you promise it in the presence of God you are still breaking your word to God and your betrothed right?
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We do not agree. Neither Monogamy or Polygyny or being single are ideals, they are plans for each individual life as constructed by God and to the extent that it is his righteous plan for each of us, they are ideal for the people he prepares such states.
Hey, if saying it that way makes you feel better go right ahead. The Father knows what I mean, and that's what counts.
 

Hugh McBryde

Member
Mar 5, 2007
56
0
6
69
Montana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(kriss;9027)
"In general the majority of wedding vows say at least the forsaking all others..."
Those that have made such a vow should stick to it. I just want to be clear that no such vow exists in scripture and that it is completely unnecessary for marriage. God defines the marriage arrangement, you can make sidebar agreements if you wish so long as they are not immoral agreements. They're sidebars though, not "Marriage Vows" in the sense that they are then incorporated into what marriage is. Saying that you will forsake all others, concurrent with your marriage is no different than saying you'll buy lunch. Failing to buy lunch or in the case of a man, failing to forsake all others, is a broken promise, not an attack on marriage.
 

jamesrage

New Member
Apr 30, 2007
188
0
0
47
If we look at Genesis and what Jesus said to the Pharisees regarding divorce it clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. Genesis 223And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.Matthew 193Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.