• 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.

Talking Marriage and Monogamy in the Time of Tiger Woods

Serial monogamy is about the best most of us can pull off, but we would probably be more true to ourselves, and our human nature, if we were more like the bonobos."

Bonobos, by the way, are what some scientists call our "closest cousins"—chimpanzees who share 98 percent of DNA with humans and who mate with the frequency and partner-swapping frenzy of certain golfers.
Click to expand...

Since this was posted for discussion, I just want to point out that it is written with references to evolution, which the last time I checked, we Christians didn't really believe in. And to use this to back up our position on Polygyny would be using evolutionist theories to prove our point. I don't think this is a very good idea. What do we believe in? Should we be using any article regarding polygamy to defend our position, no matter what it says?

SweetLissa
 
sweetlissa said:
What do we believe in? Should we be using any article regarding polygamy to defend our position, no matter what it says?
Click to expand...

Defend our position? No. Interesting observations? Yes. Nature and revelation alike testify of God.

And, it is fun, in a sad way, to see secularists catching on to the sensibility of what God's word says while the churches, once again, rally round to defend their bulwarks of tradition. Galileo comes to mind. Round earth, indeed! Hummmph!
 
I just want to point out that it is written with references to evolution, which the last time I checked, we Christians didn't really believe in
Click to expand...


Cecil's on the right track, Lissa - he's just not nearly as cynical as me :D
...especially when it comes to BS masquerading as "science".

When it comes to the REAL hard-core bad stuff (like evolution, which is nuthin' but Religion) I sometimes quote Lewis Carroll's Red Queen, from Through the Looking Glass. The Queen told Alice that many people have mastered the Art of believing things that just aren't so.

In fact, she said, "I can believe six impossible things before breakfast!"

Believing in things that simply "aren't so" requires cultivation of the ability to believe lies -- twisting the facts to fit the 'theory'. It angers them that sometimes the process is so difficult...

God made men and women different. He Wrote rules for us, which reflect those differences. Observing things that are the EFFECTS of that fact, and attempting to concoct stories to explain the obvious, in SPITE of the true, requires quite a bit of effort!

If you think about it, it's no TOO much different than the process used by their Evolutionary Cousins, the "churchianity" types who like to pick and choose from Scripture. They must twist what the Word says in order to justify their own equally pagan traditions -- like Monogamania.


Blessings,

Mark
 
I just want to say one thing. Nathan has repeatedly mentioned the fact that if a first wife is struggling with the concept of poly (or a family for that matter) and she finds this board, what is she going to think. I believe that someone who is trying to prove us wrong in the context of her own family will take the varied beliefs from these articles and say to her husband, "They don't even know what they believe in."

SweetLissa
 
I am a bit to conservative to use any quotes from the field of Psychiartry to back up any of my positions. To me, this is the equivalent of looking to a Psychiatrist to prove that being born again doesn't make one go insane. Moreover, using animals to support my position moves into secular humanism. There are animals that are polygamous, but there are animals that eat their offspring. On the other hand, I can place it into the "interesting" shelf of my life, but really, nothing more. Just because a Psychiatrist arrives at a conclusion about polygamy from animals does not make it good science, natural revelation, or good thinking - it merely means she thinks that one species of monkey is on par with humans. She could have equally said with as much conviction that every parent are naturally babie killers, and in time can learn to eat their young.

I do think that there are conservative Bible believing women that may not appreciate the morality of the article, which suggests that "men cannot help themselves", therefore, they should allowed to be polygamous. We, Bible believing men, may have had times in our lives that we could not help ourselves, however, God's Word makes it abundantly clear that if we walk in the Spirit, we will be able to have "self-control" in all areas of our lives. Polygamy is not about men having no ability to control themselves, but rather to channel our desires within the guidance of the Spirit and the Word.
 
I believe that someone who is trying to prove us wrong in the context of her own family will take the varied beliefs from these articles and say to her husband, "They don't even know what they believe in."
Click to expand...


That is correct, Lissa, and you make an excellent point. (And I think Jay's summary is excellent, BTW.)

But there is a bigger issue, and all of these things point in that direction. There is SO much deception in the world, that it is a difficult hurdle for ALL of those who seek to "come out of her". To follow Him we must learn to handle those lies. A whole new mindset is ultimately necessary, and the path really is narrow:

"Friendship with the world is enmity with God." (James 4:4)
 
The purpose of posting the article was just to provide discussion. In no way did I mean to imply that it was necessarily an endorsement of everything in the article (secular views, evolution, etc). What I hoped that the article would provoke in conversation is that the discussion of monogamy is something that our culture today in general is having a real issue with.

I had also hoped to point out the world's hypocrisy in the discussion. 8-)

Blessings
 
And this is SUCH an important point that I need to add a bit more.

The MOST effective of all of Satan's lies involve the MIXING of the "clean and the unclean"!

Why is "polygyny" a far better word than "polygamy"?

Because the word "polygamy" INCLUDES the mixing of the clean (polygyny) with the profane (polyandry).

Why does 'the world' want to say "polygamy is only about sex"? Why does the world want to confuse Tiger Woods with God-fearing patriarchs who KNOW what marriage is?

Because Satan will ALWAYS try to blur the lines, and convince HIS people that they can make the decision about what "law" they should be "under" for themselves:
"you can be like God".

It has always been a lie.

And what is required to follow Him is discernment. That is why we should all seek to be "like the Bereans", and search out the Scriptures for OURSELVES, to see if these things be True.

Men who want to lead their house in accord with His will must learn to recognize tradition and idolatry, and separate from them.

Blessings,
Mark

(PS> Very good, Doc -- we doubled...)
 
duelingbanjos said:
"Are we inherently monogamous? Or hard-wired to cheat? It’s time to put a stop to the lies and irresponsibility and start being honest with each other. No matter what we’re really up to."

http://www.theroot.com/views/m-word-tal ... iger-woods

Article link from 'The Root' for discussion.


http://www.theroot.com/views/m-word-tal ... iger-woods


Blessings!
Click to expand...

I agree with the articles when it comes to the connection between evolution and non-monogamous behavior in SOME animals, humans included, but I disagree with some of the conclusions or implications that's suggested. I was hoping that the author would've defined non-monogamous behavior as not just being the result of sexual desires, but in some instances, also involving a person wanting to have additional "committed" (more than just sex-based) relationships, like I hope those who practice Christian polygamy would want.

On another note, there's also a bit of fallacy in calling behavior observed in the animal kingdom, as being what humans are suppose to do or as being natural for them to do as to give approval to it. Yes, in a sense we are a type of animal or species, but that doesn't always mean that humans should be okay with doing everything that non-human species do. Some animals abandon their young and leave them to fend for themselves, so I hope that no one would argue that it's okay for humans to do, as well.
 
The point is that we all see the same thing. The data is clear:

"Monogamy is inherently unnatural in our species," Dr. Julie Holland says without equivocation.

She is right. She thinks the reason is evolution while I think the reason has more to do with Ephesians 5. However since she gets the reason wrong, then she (they) arrive at the wrong conclusion to what to do about the fact (cheat):

"Are we inherently monogamous? Or hard-wired to cheat?"

The interesting and disconcerting thing is the right solution (polygamy, being honest) is not even considered.
 
Good point cnystrom
 
cnystrom said:
The point is that we all see the same thing. The data is clear:

"Monogamy is inherently unnatural in our species," Dr. Julie Holland says without equivocation.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know what everyone sees on this issue. There's also an argument that since same-sex relations are seen in the animal kingdom, that therefore it is natural for humans and yet I've talked to people who have NEVER had any same-sex desires. Then there are exceptions, like those who are "asexual", that is, those who have no sexual attraction to either sex which probably may've been what Jesus and the Apostle Paul were.

cnystrom said:
She is right. She thinks the reason is evolution while I think the reason has more to do with Ephesians 5. However since she gets the reason wrong, then she (they) arrive at the wrong conclusion to what to do about the fact (cheat):

"Are we inherently monogamous? Or hard-wired to cheat?"

The interesting and disconcerting thing is the right solution (polygamy, being honest) is not even considered.
Click to expand...

There is a false dichotomy here. There is monogamy but not all non-monogamous behavior is cheating but can also be polygamy. I'd also question those men who start polygamous relationships just as an attempt to subdue their adulterous desires, it sounds just as bad as gay men who marry women as an attempt to subdue their homosexual desires. I'd wanna work on overcoming those desires before I even think about marrying just one woman, let alone 2.
 
Angel 3 said:
cnystrom said:
The point is that we all see the same thing. The data is clear:

"Monogamy is inherently unnatural in our species," Dr. Julie Holland says without equivocation.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know what everyone sees on this issue. There's also an argument that since same-sex relations are seen in the animal kingdom, that therefore it is natural for humans and yet I've talked to people who have NEVER had any same-sex desires. Then there are exceptions, like those who are "asexual", that is, those who have no sexual attraction to either sex which probably may've been what Jesus and the Apostle Paul were.
Click to expand...

Everyone sees that men are not monogamous by nature. It is almost a stereotype. That is not to say that some men are not monogamous, but a very large percentage are not. My point is that they can say it is because of evolution, and we can say it is because of design. However, in any case institutional monogamy appears to be in danger.

Angel 3 said:
cnystrom said:
She is right. She thinks the reason is evolution while I think the reason has more to do with Ephesians 5. However since she gets the reason wrong, then she (they) arrive at the wrong conclusion to what to do about the fact (cheat):

"Are we inherently monogamous? Or hard-wired to cheat?"

The interesting and disconcerting thing is the right solution (polygamy, being honest) is not even considered.
Click to expand...

There is a false dichotomy here. There is monogamy but not all non-monogamous behavior is cheating but can also be polygamy. I'd also question those men who start polygamous relationships just as an attempt to subdue their adulterous desires, it sounds just as bad as gay men who marry women as an attempt to subdue their homosexual desires. I'd wanna work on overcoming those desires before I even think about marrying just one woman, let alone 2.
Click to expand...

It seems to me from 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is a good and proper outlet for sexual desire. It is not adultery if you are married. ;)
 
Angel 3 said:
cnystrom said:
I'd also question those men who start polygamous relationships just as an attempt to subdue their adulterous desires, it sounds just as bad as gay men who marry women as an attempt to subdue their homosexual desires. I'd wanna work on overcoming those desires before I even think about marrying just one woman, let alone 2.
Click to expand...

It seems to me from 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is a good and proper outlet for sexual desire. It is not adultery if you are married. ;)
Click to expand...

That's true. I should've said "promiscuous" desires which is what the article that was posted in the topic was referencing since the author did not reference polygamy. My view on 1 Cor. 7:2 is that Paul was speaking about avoiding fornication and not promiscuity, otherwise he would've mentioned for each man to have his wives rather than just a wife. Fornication and promiscuity can be variably different because it's one thing for an unmarried man to want to have sex with just one woman that he sees and desires, and it's another thing for him to want to have sex with all types of different women, and of course, a promiscuous man would not be satisfied with just one wife. I recall the NT also mentioning to LOVE your wife, and I would hope that love involves marrying for more than just fulfilling a sexual appetite, or marrying all the women that you can for even more fulfillment of that. Women are not pieces of meat, if they can manage their non-monogamous desires without having to marry multiple men, surely men can find ways to do the same. Now, if a man does decide to take on multiple wives, I would hope that he does so for reasons other than fulfilling his promiscuous appetite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top