I second that motion.
-
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.
Polygyny and Male Attraction
- Thread starter Eristhophanes
- Start date
I couldn't agree more.
Eristhophanes
Member
Yes, actually. At. Your. Level. Meaning trying to be gentler, not as harsh, sarcastic or abrasive as I can be and sometimes am when speaking to men. That was me trying to actually be respectful of you given what you said.
I tried to make that description as clinical as I could. I was describing an attraction arousal response in a biological attraction situation in which dominance cues were being expressed, going step by step explaining what was happening at each step. Porn? No. I regret that you took that in such a light. I was not trying to convince you I was right, I was trying to answer your question. Because it is an indisputable fact that biological attraction exists. My point was that expressions of masculine dominance by men tend to trigger both heightened attraction and arousal in women (typically only within a framework of attraction), there are many different ways such expressions can be made and they can be powerful.
Now that I think about it, if anything, you describing it as 'porn' means I was a bit too convincing in making the point. That was unintended.
First reaction to your initial posts, before reading anyone else's comments and subsequent discussion to avoid being influenced by anyone else's thinking:
Thankyou for sharing your testimony here. You have a very interesting past and it really helps to understand where you are coming from, and put your points in context. It is valuable.
There are plenty of hot-button issues in this that I could react to one way or the other, but most are side-points you have made to put your primary points in context. This isn't about penis-enlargement, domestic discipline, or any such detail.
This is fundamentally an encouragement to be a real man. To be successful in business, a strong protector - a patiarch. Someone who actually has the means to support more than one wife, and who can be seen by women to have those means so is attractive to them. An encouragement to forget about adding wives, and focus on improving ourselves instead. Then we can better serve our Master in whatever work He has planned for us, and better provide for our existing wives. And possibly, eventually, polygyny might occur at some point - but that should not be the goal.
Now I'll proceed to read everyone else's thoughts and comment more later, which will no doubt include my thoughts on various other hot-button sideline topics. I post this first to make sure I address the main point you're making, rather than getting distracted by details. Because I actually appreciate your primary point, and take it as a challenge and an encouragement.
Thankyou for sharing your testimony here. You have a very interesting past and it really helps to understand where you are coming from, and put your points in context. It is valuable.
There are plenty of hot-button issues in this that I could react to one way or the other, but most are side-points you have made to put your primary points in context. This isn't about penis-enlargement, domestic discipline, or any such detail.
This is fundamentally an encouragement to be a real man. To be successful in business, a strong protector - a patiarch. Someone who actually has the means to support more than one wife, and who can be seen by women to have those means so is attractive to them. An encouragement to forget about adding wives, and focus on improving ourselves instead. Then we can better serve our Master in whatever work He has planned for us, and better provide for our existing wives. And possibly, eventually, polygyny might occur at some point - but that should not be the goal.
Now I'll proceed to read everyone else's thoughts and comment more later, which will no doubt include my thoughts on various other hot-button sideline topics. I post this first to make sure I address the main point you're making, rather than getting distracted by details. Because I actually appreciate your primary point, and take it as a challenge and an encouragement.
@FollowingHim for president! Way to cut to the heart of the matter and get to the meat. Eristophanes should make your post his opening paragraph.
Having read the rest of the thread now, I must reiterate very strongly that Eristophanes main point is NOT domestic discipline. That is a hot-button distraction. He mentioned it a few times, and everyone took that and ran with it.
Zec has very clearly stated the scriptural and practical reality of the matter, I thoroughly agree with everything he said, and I don't think anything further needs to be said. There is no scripture either against it (as Zec outlines) or for it (as Slumberfreeze outlines), which makes for endless arguments where everyone keeps believing their own point because neither side can prove the other one wrong scripturally. Yet in our society the very suggestion of it has legal consequences that achieve the exact opposite of the scriptural patriarchal order of marriage, so regardless of whether it is sinful or holy it is unprofitable. And discussing it here has many negatives.
So that's the end of the domestic discipline discussion, any further posts mentioning it will be deleted, regardless of whatever other good content they may contain. If you wish to discuss it further do so by private message.
Does anybody have any comments to make about Eristophanes' primary point - what are the characteristics of a man who is likely to successfully obtain and keep multiple wives? Where is he right, where is he wrong?
I see the whole issue of "game" to be secular men discovering something close to the true characteristics that YHWH has designed successful men to have, but coming to it from a roundabout and sex-focussed starting point. There are things for us to learn from "game", and things for us to steer clear of. I've also posted on this before myself. I believe Eristophanes recognises this also, having come at it from both a Christian and a secular perspective at different times so being able to see different sides of it.
The men who study "game" in order to LOOK like the sort of man a woman would want, so that they can pick up women at a bar and get them into bed, are lying cheats. They are offering an illusion in order to satisfy their own lusts. However, in figuring this out, they have thought very carefully about what a woman naturally wants - a strong patriarchal provider. We can look at this and work to be the real deal, be the man those men are pretending to be, for the benefit of our Father and of the children and women He wishes us to have under our care.
In the same way, I see BDSM as an illusion. Couples in our feminist society, where the woman is usually the boss but would at some psychological level love to be with a man who was a leader, and men who are too wimpy to take charge in reality but wish they could, can pull out some padded handcuffs and blindfolds and play-act as if the man was in charge and the woman was submissive for an hour every now and then. Because it's a game, it's an exaggerated caricature. A true leader of a man with a truly submissive wife would just naturally have an intimate relationship where he generally led what was happening and neither would even think about what they were doing, they'd just enjoy themselves. While the fake submissive wife needs to be tied up to ensure she stays "in character", and to ensure her husband remembers to take charge also. But I don't really want to get distracted down this track, I've just read a pornographic novel on here and don't really want to see more of that, please! BDSM is a side-issue, that helps only to illustrate my point that true leadership / dominance is right and Godly - so good that the world is attracted to it, and even though they don't actually want to follow it they want to play with it to enjoy a little taste of it now and then in a distorted sexual illusion without actually following what it is truly about.
Zec has very clearly stated the scriptural and practical reality of the matter, I thoroughly agree with everything he said, and I don't think anything further needs to be said. There is no scripture either against it (as Zec outlines) or for it (as Slumberfreeze outlines), which makes for endless arguments where everyone keeps believing their own point because neither side can prove the other one wrong scripturally. Yet in our society the very suggestion of it has legal consequences that achieve the exact opposite of the scriptural patriarchal order of marriage, so regardless of whether it is sinful or holy it is unprofitable. And discussing it here has many negatives.
So that's the end of the domestic discipline discussion, any further posts mentioning it will be deleted, regardless of whatever other good content they may contain. If you wish to discuss it further do so by private message.
Does anybody have any comments to make about Eristophanes' primary point - what are the characteristics of a man who is likely to successfully obtain and keep multiple wives? Where is he right, where is he wrong?
I see the whole issue of "game" to be secular men discovering something close to the true characteristics that YHWH has designed successful men to have, but coming to it from a roundabout and sex-focussed starting point. There are things for us to learn from "game", and things for us to steer clear of. I've also posted on this before myself. I believe Eristophanes recognises this also, having come at it from both a Christian and a secular perspective at different times so being able to see different sides of it.
The men who study "game" in order to LOOK like the sort of man a woman would want, so that they can pick up women at a bar and get them into bed, are lying cheats. They are offering an illusion in order to satisfy their own lusts. However, in figuring this out, they have thought very carefully about what a woman naturally wants - a strong patriarchal provider. We can look at this and work to be the real deal, be the man those men are pretending to be, for the benefit of our Father and of the children and women He wishes us to have under our care.
In the same way, I see BDSM as an illusion. Couples in our feminist society, where the woman is usually the boss but would at some psychological level love to be with a man who was a leader, and men who are too wimpy to take charge in reality but wish they could, can pull out some padded handcuffs and blindfolds and play-act as if the man was in charge and the woman was submissive for an hour every now and then. Because it's a game, it's an exaggerated caricature. A true leader of a man with a truly submissive wife would just naturally have an intimate relationship where he generally led what was happening and neither would even think about what they were doing, they'd just enjoy themselves. While the fake submissive wife needs to be tied up to ensure she stays "in character", and to ensure her husband remembers to take charge also. But I don't really want to get distracted down this track, I've just read a pornographic novel on here and don't really want to see more of that, please! BDSM is a side-issue, that helps only to illustrate my point that true leadership / dominance is right and Godly - so good that the world is attracted to it, and even though they don't actually want to follow it they want to play with it to enjoy a little taste of it now and then in a distorted sexual illusion without actually following what it is truly about.
Last edited:
Eristophanes' main point is absolutely correct. I've read before that in even the most polygynous cultures only 15% of men have more than one wife.
The simple truth is that most of us will never be polygynous, we should however strive to be the kind of men who could be.
The simple truth is that most of us will never be polygynous, we should however strive to be the kind of men who could be.
Which, by the way, is the best kind of monogamous husband too.
Yeah. I got a comment.
Jacob had a rather successful poly marriage, and he had no game. He had sneaky weasel sucker beta qualities. Working 7 years for one chick? Played. Enter into another 7 year contract because you were given the ugly chick? SUCKER.
Did Abraham have any game? Sure, all the macho guys ask their wives to lie for them because they'd rather other guys sleep with their wife than risk death...
David and Solomon were radically different from each other, but they had the ability to poly up.
Did David poly up by being super alpha? According to Nathan, God takes responsibility for giving David his master's wives. David had nothing that he wasn't given, except for what he took that he shouldn't have had. God gave David his wives for the same reason He always does, because He is showing favor to that man (Prov. 18:22). Does man obtain favor from God because he pleases the Lord by being macho? My response to that is located between "J" and "L" on your keyboard.
Did Solomon poly up by being alpha? I'm pretty sure he was swimming in snizz by virtue of his status and power, right. But how did he get that? By POINTEDLY not seeking after status and power and asking for wisdom so he could fill the mission he was appointed to do. Everything else he received as a gift because he pleased the Lord with what he asked for.
Or what about Boaz, the theoretical polygamist? He had all the predatory alpha instincts of a fuzzy hamster. Beta chump sending some hottie gifts all the time without making her put out. And then making sure he played by the rules and saw if anybody else wanted her first. And when she showed interest in him he broke frame like the worst kind of blue-pilled n00b and blessed her for not going after younger guys.
Maybe the alpha male polygamist we're looking for is Esau. Strong. Outdoor sportsman. Doesn't take crap from anyone. Not a mama's boy.
He's got a serious problem recognizing which end is up with his priorities. Which is sort of what I think of Christians trying to red-pill up as a route to poly. I thought godliness with contentment was great gain? Nah. Screw contentment, right?
A man knows what he wants and goes out and gets it. My will be done.
My understanding is that a woman is a gift and that God is the giver. You have not because you ask not. You ask, but do not receive, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Do you think game or butching up is a shortcut around that?
Do you think you're going to squat and lift your way into worthiness? God wants to give you a bunch of his sweet and wonderful daughters because of your gains, brah?
I'm being maybe a touch more sarcastic than I should be. I'm on board with red pill stuff. I really am. Really shakes the mind from the feminist fog we've been steeped in for so long.
But this is upside down. The Master said seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.
Really, if attractiveness comes before loving and caring and praying, then I have no fellowship with you. Be careful of what you put first, because second place isn't good enough for some things.
GloryGirl
Member
I have been considering this thread a great deal. For what it's worth, my 2 cents all boil down to Christ's command in Luke 6:31 (NLT) "Do to others as you would like them to do to you."
So, gentlemen, if you want you want your wife to play mind games with you, go ahead and follow the advice of the OP. If you want her to truly love and respect you as an adult, with honest and open communication, well then honestly and openly love and respect her.
So, gentlemen, if you want you want your wife to play mind games with you, go ahead and follow the advice of the OP. If you want her to truly love and respect you as an adult, with honest and open communication, well then honestly and openly love and respect her.
Regarding the men you mention Slumberfreeze, I would contend that they didn't have "game" simply because "game" is faking it and they didn't need to fake it. They were the real deal.
Jacob travelled from Canaan to the middle of Syria, probably alone (no small feat). He then managed Laban's flocks so well that Laban became rich. He then from the dregs of Laban's flocks that he received in wages built up his own wealth even greater than Laban's. He became the leader of a sizeable tribe with many servants. He was a REAL leader, a successful and wealthy businessman, with the ability to readily support the four wives he acquired along the way.
Abraham travelled from Ur to Canaan, leading a large band of relatives, servants, and flocks. He too built his wealth and became a mighty and wealthy man. He too had the ability to provide well for wives.
David was a hard worker and brave warrior, with great faith, from the time he was a boy. He became a general and a wise military leader of men. He then became king through YHWH's anointing - but was also recognised as king by the men of the nation and asked to be king after Saul died.
Solomon was such a wise ruler, and in that capacity a wise businessman, that he expanded Israel's wealth to unheard of levels. He had the ability to provide for not just several wives, but a thousand of them.
Boaz was a very wealthy landowner, the master of many servants, a farmer with large fields of grain. He too had the ability to support a fair number of wives.
Esau was a great hunter, but also a capable tribal leader, who ended up the head of a sizeable tribe of his own.
Each of these men had plenty of faults - but each was way above average in their ability to provide for wives. Each was a tribal leader, king, or at least a highly successful businessman with many assets and servants. They were not average men - average men were their servants. They were top of the pecking order. They were the wealthiest men around. They were the man that every woman would look at and want to marry, but more importantly every woman's FATHER would look at and see as a great option for their daughter. Not because they had "game" and could fake anything, but the complete opposite - they were the real deal, and had no need to fake it. Far from having to hunt out women, they had women being offered to them - Laban handed his daughters to Jacob, Ruth threw herself at Boaz, Solomon had neighbouring kings falling over each other to send him wives to make political alliances...
"Game" is the art of making women believe you are this sort of man. I don't think we should be learning "game". Rather, we should be learning to actually be this sort of man. That's a whole lot harder, but it's the real deal. And to be honest, few men will actually get there - today also, most men will be the employees of men like this.
In Biblical times, was it only those top men who were polygamous? We can't really know how many wives the average poor man had, but it's highly probable that the greater the economic success, the greater the number of wives, and most poor men would have been monogamous. There is an important practical correlation here that we should bear in mind, and not seek wives without having the real means to truly support them.
Jacob travelled from Canaan to the middle of Syria, probably alone (no small feat). He then managed Laban's flocks so well that Laban became rich. He then from the dregs of Laban's flocks that he received in wages built up his own wealth even greater than Laban's. He became the leader of a sizeable tribe with many servants. He was a REAL leader, a successful and wealthy businessman, with the ability to readily support the four wives he acquired along the way.
Abraham travelled from Ur to Canaan, leading a large band of relatives, servants, and flocks. He too built his wealth and became a mighty and wealthy man. He too had the ability to provide well for wives.
David was a hard worker and brave warrior, with great faith, from the time he was a boy. He became a general and a wise military leader of men. He then became king through YHWH's anointing - but was also recognised as king by the men of the nation and asked to be king after Saul died.
Solomon was such a wise ruler, and in that capacity a wise businessman, that he expanded Israel's wealth to unheard of levels. He had the ability to provide for not just several wives, but a thousand of them.
Boaz was a very wealthy landowner, the master of many servants, a farmer with large fields of grain. He too had the ability to support a fair number of wives.
Esau was a great hunter, but also a capable tribal leader, who ended up the head of a sizeable tribe of his own.
Each of these men had plenty of faults - but each was way above average in their ability to provide for wives. Each was a tribal leader, king, or at least a highly successful businessman with many assets and servants. They were not average men - average men were their servants. They were top of the pecking order. They were the wealthiest men around. They were the man that every woman would look at and want to marry, but more importantly every woman's FATHER would look at and see as a great option for their daughter. Not because they had "game" and could fake anything, but the complete opposite - they were the real deal, and had no need to fake it. Far from having to hunt out women, they had women being offered to them - Laban handed his daughters to Jacob, Ruth threw herself at Boaz, Solomon had neighbouring kings falling over each other to send him wives to make political alliances...
"Game" is the art of making women believe you are this sort of man. I don't think we should be learning "game". Rather, we should be learning to actually be this sort of man. That's a whole lot harder, but it's the real deal. And to be honest, few men will actually get there - today also, most men will be the employees of men like this.
In Biblical times, was it only those top men who were polygamous? We can't really know how many wives the average poor man had, but it's highly probable that the greater the economic success, the greater the number of wives, and most poor men would have been monogamous. There is an important practical correlation here that we should bear in mind, and not seek wives without having the real means to truly support them.
And that is a hard pill for most of us to swallow. I will most likely never be a Nathan or an Andrew.
I think I have to unreservedly agree with that. My distaste of this subject is not rooted in my displeasure that power, status, wealth, industriousness and all around maleness is effective in attracting women. My stance is that a man who industriously seeks power, status, and wealth for his end goal * of attracting more women is engaged in the weirdest form of hypocritical idolatry. Idolatry, because on the throne of his heart is a statue of an idealized version of himself surrounded by adoring females. Hypocrisy, because of all the things a Red Pilled man detests, a man who is ruled by women tops the list. And yet the thought of women drives him onward to self improvement in a way that the Blood of Christ has not.
* bold and underlined so as not to be missed. I distrust seekers of power, wealth and status also; but not all motives are the same. A man who seeks power to bring justice to an unjust land, for example, is misguided (IMO) but I wouldn't try to paint him as an idolater. Hopefully that's clear enough.
Still unable to disagree with you.
Word.
If we replaced game with "Being the kind of honest, hard-working, faith driven man that a father would be pleased to give his daughter as a possible second wife to"...
well then I would just have a real hard time getting huffy about it.
I close with some of the verses that I've tried to live by (albeit for reasons not pertaining to this thread)
1 Timothy 5:1-2 Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity.
I got distracted after sit on a throne surrounded by adoring women. What did I miss?
Eristhophanes
Member
Who gets to decide what the man's motivations are? That which is not of faith is sin, but we are commanded not to judge another in such matters because before his own master he will stand or fall.
First you say anyone doing so because he seeks a particular reward (more women) is an idolater. Then you say you distrust anyone, regardless of their motivation. Ambition and a desire to be great is not a sin. Yet, you say the person who works "industriously" to achieve that ambition is an idolator if you don't agree with their motivation and not worthy of trust no matter what their motivation is. Really?
And yet you were not given the authority to "paint him" as anything. In making these statements are you not judging your brothers based on not just their actions but their motivations as well? I ask of you the same question Paul asked: "Who are you to judge the servant of another?" As James asked: "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy, but who are you to judge your neighbor?"
Psalm 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
Trust comes slowly to me. Especially trust for human beings, because I know what is in their hearts.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
I'm not alone in that opinion, I learned it from someone...
John 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men
So while I wasn't quite making the point that I distrust 'anyone regardless of their motivation'. It is certainly true! I gleefully and laughingly admit it.
But it is ESPECIALLY true of ambitious men. Ambitious for what? Money, so they can increase their SMV?
Does it even matter what they want money for?
1 Timothy 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
Power and status?
Mark 10:43-44 “But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.
The ambition to be great seems ok, but the appropriate path seems to be self abasement, which is probably not what you have in mind.
But you disagree with my labeling of people, eh?
1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or verbally abusive, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person.
You do understand, that I have to somehow determine whether or not a fellow believer is greedy or an idolater before I can determine whether or not I am allowed to associate with him? If you think the process of determining these things and refusal to associate with them counts as judging.... well then I think I must disagree.
Trust comes slowly to me. Especially trust for human beings, because I know what is in their hearts.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
I'm not alone in that opinion, I learned it from someone...
John 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men
So while I wasn't quite making the point that I distrust 'anyone regardless of their motivation'. It is certainly true! I gleefully and laughingly admit it.
But it is ESPECIALLY true of ambitious men. Ambitious for what? Money, so they can increase their SMV?
Does it even matter what they want money for?
1 Timothy 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
Power and status?
Mark 10:43-44 “But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.
The ambition to be great seems ok, but the appropriate path seems to be self abasement, which is probably not what you have in mind.
But you disagree with my labeling of people, eh?
1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or verbally abusive, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person.
You do understand, that I have to somehow determine whether or not a fellow believer is greedy or an idolater before I can determine whether or not I am allowed to associate with him? If you think the process of determining these things and refusal to associate with them counts as judging.... well then I think I must disagree.
Eristhophanes
Member
Yes and no. All Christians must make up their own mind and live with their own heart and conscience about how they will act and that's one thing. As to you, when you talk about the choice to "paint" someone publicly according to your perceptions, specifically about issues that are not sinful, I very much disagree with you because that authority was not given to you. In fact, it was forbidden to you as an individual.
According to the commands of Paul and James, we are to NOT judge, while according to the instruction of Paul, the body of believers is to judge their own. Jesus explained it (Matthew 18:15-17): If the brother sins*, try to win them over. If they refuse to listen, we are to return to the offender (the one who has sinned*) with witnesses. If they refuse to repent of their sin*, the matter is to be brought before the body of believers for judgment. If the body of believers judges them, they are to be shunned. Yet you, the individual, are commanded not to judge.
*Romans 4:15 and 5:13 explain what sin is, a violation of the Law. Issues of conscience (Romans 14:23 and James 4:17) are private, not subject to the judgment of the assembly unless there is an actual violation. The example Paul used when he instructed the congregation to judge was a violation of the Law (1st Corinthians 5:1). Forbidden at Leviticus 18:8 and Deuteronomy 22:30, punished by death at Leviticus 20:11 and cursed at Deuteronomy 27:20. Four times forbidden, the man had taken his father's wife. The father was still alive (2nd Corinthians 7:12) and this was a case of adulterous incest.
You comments strike me as those of a person who is envious and covetous, but I could be wrong. Your statements are those of someone who does not seek to build up but rather tear down. And you talk of loving people. You talk of hypocrisy... and then you said this:
And because Jesus knew all men, you do as well? The hubris that's packed into that is phenomenal because you are not Jesus. Jesus is the only Lord and Lawgiver and I repeat the Apostle James' question: "Slumberfreeze, who are you to judge your neighbor?"
You are NOT Jesus.
A temptation is just that, being tempted to do something that is not right. Note that the power and status merely open the door to such temptations and possibilities, but they are not something to bring before the assembly. There is no sin in being rich or powerful or to hold high status. Neither is ambition a sin.
First all ambition is bad and because Jesus knew the hearts of men, somehow you have the authority to judge them. Then we see that ambition to rise within the church isn't so bad, but within the church the one who wishes to be first shall be everyone's servant.
And from that you get the idea that outside the church... Slumberfreeze will judge.
Do you not understand the position you have "gleefully and laughingly" staked out here?
Nopers! But I am super willing to take His word on it!
It's not every day that my hubris gets complimented like that. Is that...? It is! My hubris is actually blushing!
Enough of your honeyed words. You should stop beating around the bush and just call me out for what I really am... a big meanie head.
Merely he says. He says this thing to me like we're supposed to be opening doors for temptation. Do we pray not to be led into temptation, because we can walk into it just fine on our own TYVM? Aren't we supposed to watch and pray, that we enter not into temptation? It says we fall into temptation AND A SNARE. If you desire to be rich you step in a snare. AND into many FOOLISH and HURTFUL lusts. What exactly is it he's advocating for here?
The verse before 1 Timothy 6:9 says "But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that." Is it wise, indeed, to answer "No I won't!"?
I understand my position and hold it with rock solid certitude. Your attempt to disrupt it is as light and fluffy as ad hominem flavored cotton candy.
Let's not do this guys. Its getting personal now.
Yes, maybe a teeny bit. But I'm a little glad because it gives me a proper segway back to the whole judging thing , because this is a doctrine that is personally applied.
If I invite Zec over for dinner, and he knows I'm under suspicion for being envious and covetous because he heard it from someone he respects, he is going to have to do some thinking. He is going to have to judge for himself whether or not scripture even allows him to accept, because a covetous brother is not to be associated with. I might object to the information he's receiving, or object to his conclusions; but I can't really object to the process he goes through to determine whether or not I'm a covetous man, or an idolater. I have no grounds to quote James against him, he's under Paul's order to designate me or exonerate me before he can consider whether or not he's even allowed. For that matter, he has to determine whether I'm a 'reviler' or 'verbally abusive' or if I'm just utilizing proper and admirable masculine debating tactics.
But let's be clear about words: The command in 1cor5:11 is to not associate with the 'covetous' or 'greedy' depending on translation. The compound word is PLEON-EKTES, meaning "holding more; one who is eager for gain". So the Paul tells Timothy to be content with food and clothing, and he tells the Corinthians not to associate with people who are eager for gain. Between the positive and negative commands, I don't know where ambition fits in.
Since the word ambition isn't even in the bible, it seems like a real grey area. (unless you have an NIV) Except it's not:
am·bi·tion
1- a strong desire to do or to achieve something, typically requiring determination and hard work.
2- desire and determination to achieve success.
Ambition isn't some nebulous loophole word. It's a specific kind of desire. And desire is all over the bible. We're told what to desire, and in what order we should desire it. And we're told us what not to desire. There are a couple words translated desire (that I know of) in our bible, and they are both words that are either good or bad depending on what they are desiring. They tend to be translated as 'lust' or 'covet' by the translators when the thing being desired is disapproved of, but they are the same word that a man would desire a good and noble thing.
It is an instructive study to see how orego (G3713) and epithymia (G1939) are applied, and how they are used in conjunction with wealth, and see what things are good to be desired and what things are not. Or Zeloo (G2206) for that matter.
Did I miss any?
If I invite Zec over for dinner, and he knows I'm under suspicion for being envious and covetous because he heard it from someone he respects, he is going to have to do some thinking. He is going to have to judge for himself whether or not scripture even allows him to accept, because a covetous brother is not to be associated with. I might object to the information he's receiving, or object to his conclusions; but I can't really object to the process he goes through to determine whether or not I'm a covetous man, or an idolater. I have no grounds to quote James against him, he's under Paul's order to designate me or exonerate me before he can consider whether or not he's even allowed. For that matter, he has to determine whether I'm a 'reviler' or 'verbally abusive' or if I'm just utilizing proper and admirable masculine debating tactics.
But let's be clear about words: The command in 1cor5:11 is to not associate with the 'covetous' or 'greedy' depending on translation. The compound word is PLEON-EKTES, meaning "holding more; one who is eager for gain". So the Paul tells Timothy to be content with food and clothing, and he tells the Corinthians not to associate with people who are eager for gain. Between the positive and negative commands, I don't know where ambition fits in.
Since the word ambition isn't even in the bible, it seems like a real grey area. (unless you have an NIV) Except it's not:
am·bi·tion
1- a strong desire to do or to achieve something, typically requiring determination and hard work.
2- desire and determination to achieve success.
Ambition isn't some nebulous loophole word. It's a specific kind of desire. And desire is all over the bible. We're told what to desire, and in what order we should desire it. And we're told us what not to desire. There are a couple words translated desire (that I know of) in our bible, and they are both words that are either good or bad depending on what they are desiring. They tend to be translated as 'lust' or 'covet' by the translators when the thing being desired is disapproved of, but they are the same word that a man would desire a good and noble thing.
It is an instructive study to see how orego (G3713) and epithymia (G1939) are applied, and how they are used in conjunction with wealth, and see what things are good to be desired and what things are not. Or Zeloo (G2206) for that matter.
Did I miss any?