RE: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

[kaylagrl]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

This is hypocrisy on your part. God hates divorce! He never says He hates polygamy.



I never said that marriage is about lust. You are putting words in my mouth. Lust is an issue that men battle with. God gave us the institution of marriage to satisfy that lust, and to provide companionship. Lusting after another man's wife, is sinful, but fulfilling lust within your own marriage is not.

Quote "This is hypocrisy on your part. God hates divorce! He never says He hates polygamy."

Gods plan for the family is clear,one man,one woman. Adam and Eve,clear. Leave the parents and cling to each other.Two become one.Clear as day.

Quote "I never said that marriage is about lust. You are putting words in my mouth. "

""Would you not rather a man fulfill his lusts through his marriages, rather than going outside his marriage?"

Your words,not mine...


Quote "God gave us the institution of marriage to satisfy that lust"

That is absolute immature nonsense.Marriage is not about lust. Now if you are talking about desire thats different. Desire for your spouse,there is nothing wrong with that. The fact you are saying you need other wives to meet your needs,that is lust.

 

[Magenta]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
A loving doe, a graceful deer—
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be intoxicated with her love.

Only a liar would say this allows for polygamy.

 

[DanD]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

This is what I asked you;
If we are priests and kings of God; are we then leaders in the church?

Yea, so then since you say polygamy does not set the example of following the teachings of Christ, then I therefore ask; what example does it set?

Mindful I am not asking about what happens after a marriage, be it monogamous or polygamous, which you keep trying to tell me about, I understand all ready your position on what should be to happen afterwards. I am not asking about divorce or any of that. I am asking; what example is set simply by marrying more than one spouse?

I am really hopeful that you truly are beginning to understand my position. Where the Bible commends an action, such as marriage, those who practice it within the prescriptions laid out by God, set a great example. Where the Bible condemns an action, such as divorce, when the wife has not been unfaithful to her husband, those who carry out that activity set a bad example. Where the Bible is neutral, as in this case regarding how many wives a man has, who does not seek the specific positions of deacon, elder, or bishop, and none other, the man who carries out that activity neither sets a good example, nor a bad example, save in the fact, that if he had divorced his first wife in order to marry his second wife, which is all too common today, he would have set a bad example. The second marriage, in an isolated sense, sets a neutral example, but the aspect of remaining married to the first wife, sets a positive example. I realize that is rather nuanced, but we have to remember to only go as far as Scripture leads us, and no farther. I have never sought the position of priest or king. I am a member of the priesthood of believers, and one could argue that the leaders of the church would be considered kings. I have been granted my position by adoption into the family of God.

My beliefs are not really all that complicated, but un-complicating the mess that others make by taking a text out of context, takes quite a bit of explaining.

 

[kaylagrl]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

Arguments do not have gender. These arguments would be true whether made by a man or a woman. This is a form of Ad Hominem.



That is considered adultery. I didn't make the rules. I simply abide by them.



I am not the one who brought up the topic of lust. I was simply answering an accusation. What do you find so horrible about sex within the boundaries of marriage?



You are intentionally leaving out the point I made about being MARRIED to those women. That is dishonest and misleading!

Quote "Arguments do not have gender. These arguments would be true whether made by a man or a woman."

Id wager the women in the forum would tend to agree with me on this one.lol


Quote "That is considered adultery. I didn't make the rules. I simply abide by them."

Why would it be adultery? If you can add wives to the marriage why can't she add husbands?

Quote "What do you find so horrible about sex within the boundaries of marriage?"

I have no issue with sex inside a marriage God blessed,Adam and Eve,one man and one woman cleaving to each other.No problem with it in the least.


Quote "You are intentionally leaving out the point I made about being MARRIED to those women. "

Irregardless. I dont know a married woman that would accept another wife and have no issue with her husband making love to another woman,wife,sister whatever you wish to call it. How could I believe my husband loved me if he was making love to other "wives"? Its ridiculous.

 

[DanD]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
A loving doe, a graceful deer—
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be intoxicated with her love.

Only a liar would say this allows for polygamy.

That is funny! The passage was written by a polygamist (Solomon), to a polygamist (Reheboam). Be careful when you throw out false accusations of lying. You have already been called out for that on this thread.

 

[kaylagrl]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

That is funny! The passage was written by a polygamist (Solomon), to a polygamist (Reheboam). Be careful when you throw out false accusations of lying. You have already been called out for that on this thread.

The Bible says Solomon was led away to false Gods because of his wives. I wouldn't be using him as a Biblical example to make your point.

 

[kaylagrl]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

And I oppose that, as should all Christians.

​Very glad we agree on that point. Because the Mormon church has no issue taking underage brides.

 

[DanD]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

Quote "Arguments do not have gender. These arguments would be true whether made by a man or a woman."

Id wager the women in the forum would tend to agree with me on this one.lol

Argumentum ad populum.

Quote "That is considered adultery. I didn't make the rules. I simply abide by them."

Why would it be adultery? If you can add wives to the marriage why can't she add husbands?

The Bible tells us it is adultery on the part of the unfaithful woman, and the man she carries out her adulterous act with. Your argument is with God Himself.

Quote "What do you find so horrible about sex within the boundaries of marriage?"

I have no issue with sex inside a marriage God blessed,Adam and Eve,one man and one woman cleaving to each other.No problem with it in the least.

I wish this were true. Then you would have no issue with a man fulfilling his lusts by having sex within the context of marriage.

Quote "You are intentionally leaving out the point I made about being MARRIED to those women. "

Irregardless. I dont know a married woman that would accept another wife and have no issue with her husband making love to another woman,wife,sister whatever you wish to call it. How could I believe my husband loved me if he was making love to other "wives"? Its ridiculous.

Two logical falacies employed here: Argument from personal ignorance (no insult intended, that is just what it is called) and the Straw Man fallacy.

I don't believe that your husband should be making love to another woman, as at the moment, you do not appreciate the benefits you would enjoy, having a second woman in your marriage.

 

[DanD]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

The Bible says Solomon was led away to false Gods because of his wives. I wouldn't be using him as a Biblical example to make your point.

Then why are you using that passage to support your argument?

 

[Chokmahiel]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

I am really hopeful that you truly are beginning to understand my position. Where the Bible commends an action, such as marriage, those who practice it within the prescriptions laid out by God, set a great example. Where the Bible condemns an action, such as divorce, when the wife has not been unfaithful to her husband, those who carry out that activity set a bad example. Where the Bible is neutral, as in this case regarding how many wives a man has, who does not seek the specific positions of deacon, elder, or bishop, and none other, the man who carries out that activity neither sets a good example, nor a bad example, save in the fact, that if he had divorced his first wife in order to marry his second wife, which is all too common today, he would have set a bad example. The second marriage, in an isolated sense, sets a neutral example, but the aspect of remaining married to the first wife, sets a positive example. I realize that is rather nuanced, but we have to remember to only go as far as Scripture leads us, and no farther. I have never sought the position of priest or king. I am a member of the priesthood of believers, and one could argue that the leaders of the church would be considered kings. I have been granted my position by adoption into the family of God.

My beliefs are not really all that complicated, but un-complicating the mess that others make by taking a text out of context, takes quite a bit of explaining.

Okay, so I understand your position, but then my question is still rather unanswered.

What is the example set by marrying more than one wife?

Maybe to put it in another way; What is the illustration to having more than one wife? What does it illustrate? What does it imitate?

 

[kaylagrl]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

Then why are you using that passage to support your argument?

Uhh Im not... ???

 

[DanD]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

Quote "This is hypocrisy on your part. God hates divorce! He never says He hates polygamy."

Gods plan for the family is clear,one man,one woman. Adam and Eve,clear. Leave the parents and cling to each other.Two become one.Clear as day.

Quote "I never said that marriage is about lust. You are putting words in my mouth. "

""Would you not rather a man fulfill his lusts through his marriages, rather than going outside his marriage?"

Your words,not mine...


Quote "God gave us the institution of marriage to satisfy that lust"

That is absolute immature nonsense.Marriage is not about lust. Now if you are talking about desire thats different. Desire for your spouse,there is nothing wrong with that. The fact you are saying you need other wives to meet your needs,that is lust.

Fine! You want to quibble over terminology, as long as you understand there is nothing wrong with a man consummating his marriages.

 

[DanD]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

Uhh Im not... ???

OK, you should have pointed out to Magenta, that she should not be using that passage to oppose polygamy.

 

[Magenta]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

Then why are you using that passage to support your argument?

Haha, if you cannot see that even the supposedly most wise man in all the world was led away into idolatry due to the excessive demands of his flesh you are very blind indeed!

 

[DanD]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

Okay, so I understand your position, but then my question is still rather unanswered.

What is the example set by marrying more than one wife?

Maybe to put it in another way; What is the illustration to having more than one wife? What does it illustrate? What does it imitate?

It varies. That could be an imitation of Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. It depends on where that man draws his so called "justification"m as if something that is not a sin needs justification.

 

[Yeraza_Bats]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

Has anyone pointed out this verse here?

Matthew 10:7-8

‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

I feel like someone would have done so already by now.

I feel like thats a pretty clear sign that Jesus stood for one husband one wife.

From the few posts Ive read here, I feel like this is one of those "but the Bible does not say in exact words 'only one wife'" kinda arguments, despite the fact that it gives clear teachings that show one husband one wife.

 

[Magenta]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

It varies. That could be an imitation of Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. It depends on where that man draws his so called "justification"m as if something that is not a sin needs justification.

Why in the world would any Christian imitate Mohammed? Please start making sense.

 

[DanD]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

Haha, if you cannot see that even the supposedly most wise man in all the world was led away into idolatry due to the excessive demands of his flesh you are very blind indeed!

You are relying on the "Appeal to Extremes" Logical Fallacy. I am sorry to have to call you out on that, and I don't mean to be insulting when I point this out, but just because the extreme example is wrong, does not mean the moderation is also wrong. The Law given to Moses simply states that a king should not have MANY wives. It does not forbid him from having a few wives. David was fine with eight, until he stepped outside the boundaries and took another man's wife.

 

[Magenta]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

Has anyone pointed out this verse here?

Matthew 10:7-8

‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

I feel like someone would have done so already by now.

I feel like thats a pretty clear sign that Jesus stood for one husband one wife.

From the few posts Ive read here, I feel like this is one of those "but the Bible does not say in exact words 'only one wife'" kinda arguments, despite the fact that it gives clear teachings that show one husband one wife.

Men will go to great lengths to pervert the Word of God to satisfy the lusts of their flesh. Threads like this prove it if nothing else does... and yes, the verse has been given

 

[DanD]

Re: Polygamy -- continuation of older thread.

Why in the world would any Christian imitate Mohammed? Please start making sense.

Not all polygamists are Christians.