Re-post, on demand:

[Mark C]

Original title:

Why 'patriarchs' who Pick and Choose WILL FAIL at headship in polygyny​

This should be of universal interest - but it's here in the ghetto for obvious reasons. Will honest discussion from Scripture be allowed on THIS topic?

Here's how the discussion starts:

Wife: You just want another wife for sex.

Husband: No, darling, but God never changed His commandments about marriage in the Bible...men did!

Wife: Oh, REALLY? Then why don't we keep His Sabbath?

If you can't answer that question, you lose.

And then be prepared for all the rest:

Why don't we honor His "Appointed Times?" Like Passover, Sukkot, and Yom Kippur?
Why do we eat pork when He said not to? Did He change THAT, too?
And don't even THINK about dealing with "money"...

 

[MeganC]

I believe I had responded to this the first time you posted it.

 

[Mark C]

For reference, and readers are welcome to compare:

In the thread you’re so obsessed over your main question was how someone could support polygyny and not also support a seventh day sabbath and I think the Feasts. That might have been your only question. That is a clear violation of the clearly promulgated rules, and on top of that it’s not even a good or interesting question.

1) It is NOT a "violation of the clearly promulgated rules." This is the Ghetto, and it is a place, allegedly, where His Torah can actually be discussed as such. If His Sabbath isn't part of that, you have a comprehension problem.

2) If you don't think it's an interesting question: GREAT. Then stay the #3LL out of the discussion.

3) My real question was, when this situation occurs - and it will - can those who need to ANSWER it?

 

[Mark C]

I believe I had responded to this the first time you posted it.

I never saw it...surprise.

 

[MeganC]

Then why don't we keep His Sabbath?

Keeping the Sabbath is for me more of a personal thing than a LAW to be rigidly enforced by authorities.

Living on a ranch and farm there are some things that don't care what day it is on the calendar.

Animals need to be fed, food needs to be cooked, certain fruits and veggies have to be harvested when it's time, etc.

In this house our Sabbath more or less starts around 7pm on Friday. We gather for our family night and that's a practice we apparently picked up from LDS friends. No computers, no toys, we all sit together and play games, watch movies, enjoy snacks, and enjoy each other. Saturday is chore time and also half the day is set aside for something fun. Sunday is fellowship followed by an afternoon of rest.

And here's my bit of bitching about Sunday being a 'day of rest': I'm still usually up at 5am to bake bread and get breakfast on. If there's ironing to be done before fellowship then I'm doing it, diapers get changed, messes get cleaned, animals still get fed and cared for. Ditto for my sisters, they're all working too.

But in the course of Friday night, part of Saturday, and part of Sunday we have our Sabbath as best we can.

Other people can devote a Saturday or Sunday to their Sabbath and I am happy for them.

 

[MeganC]

Why do we eat pork when He said not to?

The reasoning behind that rule is questionable.

And the pig, because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. - Deut. 14:8

"because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud" ???

Sorry, but so what?

Just me but I like a good pork roast and will happily enjoy it because:

I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. - Romans 14:14

 

[Mark C]

Keeping the Sabbath is for me more of a personal thing than a LAW to be rigidly enforced by authorities.

As you probably know, I object to the poor translation, "law" for that very reason...

Living on a ranch and farm there are some things that don't care what day it is on the calendar.

Animals need to be fed, food needs to be cooked, certain fruits and veggies have to be harvested when it's time, etc.

True, and we live on a ranch as well. And do our best to rest on His Sabbath. (And I do note that He makes His instruction on that clear - from "choose life!" to "what if your ox falls in a ditch.")

I have no problem with people making their own decisions - never have. I personally contend that the choice is made by the "head of the house."

I do have a problem with their not be able to TALK ABOUT THEM.

 

[Mark C]

I didn't mention that to discuss food so much as to point out that to a woman (and they exist, as we know) who think that a man only wants another wife for sex, and that he might be "picking and choosing" from what parts of Scripture to live by, and which to ignore -

he had better be able to answer HER. Because he will have to give other answers at some point, too.

But - since you asked:

"because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud" ???

Sorry, but so what?

It means said animal has multiple stomachs (to "science," but so what ) and thus is meant to eat and digest grass, as opposed to dead things. They don't have enzymes like "cadaverene," and "putrescene" in their meat.

 

[FollowingHim]

I have chosen to unlock this thread, because honestly, when looking at this issue from a Hebraic perspective (which this section exists for), the argument is valid. This is the fundamental argument for polygamy from a Torah-observant perspective. Whether the TO perspective is correct or not is obviously another matter, but not a matter we are debating.

Having said that, the point is so obvious it stands alone and hardly needs a single reply, let alone a long discussion, so my hope is that this thread will die a natural death.

This thread need not be deleted at this stage Zec, but on the same note if there are any gloating style comments from you Mark in response to this decision of mine it will hit the trash bin faster than you can sneeze.

 

[steve]

point is so obvious it stands alone

Bingo

 

[PeteR]

Original title:

Why 'patriarchs' who Pick and Choose WILL FAIL at headship in polygyny​

This should be of universal interest - but it's here in the ghetto for obvious reasons. Will honest discussion from Scripture be allowed on THIS topic?

Here's how the discussion starts:

Wife: You just want another wife for sex.

Husband: No, darling, but God never changed His commandments about marriage in the Bible...men did!

Wife: Oh, REALLY? Then why don't we keep His Sabbath?

If you can't answer that question, you lose.

And then be prepared for all the rest:

Why don't we honor His "Appointed Times?" Like Passover, Sukkot, and Yom Kippur?
Why do we eat pork when He said not to? Did He change THAT, too?
And don't even THINK about dealing with "money"...

Brilliant argument that precisely explains why many which find polygyny eventually find the rest of Yah's Instructions. He is consistent and we can't afford inconsistency or holes in our defenses. If polygyny still stands, so does Shabbat, feasts, food, etc... I just try to encourage people to take it slow and honestly study out each item.

Blessings.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Brilliant argument that precisely explains why many which find polygyny eventually find the rest of Yah's Instructions. He is consistent and we can't afford inconsistency or holes in our defenses. If polygyny still stands, so does Shabbat, feasts, food, etc... I just try to encourage people to take it slow and honestly study out each item.

Blessings.

I missed both the brilliance and the precise explanation. The hypothetical wife’s hypothetical question would be easily answered by pointing out that Acts 15 prohibition on porneia brings all of the sexual and “marriage” laws forward into the New Testament era for all believers.

That same list does not bring forward rules about pork or feast days. Even though that list does restrict some foods; blood, things strangled and meat sacrificed to idols.

Why would one need to make an appeal to the sabbath and feast days to defend polygyny? That seems like an overly contrived and forced defense of the sabbath and feast days; the opposite of brilliance and precise explanation.

 

[PeteR]

Most, if not all, polygyny apologetics depend on the continuity of Yah's Instructions right into the 'new testament'. I'm sorry you missed that detail, but it's critical to Mark's argument... if those (the polygyny) laws are still valid (and entirely absent from the Acts 15 starter pack), then maybe... just maybe... the rest deserve attention and closer study...

I missed both the brilliance and the precise explanation. The hypothetical wife’s hypothetical question would be easily answered by pointing out that Acts 15 prohibition on porneia brings all of the sexual and “marriage” laws forward into the New Testament era for all believers.

That same list does not bring forward rules about pork or feast days. Even though that list does restrict some foods; blood, things strangled and meat sacrificed to idols.

Why would one need to make an appeal to the sabbath and feast days to defend polygyny? That seems like an overly contrived and forced defense of the sabbath and feast days; the opposite of brilliance and precise explanation.

''Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.''

 

[The Revolting Man]

Most, if not all, polygyny apologetics depend on the continuity of Yah's Instructions right into the 'new testament'.

I'm sorry you missed that detail, but it's critical to Mark's argument..

I didn’t miss that at all but that wasn’t Mark’s argument. His argument was that if you accept poly you have to accept the feasts and the sabbaths. A categorically false statement since we have Hellenized believers who practice poly.

if those (the polygyny) laws are still valid (and entirely absent from the Acts 15 starter pack),

They are not absent, they are included in the fornication umbrella, which was central to my argument.

just maybe... the rest deserve attention and closer study...

Again, not his argument so the brilliance is lost on me…

'Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,

Ah, but which command were those. We know it wasn’t all of the commands because Christ never had any of His temple sacrifices handled according to the Law….

 

[Mark C]

I didn’t miss that at all but that wasn’t Mark’s argument. His argument was that if you accept poly you have to accept the feasts and the sabbaths.

Funny how YOU tell people what MY argument was after not letting me make it for myself! And, for the record, you are wrong. And I'm surprised you haven't seen it, since you tell me I make it too often:

He "changes not." He is Consistent. He did not remove "one yod or tiddle" from His Word.

If His character is NOT CONSISTENT, then we do not have a Savior.

 

[Mark C]

And I stand by what I wrote in the first place.

NOT ONE of the women I have ever heard ask a similar question to the one I hypothetically posed would be convinced by a flawed "Acts 15" claim about 'porneia', much less other "Hellenized polygamists."

 

[The Revolting Man]

Funny how YOU tell people what MY argument was after not letting me make it for myself! And, for the record, you are wrong. And I'm surprised you haven't seen it, since you tell me I make it too often:

He "changes not." He is Consistent. He did not remove "one yod or tiddle" from His Word.

If His character is NOT CONSISTENT, then we do not have a Savior.

Part of your problem Mark is that you either don’t think through the implication of your statements or you’re trying to hide the ball; I suspect it’s healthy doses of both. In this case I’m convinced it’s more an attempt to hide the ball but there is a lot of failing to think through it too, at least in your follow up obfuscation.

That’s one of the pitfalls of being convinced you’re the smartest man you know; your contempt for others intelligence always shines through. Let’s parse your statement though shall we?

Oh wait, there’s nothing to parse. A lot of us just spent an entire weekend with women struggling to accept polygyny who never once asked about the sabbath, feast days or dietary laws. It’s a ridiculous argument. Especially since polygyny was practiced BEFORE feast days and dietary laws were issued.

You are not trying to justify polygyny, you are trying to advance Torah keeping and it would be a transparent lie to claim otherwise. You want to try and make polygyny the exclusive jurisdiction of the Law so you can try and force people into keeping the Law.

And I don’t think you’re doing that because you have any great desire to see people reconciled to their Creator as much as you just want them to anoint you as their high priest.

We can point to all sorts of scripture; both old and new, that is quite explicit about not subjecting non-Israelites to the Law. In fact if you claim to be a Law keeper you need to find something in the Law that says gentiles should keep the Laws delivered a Sinai.

However we have direct scripture imposing the Torah sexual code on all followers of Jesus. We don’t have to talk about the sabbath, or feast days or dietary laws to support polygyny. We can talk about marriage and sex laws. That wouldn’t allow you to try and claim some kind of priestly mantle though.

Your approach would drive people away from polygyny by tying it to ideas that they will never accept; that they have to keep the Law. It will in fact drive women away from keeping the Law if they’re being so led because it will give them an excuse to reject polygyny if they’re so inclined.

As usual you are being a myopic destroyer of the very things you claim to want to promote.

 

[The Revolting Man]

And I stand by what I wrote in the first place.

NOT ONE of the women I have ever heard ask a similar question to the one I hypothetically posed would be convinced by a flawed "Acts 15" claim about 'porneia', much less other "Hellenized polygamists."

This is a hyperbolic and inaccurate statement; either that or you don’t talk to many intellectually rigorous women. Either way it’s a statement based on nothing, not even an anecdote. You assume the argument wouldn’t work because you never thought of it and so haven’t tried it.

And it’s not a flawed claim. It’s quite iron clad. Everything we can REQUIRE of a follower of Jesus is contained in Acts 15. Therefore the definition of porneia has to include the Old Testament sexual teachings; otherwise homosexuality, incest and bestiality would be allowed in the church as though things are nowhere condemned (at least not directly) in the New Testament.

A Hellenized believer has to accept that the marriage Laws did not somehow get fulfilled and were brought forward into the New Testament era or they have to accept that teenagers having sex without a license have to be disfellowshipped but all manner of perversions are allowed to remain in fellowship.

It’s been a quite compelling argument with most people I’ve used it on.

 

[Mark C]

Everything we can REQUIRE of a follower of Jesus is contained in Acts 15.

Says who? Not the text. You didn't even bother to read v. 21, which provides the required context: They can come and learn the REST of His Instruction, His 'torah' - every sabbath, in any city.

Enough already. I made the argument, and you repeat here what has been beat to death OUTSIDE the Ghetto even.

And since when do we not seek a second witness? If anybody else made these repetitive arguments you'd have locked the thread already.

 

[Mark C]

As for this sneering, condescending, self-serving CRAP, it is offensive even in the Ghetto. You should know better.

Part of your problem Mark is that you either don’t think through the implication of your statements or you’re trying to hide the ball; I suspect it’s healthy doses of both. In this case I’m convinced it’s more an attempt to hide the ball but there is a lot of failing to think through it too, at least in your follow up obfuscation.

That’s one of the pitfalls of being convinced you’re the smartest man you know; your contempt for others intelligence always shines through. Let’s parse your statement though shall we?

Oh wait, there’s nothing to parse.

I reported it. You'll delete that, but should get a 48 hour time-out.