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