-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Mathematically Challenged Christians
- Thread starter CecilW
- Start date
Excellent illustration.
I have long noted that it is evidently not a problem at all for people, independent of gender, to use one another sexually. The only real issue seems to arise when a man actually intends to COVER such a woman, in the explicitly Biblical sense.
I have long noted that it is evidently not a problem at all for people, independent of gender, to use one another sexually. The only real issue seems to arise when a man actually intends to COVER such a woman, in the explicitly Biblical sense.
Memphis Dwight
Member
One of the first pitiful bromides they bring out is the ol' the two shall become one.
When its shown to them that God never binds man to becoming one flesh with only one woman
then what they do is switch to the elders must be the husbands of one wife ... and then they jump to 1 Cor 7 Let each man have his own wife..
The elephant in the room that none of the monogamaniacs will speak of is the fact that if the bible is so clearly against a man having more than one wife, then why won't they ever land on one verse and defend it fully instead of jumping like a frog from one lily pad to another.
When its shown to them that God never binds man to becoming one flesh with only one woman
then what they do is switch to the elders must be the husbands of one wife ... and then they jump to 1 Cor 7 Let each man have his own wife..
The elephant in the room that none of the monogamaniacs will speak of is the fact that if the bible is so clearly against a man having more than one wife, then why won't they ever land on one verse and defend it fully instead of jumping like a frog from one lily pad to another.
Hmm. After years of mulling no thought research, I lean towards a solution where a man should always be the member of at least two communes. Not sure what that would be legally, but it sounds like more than one and would make a great T-shirt....... POLYCOMMUNIST
They don't realize that much of the world practices "polygyny" l say that loosly ...thru faction. Married, divorced,remarried, multiple "partners". But selfishness & pride..rules their motives. Ironically sad.
But strangely do not seem to mind divorce itself.
Don't you know? The only reason divorce is even wrong at all is because it doesn't actually break the mystical bond of marriage, thus creating a polygamous situation, which is clearly evil. #sarcasm
I'm going to return to the main topic of this thread -- mathematics -- for two reasons, one involving the general culture war, and then a more specific application to polygamy.
There's a theorem in Mathematics called "Hall's Marriage Theorem" which relates to finding a "stable" set of pairings between two sets. As mathematics tends to do, it makes all sorts of simplifying assumptions, such as only heterosexual, monogamous unions, where each member has a ranked list of preferred partners that never changes through time, etc... The reason I heard about this, is because this theorem -- or at least it's name -- is coming under attack in an Australia University (U of New South Wales) for being "offensive". If you want more details on that case, I heard about it here:
But the real reason I'm writing this is because of some of the details of the actual theorem. For that, you have to dig into the mathematics of the situation. I'll link to part one of a Numberphile video that does just that; the more rigorous math is in the part 2 video, which I trust you can click to if interested. Without going into too much detail, the pairing algorithm basically involves all of one side (men or women) simultaneously proposing to their top pick, then being accepted or rejected, and iterating down the list until everyone is paired. In the video example, they use women as the proposing side (because of course, current society is gynocentric), but we all know it doesn't usually work that way. Now here's the interesting bit: under these assumptions and using this algorithm, it's provable (see the second video) that the proposing class gets the best possible outcome for them, while the proposed-to class gets the least-desirable possible outcome (that still meets all the "stability" criteria). Since, in real life, men tend to be the proposers, and women the proposed-to, this mathematically proves that monogamy favors men to the detriment of women, and therefore, reducing the monogamous restriction actually must result in a better outcome for women. QED.
I know that basic point has been made before (e.g. in "The Great Omission"), but I've never seen it done as a mathematical proof (something which, I admit, tickles my systematizing male-brain).
There's a theorem in Mathematics called "Hall's Marriage Theorem" which relates to finding a "stable" set of pairings between two sets. As mathematics tends to do, it makes all sorts of simplifying assumptions, such as only heterosexual, monogamous unions, where each member has a ranked list of preferred partners that never changes through time, etc... The reason I heard about this, is because this theorem -- or at least it's name -- is coming under attack in an Australia University (U of New South Wales) for being "offensive". If you want more details on that case, I heard about it here:
But the real reason I'm writing this is because of some of the details of the actual theorem. For that, you have to dig into the mathematics of the situation. I'll link to part one of a Numberphile video that does just that; the more rigorous math is in the part 2 video, which I trust you can click to if interested. Without going into too much detail, the pairing algorithm basically involves all of one side (men or women) simultaneously proposing to their top pick, then being accepted or rejected, and iterating down the list until everyone is paired. In the video example, they use women as the proposing side (because of course, current society is gynocentric), but we all know it doesn't usually work that way. Now here's the interesting bit: under these assumptions and using this algorithm, it's provable (see the second video) that the proposing class gets the best possible outcome for them, while the proposed-to class gets the least-desirable possible outcome (that still meets all the "stability" criteria). Since, in real life, men tend to be the proposers, and women the proposed-to, this mathematically proves that monogamy favors men to the detriment of women, and therefore, reducing the monogamous restriction actually must result in a better outcome for women. QED.
I know that basic point has been made before (e.g. in "The Great Omission"), but I've never seen it done as a mathematical proof (something which, I admit, tickles my systematizing male-brain).
This is the best thread I have found on the whole site!!!