Polygamy

[4enlightment]

It's ok, but I didn't say it was a cure, I only say the right chemical pills put the mind back into balance and poof, Your demon is gone. So it wasn't a demon to begin with.

Curing is to put things back into its original state or back into harmony. Bipolar is not and imbalance that we think it is. Our entire body system needs blood, and which in that blood is food and oxygen for each individual cell. And if there's a blockage of some sort that restricting the blood from going to its destination in the body will cause cells to die of starvation and oxygen, and which the most infected area of dying cells causes that part not to produce what it suppose to produce for the body which causes the body not to be in harmony. And by jumping over the problem areas and replace it with artificial substance from other sources which they believe that it's an accurate good supplement for that certain area of the body. They should just find out where's the blockage is and try to unblock it by using natural substance. aspirin help the flow of blood. But the body has nothing to do with our inner thoughts, it might hinder our decisions at times, but not our feelings. Only the spirit deals with the spiritual nature of a soul. But what is going on with the soul is reflected on the body as well. If a person clean the inside of the cup and dish, the outside will also be clean. So basically if you get rid of the demons, your inside will be clean and it will show on the outside.

 

[leonardronaldo]

Hi L, At that time I wanted to discuss St Augustine and his decision to ban polygamy but it never seemed to get off the ground. Never mind.

Sorry I meant to say I would like to discuss Islam's point of view on this.

 

[leonardronaldo]

If you want to go to jail

Not in a muslim majority country or where sharia courts are allowed to handle marriages

 

[leonardronaldo]

however if i remember the right the greek word for wife and wives is the same word

False. Greek has also plural word for wives.

 

[leonardronaldo]

Hi Drett, Thanks for the reply.

Can you please refer me to cases where it is explicitly stated that polygamy is not only acceptible, but also is part of God's created design. I think you will appreciate the difference between the two when we consider the relevance that distcintion has to the related question of divorce. Jesus explicitly states that he and Moses teach two different things on the issue of divorce, so it is also important we clarify that question in this matter as well.

Answering that question will also help us answer how this question relates to your quote from Matthew 5:17, which critically turns on what is meant by the world 'fulfill'.

As for Augustine, again, you assert that he 'invented' the banning of polygamy in Christianity, and the only proof you offer is that he wrote against the practice. You ignore my previous post where I specifically name other pre-Augustinian writers who also write against the practice. I could also reference the pre-Christian Hillelites, or the Qumran community, as examples of people who thought polygamy was an objectionable practice for contemporary communities.

I did not say Augustine referred specifically to the the teaching of Jesus, I simply said he was reasoning from the Scriptures, which he does. He also reasons against it in that it is not acceptable under civil law. He makes the point that the church fathers did not have multiple wives out of lust, but for the purposes of filling the earth, which I think is questionable (I disagree with Augustine?! What?). But really, it matters little to me what you think of what Augustine wrote. I'm happy to cede the point - I have no particular desire to defend the specifics of Augustine's argument on the matter, as I merely referred to it as a secondary matter.

If you wish to deal with the specifics of Jesus teaching (which you did not address in your last post, only to say he did not make an explicit stateent. However, as I have already written, I do believe he makes at the very least a relevant remark)



Really? That's an argument from silence if ever I've seen one.

For reference, here is a short list of other things Jesus did not come straight out and explicitly ban:

1. Being drunk
2. Rape
3. homosexual sex
4. abortion
5. cannibalism
6. Drug taking
7. Speeding
8. belief and practice of witchcraft

Jesus can reject things by the principle of what he teaches, not just by explicitly saying "do this, do that". In fact, to often be deliberately general and image-based in his teaching is quite a Jesus kind of thing to do. You will have to show me Jesus not banning polygamy outright is sufficient to accept polygamy, particularly given the teaching of the rest of the Bible.

Just fyi, in islam, silence most likely means agreement (for example when aisha was married to muhammad, and was asked, she was in silent and therefore deemed to have agreed. oh and if you haven't know, she was 6 that time.)

 

[leonardronaldo]

Hi Nick

My time is short so I just answer this part for now. The list you provided was activities that have already been banned so Jesus did not need to make further comments on it. If something is accepted and needs to be banned then it needs to be explicitly banned. People continued polygamy for centuries after Jesus ascended into heaven because it was still accepted.

Such as?
FYI, Jesus asked God to make the church one, therefore He will only have ONE BRIDE. Since marriage is to be more like Jesus' image, I can't understand all poligamists who claim to be Christian.

 

[leonardronaldo]

If it were, I would had gone with Leo's post. Preach to them each the gospel, then divorce em all but one.

Don't cut out what I said, lol. I also added that if they need help, especially when they become sisters in Christ, then it is in the couple's obligations to help their sisters in Christ.

 

[leonardronaldo]

That's what I was explaining in that long post, you can't divorce the other three because you aren't married to them in the first place by God's own ordinances- one man...one woman. It's literally impossible for a man to be married to more than one woman. The second and succeeding woman are only adulterers, they are not wives. Man can call them wives but they aren't because God is the one who decides the rules, not man.

So polygamy is another stupid man made word for something impossible for man to do. The real word can only be adultery.

yes very true. but we were talking in an islamic situation which allows marriage upto 4 wives (and more right-hand-possessed). So that was the context. Good post, though brother.
Blessings

 

[leonardronaldo]

You are kinda forcing me to play "devil's advocate" here, because I have already stated that: I found where the Bible shows polygamy as immoral. HOWEVER, your definition of marriage and adultery is purely American, and is not found in the Bible at all. You are speaking about things that God does not say, as if they are just fact. You use the term "in God's eyes", but how can YOU speak for God if He has not spoken for it in His Word?
You are claiming that God only recognizes ONE marriage. Prove that in the Bible. At least try to prove that He only accepts one marriage at a time.

Abraham's situation is complicated, but where in the Bible does it call it "adultery?" It calls it immoral BECAUSE Abraham never married Hagar, which means it was fornication. David committed adultery with Bathsheba because she was already MARRIED to another man. Do not confuse adultery and fornication. Adultery is having sex with someone who is married to someone else. Fornication is sex with someone you are not married to. (Hagar did not commit adultery with Abraham because Sarah forced her to, as her master. Sarah is the one who sinned here)
God told David that what he did was wrong, but did not tell him to DIVORCE Bathsheba!

There are plenty of examples of second and 3rd marriages that are BLESSED by God! In fact, if God did not RECOGNIZE 2nd or 3rd or 4th marriages, HOW ARE THERE 12 TRIBES of Israel? If God did not recognize 2nd or 3rd marriages, then Jesus could not be considered an heir to the throne of David.

I am not posting this to support polygamy, but to speak rightly of God. Do not put words in His mouth. The Bible shows polygamy in the same light that it shows slavery "allowed, but but immoral".

Jesus set the bar even higher for adultery

Matthew 5

27 “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’
28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

[Cycel]

The Patriarchs had multiple wives because they had adapted to the culture of those around them.

They were forced to have multiple wives? No, I think it was simply part of their own culture. Abraham is derived from Mesopotamia, yes? That is according to biblical tradition he was born in the Mesopotamian city of Ur. The word for husband in this region is apparently translated literally as “Owner of a wife”. Did Abraham adopt Mesopotamian values or were those traditions part of his own culture? So for instance, the sacrifice of Isaac, I suggest, was readily accepted by Abraham as human sacrifice was simply part of Mesopotamian culture. There is good evidence it was also practiced in Ur. At the last moment Abraham was allowed to substitute a ram for Isaac on the alter. So there you have it. Human sacrifice, slavery, and multiple marriages were all simply part of the culture. Old Testament law accedes to these practices because they were cultural practices long held. In the case of the near sacrifice of Isaac we can presume, I think, that in the mind of Abraham the sacrifice of his son was not outside the realm of expectation.[/quote]

1 Timothy 1:3 and Titus 1 say that elders and deacons of the church should have one wife. Also, in the NT it says that a man should love his WIFE as Christ has loved the church, not wives.

Jewish cultural mores had changed between the time of the patriarchs and the 1st century AD. The OT highlights the earlier views quite vividly. Early Christian writings reflect the new values, not the old.

 

[Nick01]

Hi Nick

My time is short so I just answer this part for now. The list you provided was activities that have already been banned so Jesus did not need to make further comments on it. If something is accepted and needs to be banned then it needs to be explicitly banned. People continued polygamy for centuries after Jesus ascended into heaven because it was still accepted.

I would say I think Jesus teaching on marriage is plenty clear, for the purposes of polygamy. As part of that teaching, he also refers to God's original design in Genesis, and also gives us insight into the relationship of Moses' Law and God's original design. Moses' law contains concessions for human sinful activity, designed to limit the damage caused by human sinfulness, that do not reflect God's intended design. Jesus repeatedly calls attention to that design, and castigates others who hold to the letter of the law but do not seek to live in the true spirit of the law.

I would also welcome any further discussion you had in relation to the rest of what I ran past you.

 

[Starcrash]

Modern society abhors the thought of polygamy, but I don't see a Biblical context for it being unlawful. Does anyone have any verses that condemn polygamy?
I know I am going to get flack from this... but I feel like it is a topic that needs to be aired out. Many of the patriarchs had multiple wives, or at least children from multiple women: Jacob, David, Solomon, etc...

I do not support this behavior. I'm just bringing it up. I believe in equal rights for women.

Polygamy doesn't necessarily treat women unequally, assuming that women are also allowed to marry multiple husbands.

I've often brought up polygamy in the context of the debate over gay marriage; when told that a child is better off with a mother and a father, I respond that multiple mothers and fathers would be even better by the same logic. Not only is polygamy a closer match to "biblical marriage" than our current model is, but it seems objectively more satisfying than "one man, one woman". It would be less romantic and intimate (naturally), but we humans have an innate ability to maintain many close relationships. I'm sure there aren't any Christians arguing that they can only love one parent because two parents means spreading their love too thinly, nor is anyone saying that a certain number of children is too many because you can't possibly love them all equally.

 

[okeyxyz]

Modern society abhors the thought of polygamy, but I don't see a Biblical context for it being unlawful. Does anyone have any verses that condemn polygamy?
I know I am going to get flack from this... but I feel like it is a topic that needs to be aired out. Many of the patriarchs had multiple wives, or at least children from multiple women: Jacob, David, Solomon, etc...

I do not support this behavior. I'm just bringing it up. I believe in equal rights for women.

It's all about what doctrines or values were ideal and what values were permitted. So monogamy being the ideal, polygamy was permitted.

 

[okeyxyz]

Also, it was polygamy and not polyandry because the woman adopted the name and customs of the man, and lineage was traced from the man. If they had polyandry, then there would be no way to trace one's ancestry, inheritance and legal rights. These were rights that were exclusively conferred on men then.

 

[Kerry]

Yeah Give me Solomon who slept with a different women every night. But it oh it cost him everything.

 

[leonardronaldo]

Polygamy doesn't necessarily treat women unequally, assuming that women are also allowed to marry multiple husbands.

I've often brought up polygamy in the context of the debate over gay marriage; when told that a child is better off with a mother and a father, I respond that multiple mothers and fathers would be even better by the same logic. Not only is polygamy a closer match to "biblical marriage" than our current model is, but it seems objectively more satisfying than "one man, one woman". It would be less romantic and intimate (naturally), but we humans have an innate ability to maintain many close relationships. I'm sure there aren't any Christians arguing that they can only love one parent because two parents means spreading their love too thinly, nor is anyone saying that a certain number of children is too many because you can't possibly love them all equally.

Of course you write like this, you are not even a Christian lol why would you claim biblical marriage term anyway

 

[Starcrash]

Of course you write like this, you are not even a Christian lol why would you claim biblical marriage term anyway

Don't attack a debater, but attack a debate, otherwise you're committing the logical fallacy of ad hominem. I could just as easily (and illogically) say that you're defending "traditional marriage" because of your Christianity.

I put out an argument. If you disagree, then rebut the argument. It's true that my atheism allows me to consider polygamy without a knee-jerk reaction to automatically disregard it as wrong, but I have no motive for believing it to be okay other than the facts... if a "traditional marriage" was indeed "better", I could still happily maintain my views and beliefs without any trouble.

 

[isoneedahug]

There's a curse attached to polygamy.....just saying, plus it makes Christmas really complicated, best to be content with one

 

[DanD]

The Patriarchs had multiple wives because they had adapted to the culture of those around them. If you look at them, they didn't exactly benefit from the multiple wives.

1 Timothy 1:3 and Titus 1 say that elders and deacons of the church should have one wife. Also, in the NT it says that a man should love his WIFE as Christ has loved the church, not wives. I'll look some more up later. I don't have time now to go into too much depth.

Honestly, it's hard enough making a standard marriage work. Why would anyone want to be married to more than one person at a time? Insane.

The passage you are referring to is Ephessians 5, and it uses the plural form for both husbands and wives. "Husbands love your wives."

Also,you resort to argument from personal disgust, which is a logical fallacy.

 

[DanD]

For some people, monogamy is the ideal. For others, polygamy is an acceptable alternative to divorce and remarriage, which is strictly forbidden. Funny how our churches tolerate the latter, but not the former.