• 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.

poly = selfish, unloving towards your wife

Brother Don Milton said:
Provide the verse that says neither married and that neither had children.
Click to expand...
Show me.the scripture that says they did. Oh Brother Don, come now. We're not having Dan Brown write our theology are we?
Paul said himself he was single and wished all to remain so. The whole Jesus having children thing has been done to death and we won't solve it here but you can at least admit that scripture doesn't record that He had children and in fact makes it highly unlikely.
A better answer would be to say that we can multiply through children or we can multiply through evangelism. You don't need to invent families for Christ and Paul, the two most confirmed bachelors in Christendom. And you can't read the New Testament and think that celibacy is a sin.
 
So Ibzan's children were born by some reverse immaculate Concepcion? Where are his wives? Where is even his one wife?

Judges 12:8-9 And after him Ibzan of Bethlehem judged Israel. And he had thirty sons, and thirty daughters, whom he sent abroad, and took in thirty daughters from abroad for his sons. And he judged Israel seven years.

Furthermore, only in rare cases are wives mentioned when they did not give birth to a son. Are you aware that the only monogamist we even know about in the Old Testament is Uriah because of Nathan's referring to him as the owner of one ewe lamb?

Even here in this forum, how many have declared the names of their wives and children? Because you folks have not declared your wives or children here I am to believe that you have none? The message of the gospel is and was Christ and Him crucified. There would have been no purpose for Paul or any of the other authors of those who conveyed the message to mention family members. How many of the disciples children or wives were mentioned?

Arguments against their having a bride must be made based on facts, not assumptions or church tradition.
 
I never said they had brides. I asked for evidence that they didn't have brides. In addition, an argument that celibacy is good based on exceptions to the rule is a fallacy. The exception does not make the rule. At the time of Paul's writing his epistles, there was a law in Rome that men must marry within 120 days of their receiving an inheritance and if they did not they would forfeit it to the state. Paul's argument to not feel compelled made sense based on that but nowhere are men made exempt from the law to multiply. That said, it's none of our business why a man is unable to wed. Maybe there's a problem physically or maybe women don't want him or maybe he is in a culture that hates a man's dominion over his woman. That said, those who are able are not exempt from God's law to multiply. A law whose only punishment when broken is to not be blessed by children! Which is a horrible punishment!
 
You want proof such a law existed. A footnote from my novel Copyright 2009. Pg 97&98
17. Jus Trium Liberorum is the term frequently used to describe what is more accurately called the Lex Papia Poppaea, A.D. 9, which granted special privileges to men with many children and A Hard Teaching punished celibacy by limiting the rights of single men. This can account for Paul's discussions on celibacy which should not be taken as encouraging celibacy but as defending the right of a man or woman to voluntarily choose marriage instead of feeling compelled to marry by government decree. The Lex Papia Poppaea decreed punishments such as the loss of inheritance rights for those who remained single after having attained puberty up to the age of fifty for women and sixty for men. A man or woman was given one hundred days to get married upon finding out they were the beneficiary of an inheritance or forfeit the inheritance. A Systematic and Historical Exposition - ROMAN LAW - In the Order of a Code by W. A.Hunter EMBODYING THE INSTITUTES OF GAIUS AND THE INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY J. ASHTON CROSS, B.A. of Balliol College, Oxford, BARRISTER-AT-LAW, Fourth Edition 1803
 
Wow, it's only a hundred days. I thought a hundred and twenty days. I'll have to check that. That's very quick but on the other hand, someone who has just inherited something big enough for them to search quickly for a spouse is certainly feeling under compulsion.
 
I've seen movies like that where someone had to marry or they wouldn't get their dad's inheritance. It might be a lot more fun set in Roman times and it would also lend itself to a lot of Jewish humor and participation in the plot.
 
That's as about as fragile of a logic sand castle as I've ever seen. Jesus said it would be better not to marry. Paul said explicitly that he wasn't married. I don't know who Izban is an apparently you don't want me to or you would have explained yourself a little better but it doesn't sound like he has much bearing on the topic. I've never heard of the gospel of Izban.
 
Ok, @Brother Don Milton I can pull apart your last posts, but I feel like I've made some assumptions about you and what you're writing. I think the best thing is to figure out where you're coming from to get an accurate picture, and also to get back on topic a bit here. So I have some questions for you.

1. How many children do you have?

2. How many do you want, and how did you come to the conclusion of that number/idea?
 
ZecAustin said:
I don't see anything wrong with being concsciously monogamous. I could think of all sorts of solid reasons to not take a second wife.
Click to expand...

Being monogamous is a lot different than to "pledge not to take more than one woman under his dominion". I am monogamous and happy as I am, but I would never pledge to be monogamous going forward and limit my options or limit what God could use me for and I would strongly advise the same for any son of mine getting married. I thought that was an excellent question about why any man would do that (pledge monogamy).
 
If God is determined to give you a second wife, and I think we all can agree this is vanishingly rare, He can get your wife to release the vow.
When I married @windblown she knew about poly but said she could never live it. I promised to never ask her too. She has since released me of that. Now I still don't have a second wife so it will probably always be a moot point. But I might have missed out on spectacular blessings if I had not. Poly is negotiable. You can choose not to do it and there's nothing wrong if you admit that upfront.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
From an authority point of view that makes sense. My sense of honor would never let me do something like that, though.
Click to expand...
It's a very bold and dangerous move. While she can't hold the vow valid somehow you can still drive her deeper and more wildly in to rebellion and you're not going to change her mind with the tactic.
 
Brother Don Milton said:
I'm sorry to hear you are struggling with this. Gynopomorphism, another term I came up with, is to view women as if they are men. Women know they are not men but such is the nature of women that when it is to their advantage they will pretend that they are like men. A woman does not naturally have the same feelings as a man when he has additional women under his dominion as a man would have if his woman were an adulterous although culture does its best to confuse their reactions. There is no similarity between adultery and biblical polygyny. It is misjudging yourself to condemn yourself for not doing unto others as you would have them do unto you when that is not what you're doing. Living according to the Bible is on the other end of the spectrum from a woman's committing adultery which is what a woman with multiple husbands is doing with her second etc. husband while the first is still her husband. Cliche warning: It's comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...
Thanks, well said!
 
It seems we've gotten off topic a bit here. Ultimately the question was how is it so often claimed to "being selfish by marring more than one"? I don't see anything that says a husband is wrong in marrying more than one out of physical desire, or that he shouldn't do so if he is in desire of her. I think we have gotten off as well in the primary focus of having more than one wife, where does scripture require being able to lead more than one before taking another? This is adding something in that isn't biblical, a wife is her husbands, his helpmeet. Consider the times your married to a wife who is non leadable, what then? Should you not marry another? Even Paul said its better to marry than to live in temptation, this implies marriage is about physical desire and temptation not leadership. In this regard our desire may be selfish but we try to mask it though leadership?

There are many elements to the marriage relationship but let's not fool our selves as men, or avoid the facts, despite physical intimacy as well as leadership, there are other driving forces not always explained in words, and not wrong as long as not committing adultry (an already married woman). One of you mentioned how some men are wired this way, Id agree with that, it's not something explainable though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top