• 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.

Parallel or Plural? Which do you really believe?

What do you believe in?

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
notforevil

notforevil

Member
Male
I was writing a letter to a dear friend recently talking about different views on life and PM...and it made me wonder, what does every one here really believe in?

Plural Marriage- where you keep on adding to your original family
or
Parallel Marriages- where you start another family somewhere else but not actually with your original family?

What do you think?

Everybody has a vision of what they think PM should look like (unfortunately most peoples visions don't match up)... and we all see through a dark glass dimly... so no one family is completely right or wrong in the way that they do things.

It seems that a sticking point between some of the things I've shared and what most others believe is more of a misunderstanding/ miscommunication than anything else.

Here's a more simple way of me putting my beliefs:

My theory on "marrying the whole family" versus "marrying the man" is really quite simple...
Yes, he is the only one that I consummate (aka try to make babies) with...
but the way I see it is that once a man consummates with a woman, they become one flesh...
therefore when he consummates with the next woman they all become one flesh...
and so on.
It isn't that you share a bed with anyone else...just that the one flesh gets pluralized.

After all, where did this statement, "What is put together let no man cast asunder" come from?
(Hint: Mark 10:9)

I believe that Christ is the bridegroom to all of us- one giant plural marriage.... and He's with us all together.
Plural- Together or Parallel- Separate? Which one matches you?

This is not an argument or a debate, it is simply just a poll to better understand you all.

I hope you will honor it as that :)
 
Each marriage is separate and parallel but they all belong to one family. Each seperate wife, with her own marriage, all joined the husband's family. Each wife has a one flesh relationship with their husband just as we Christians each have a one-to-one relationship with our Lord. You and I are sisters and brothers thru Christ but do not share a one Spirit with each other, it's with Christ

The problem with the all-one-plural-family idea is that it detracts the focus on the family away from the husband. It promote a misunderstanding that when a woman marries a plural man, she is marrying the other women. Not how it works.

but.... In the words of Dennis Miller "Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong."
 
My family does most of everything together, and on an average day, I probably spend more time with and talk to my sister wives more than my husband. Once we have children, those children will belong to everyone and be everyone's responsibility. We share a single home, although we do have our own bedrooms and bathrooms. So I would say we're a single family, but we do have separate and distinct marriages. What I mean by that is we do keep certain things to ourselves, and disagreements/arguments/fights between husband and a wife are private unless they choose to open the issue to the entire family. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it's not.
 
Thank you NetWatcheR & Lili for your kind and Christian manor of addressing the issues.

God Bless you for your hearts!

We all could be wrong, but isn't that is why He came (for us to correct ourselves and follow Him)?

Humbleness to be possibly wrong, is the only way we can ever choose better...

Thank you for practicing this Kindness and Humbleness!!!

As someone recently said who is well respected and accepted here,
"we can all disagree here! Lets make sure we do it with grace"...

Again, thank you both for Grace!!!
 
notforevil said:
Plural Marriage- where you keep on adding to your original family
or
Parallel Marriages- where you start another family somewhere else but not actually with your original family?
Click to expand...
I don't agree with either of those definitions.
notforevil said:
but the way I see it is that once a man consummates with a woman, they become one flesh...
therefore when he consummates with the next woman they all become one flesh...
and so on.
Click to expand...
I think that could get really messy. Simple example: if a guy sleeps with a prostitute, any of his wives are now one flesh with her so in a plural marriage with her...
 
I think the question assumes the marriage dynamic is the same as family
I'm not married to my mother but she's part of my family
What I mean is family is not just who I've married or my children
Just because marriage is exclusive doesn't mean family is
I'd like to tick both boxes
Of course this is good in theory
I've yet to sit the practicle exam
 
One half in each box, either of them rules out too many things in my opinion.
The one flesh relationship is between each husband and wife singularly, but that still puts the wives in some form of relationship that is beyond just family. Like @MrB said, the mother qualifies as family.
 
First of all I would like to say that I believe in working things out and staying together (by applying "the greatest of these" that He's given me, for the sole purpose of softening the hardness of my heart, that I was born with).

If I were to marry with the option of divorce then I don't believe I would really be marrying. Divorce would be from the hardness of MY heart....and I, personally, would rather stick with the softness of HIS heart.

Here's a question: "Is God committed to us one at a time"? If so, what happens to the others while He's working on me? If there's a billion Christians alive right now, do I only spend one billionth of my life with Him, and how fair would that be to everyone only getting one billionth of time with the Author of Love?

Here's simpler math... if a man has 2 wives and he separates his time and fellowship in half, is each of those women married only half the time? Shouldn't he be married to both all the time? How can this be done separately? If I was going to marry a man only halfway, am I really marring him and is he really marrying me? Or is it just a mutual agreement for convenience?

In order to avoid all of this, I'd like to redirect back to the original post (After all, where did this statement, "What is put together let no man cast asunder" come from? (Hint: Mark 10:9))

God's word should be exalted above all that we believe and its quite clear He's telling us not to separate what He's put together! That's what I care about, His word, to not separate what He's put together.

I may be wrong, but divorce and separation may seem like what's best for some of us; but its never best for God.

What should our marriages be modeled after, Christ?

He's there for all of us all the time, isn't He?
 
notforevil said:
First of all I would like to say that I believe in working things out and staying together (by applying "the greatest of these" that He's given me, for the sole purpose of softening the hardness of my heart, that I was born with).

If I were to marry with the option of divorce then I don't believe I would really be marrying. Divorce would be from the hardness of MY heart....and I, personally, would rather stick with the softness of HIS heart.

Here's a question: "Is God committed to us one at a time"? If so, what happens to the others while He's working on me? If there's a billion Christians alive right now, do I only spend one billionth of my life with Him, and how fair would that be to everyone only getting one billionth of time with the Author of Love?

Here's simpler math... if a man has 2 wives and he separates his time and fellowship in half, is each of those women married only half the time? Shouldn't he be married to both all the time? How can this be done separately? If I was going to marry a man only halfway, am I really marring him and is he really marrying me? Or is it just a mutual agreement for convenience?

In order to avoid all of this, I'd like to redirect back to the original post (After all, where did this statement, "What is put together let no man cast asunder" come from? (Hint: Mark 10:9))

God's word should be exalted above all that we believe and its quite clear He's telling us not to separate what He's put together! That's what I care about, His word, to not separate what He's put together.

I may be wrong, but divorce and separation may seem like what's best for some of us; but its never best for God.

What should our marriages be modeled after, Christ?

He's there for all of us all the time, isn't He?
Click to expand...
Didn't ask you to try to divorce your husband. But you did do a good job of deflecting the premise.

I don't think anyone on this forum believes divorce is always the best option, but I also believe that none of us would ever say that divorce is never an option.

Violence? Promiscuous infidelity? Overt manipulation with intent to deceive and harm? Child abuse? These things happen in monogamy and are serious reasons to either put away for a time for healing, or outright divorce for permanence. I'm sure they would come up in polygyny too.

You mention God giving each of his children one/1billionth of his time. Bad analogy. God lives outside of time and space. The time he gives each of his children is 100%.

The identity property of math states that any number multiplied by 1 remains the same, it doesn't decrease. God doesn't divide himself, he only multiplies his love by one (himself) and so the numbers are limitless...just as he is. Remember, God is love, not man.

No mortal man can spend 100% of his time with all his wives. Unless he has some extraterrestrial anatomy, he can only copulate with ONE at a time. That's why it's becoming ONE flesh. That's why he has ONE appendage to unite with each wife ONE at a time. He could have a whole harem present, but only ONE at a time is getting the authentic goods. If you can prove otherwise, medical science needs to know.

Peace.
 
Mojo said:
Unless he has some extraterrestrial anatomy, he can only copulate with ONE at a time. That's why it's becoming ONE flesh. That's why he has ONE appendage to unite with each wife ONE at a time. He could have a whole harem present, but only ONE at a time is getting the authentic goods. If you can prove otherwise, medical science needs to know.
Click to expand...

To whom much is "given"...
He expects us to realize that: "Real Love and Marriage is so much more than a mans appendage"...
I sincerely pray Love comes into all of our lives, to show us this...
 
notforevil said:
To whom much is "given"...
He expects us to realize that: "Real Love and Marriage is so much more than a mans appendage"...
I sincerely pray Love comes into all of our lives, to show us this...
Click to expand...
You are real good at twisting and deflecting. So good, that I won't fall for the bait. Godspeed.
 
notforevil, we all realize that, and if we don't agree with you, it's not because love hasn't come into our lives yet.

Are you really saying that you believe that a man and all of his wives should all be together 24/7? If you are, you're just wrong. If you're not saying that, then we're wasting time here, and you and Mojo don't have a real dispute.
 
How can "two sticks" become one ('echad') in the prophet Ezekiel's hand?

How can two whoring houses - Samaria/Jerusalem, Aholah/Aholibah, Israel (N) and Judah (S) - ever become 'echad' again?

Only if they will make "t'shuvah" (return/repent) in obedience and become "ECHAD" in Him.

The Hebrew word "echad" has a richer meaning than the general English translation to the cardinal number. Yes, it often does just mean the number associated with a single thing. A 'unity,' however, might be a better picture. (A flock of sheep can be described as "echad," or a 'unity', one flock.)

But it is also central to the "Most Important Commandment" in Scripture (Deuteronomy 6:6):

"YHVH Elohenu, YHVH Echad...

(Therefore, we are to love Him with all our heart, soul, and might.)

Shaul/Paul remarked that Covenant is a 'mystery'. For us to have any number of wives (including one) to walk 'in unity' requires that we learn to walk as 'echad' in Him.
 
Mark C said:
Paul remarked that Covenant is a 'mystery'. For us to have any number of wives (including one) to walk 'in unity' requires that we learn to walk as 'echad' in Him.
Click to expand...

Welcome Wisdom... Thank You Friend!!!
God Bless You (and your family)
 
Mark C said:
Deuteronomy 6:6
Click to expand...

After continuing prayer on discerning your message, God through you revealed the whole point to this BF site :)

So eloquent and simple He is for us...

Once Again, "We greatly appreciate your singular depth, flock brother"...
 
NetWatchR said:
The problem with the all-one-plural-family idea is that it detracts the focus on the family away from the husband. It promote a misunderstanding that when a woman marries a plural man, she is marrying the other women. Not how it works.
Click to expand...
I totally get that any second / third wife wouldn't be marrying me. I don't want a physical relationship with a sister wife - I do, however, want a close and meaningful relationship with her.
 
notforevil said:
God's word should be exalted above all that we believe and its quite clear He's telling us not to separate what He's put together! That's what I care about, His word, to not separate what He's put together.
Click to expand...

To His children, marriage is so much more than a physical relationship...

If it was just a one on one physical relationship, then how could we (plural) be the bride (singular) to our spiritual Bridegroom?

Don't we have a personal oneflesh relationship with Christ, and isn't that the same personal oneflesh relationship that sisterwives have?

Yes, sisterwives don't have physical relationships, but they are just as married as we are all Christ's bride together...

We share Christ all at once, all in one marriage, all of us bound in marriage through Him...

Marriage is all members, all inclusive "oneflesh", as far as I can see it, as He designed us to be "His Bride" (plural made singular, never separate:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top