• 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.

What is your response when asked

Paul not the apostle

Paul not the apostle

Member
Real Person
about why any man would want more than one wife. There are some of my friends that are slowly coming around to the concept of this not being a sin, but I think that the secondary response is to say, "ok, even if it is not a sin, why would you even want this situation?" I know that they aren't intending a personal insult even though it does suggest that there is something wrong with a wife or a husband, like maybe they don't satisfy each other, etc.
 
Why would any man want more than one child? Doesn't one "meet all your needs"? How could you love more than one anyway?

The implication is no less insulting.

My wives are both wonderful, unique, talented, loving, and very DIFFERENT individuals. How could I NOT love each of them?




Blessings,

Mark
 
Very nice answer, Mark - and a very important one, too! I suppose that people raised in the monogamy-only culture of the West just can't conceive of a man really, truly loving more than one woman.

You know, another answer might be, because it is in the masculine nature to desire and to love more than one woman. Could it be that just as humanity has an innate sense of right and wrong that we also have the Dominion Mandate imprinted on our core being?

At any rate, speaking purely practically, the more wives a man has helping him to fulfil that mandate, the more successfuly he will be. Not only because there can be more children born into the family but also because there are more hands to help with all the work - the more strands in a cord, the stronger it is, isn't it?
 
While :) and Marks answers may be truthful, they are exactly the sort that alienates sympathy and tends to promote hostility in our current cultural environment.

Mark, you have a very good answer, but it is very likely the audience will automatically react badly when comparing a child and spouse. While you're comparison is accurate, you wont have time to explain in detail exactly what you mean before most people will over-react in a way that shuts out anything else you may have to say. While it may be possible to use that comparison well in some circumstance, I have never seen anything but immediate and harsh backlash when viewing the public discussions of others on the internet.

:), the term Dominion Mandate will immediately alienate sympathy and confirm the worst in a standard audiences minds. What that phrase means to you will be a far cry from what it means to them. Now, I understand what you mean and would tend to agree with it, but its quite esoteric. To the lay person dominion=abuse or dictatorship, even the term Dominion of Canada (The proper name for my country) confuses people at first because they do not in general know what the word dominion actually means. On the other hand, the imagery of a three strand cord is something people would probably grab pretty well.

I hope I don't come off rude. I'm trying to point out the difference between saying why you would want to be a polygynist and what would be tactful to say to a curious (as presented here) or hostile audience. If I where to suggest an answer it would be "Its the way my life led me." while that doesn't per se answer the question, you're audience must either accept it or ask about you're life. Once they ask about that you're free to tell in detail the things that led you to that point, and you have lots of time to turn a curious or hostile audience into a sympathetic one just by speaking honesty with conviction.
 
While :) and Marks answers may be truthful, they are exactly the sort that alienates sympathy...
Click to expand...

Actually, context wasn't specified, Tlaloc.

In my own experience (and since I have chosen to avoid Oprah or 60 Minutes ;) ) such questions are generally asked one-on-one in person, in which case my answer - from vocal emphasis to facial expression - reflects an understanding of the individual. Of primary importance to me is whether or not the individual asking the question has a Biblical mindset; everything else follows from that.

When it comes to online responses, where non-verbal cues are limited to the 'Smilies' in the RH column, things are different. :roll: In the case of this particular forum (which is a wonderful blessing), a Biblical worldview is assumed. The other forum where I have spent considerable time over a period of years is WND columnist Vox Day's "Vox Popoli". In this case, I have found -- again, given the context of the media -- that a more "hard core" approach suits my own style. There is usually plenty of space for follow-up when appropriate.

There are lots of other answers that may be apropos, based on the audience. But, as I think about it more, I'm not sure that "sympathy" ever really had much to do with Yeshua's statements of Truth, either...
 
Mark C.

I see what you mean, I assumed the context was the friends of PaulNTA whom where coming around slowly, but that is not necessarily what he was asking in the OP. Its also truly said that context is essential to an answer. As for the last line, I should be clear that by sympathy I mean strictly "harmony of\or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another. " or "the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions. " not pity (as it is used in the vulgar). To that end gaining sympathy (In terms of agreement and loyalty) is exactly what we're trying to foster for our Lord.

You're notes on the problems with communication over the internet are received wholeheartedly. In person you can say 'you idiot" and it can be endearing, but there is no such luxury online. Last week actually I was talking to someone on messenger who was tending to Old Earthism and he was becoming exceedingly hostile, but when I had him over for lunch a few days later much more progress could be made because I could easily abate his hostility.

You're right that if you have a 1:1 situation with lots of time there is no particular advantage to my suggestion or any particular disadvantage to you'rs (Though I would speculate that :)'s might end a great deal of those conversations abruptly for the degree it is prone to being misunderstood). I was thinking along the lines of a small group of people\friends where it would be difficult to get a grasp on a conversation if you where to lose it, so setting people up to ask you to talk till you're done would be a great advantage. Online the odds are that peoples apathy would leave the question unasked and thus a more hardliner approach would no doubt be in order (I haven't really used anything else online anyway, perhaps the occasional feint)

Ultimately, as you noted, it depends on the exact audience (By that I mean the people who are hearing what you have to say, even if its one) and you're circumstances of speaking to them.



Edit: I meant to note one of the more pernicious reasons talking about children may have a bad effect. Both up here and in the States there is a campaign against children. Public school teachers are free too and very often do try to hammer in that overpopulation and having kids is the root of all the problems in the world (I am not exaggerating, it was in full effect when I was in school in Arizona) There are, frighteningly enough, people who think that having more than one child is not only a bad thing in general, but bad for the kids who don't get as much attention or whatever. The long held anti-polygyny argument is an anti kid argument now too... What a world we've come too...

That doesn't have anything to do with this conversation in context, its more of a lament than anything.
 
I myself had used the child to wife comparison. Heck I even used it with my wife when trying to defend the polygyny to my wife when I first told her about it. It is quite a useful comparison because everone esspecially women can relate. When dealing with atheists I use this one.

If there was 1 woman and 10 men on a desserted island in 10 month how many children can you have?
Now lets say there was 1 man and 10 women on a desserted island in 10 months how many children can you have?

The Evolutionists cant argue against it. Even though they really want to. They can immediately see the benifit for only men haveing more then one spouse while invaildating the reciprical arguement for women. I have shut down many a feminist with this arguement. Ironically most feminists are also evolutionists.
 
Its interesting in that you're suggestion backfires in the same way when dealing with the kids are evil group. Perhaps I'm just unfortunate for having to deal with people that twisted more than the average person. Evilutionists of the green-antipeople bent would see what you're saying as an argument for polyandry and against polygamy. Think people like Simpson's author Grening who constantly belittles poor people with lots of kids (and old people). To them sex is WAY more important than kids, and their ideas seep through to a lot of averedge people I see because they voice it so much both loudly (in school) and subtly (on TV). In general I want to have someone attention before I cross their preconceptions.

I've heard enough to admit the child correlation is a good one with the kind of people you and Mark deal with though. Feminist is such a broad term, there are ones I've delt with where talking about how more women could have more kids would just inflame them to a point of fury, because they hate that women have kids. I'll chaulk this one up to a broader, different audience and give that you guys are right in you're methods.

Six, was that last line supposed to say ironically or consequently? :lol:
 
Cute... :)
 
Paul,
A lot of times I tend to have a very scholarly and symantical response to such questions. What I mean by that is that I usually respond with scriptures, historical facts, statistics, etc. I guess sometimes it overwhelms people if they're not really asking in order to understand or they're not being objective.

Paul not the apostle said:
"ok, even if it is not a sin, why would you even want this situation?"
Click to expand...

I usually tell people the benefits of such a marriage such as aiding single mothers, the liberation aspects for women, points on the more efficient aspects, etc. I usually always let them know my true intentions as well in that I'm not wanting a plural marriage, but I'm also not NOT wanting a plural marriage. I'm just simply open to the possibility of being in a plural marriage if I am so led.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top