Gary it is Awesome brotherhood and genuine love throughout the ministry I plan to go to Passover this year with the family.
-
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.
A shoutout to Pete Rambo by Pastor Dowell
- Thread starter Gary Slaughenhaupt
- Start date
I would love to see this debate happen. As a debate fan I see two problems 1 the topic is too vague so there is not a clear way to judge. I would propose this "In the Whole of God's Word to man He always allows for men to have more then one Marriage at a time." With our side the Affirmative. 2 There would need to be a panel of judges that BOTH sides believe are open to either outcome. I do not see a path around that. But if we could get Dr. White and Dr. Brown's attention I think they would do the debate if no one was payed.
I look forward to meeting you then.
That's good to hear.
I've had run ins with some people claiming to be B.H.I. They were pretty horrible people to be honest. Some of the things they were saying... makes me wonder how they believe in Yehova.
I have consistently framed our side as 'Polygyny is NOT sin.' The topic, as you frame it is pretty close and the panel of judges is what we have in mind. I really, really do not think any Christian, Messianic, or Jewish teacher would honestly take the negative because they know that they can't allow oxygen to this discussion. They know they will lose and they are already having trouble keeping this tamped down in their traditional/cultural religious circles. It would be ministry suicide to lose a big public debate....
Interesting way to put it, Pete. I have lately realized we need to go a LOT further...
...polygyny is not ONLY "not sin," it is "OF Yah" and - as a direct result - as does obedience to His Word in general - can result in great blessing. (Isaiah 4:1-2 is just the start...Look at what has been noted here repeatedly, single moms, "spinsters," women who don't understand why "all the good ones have been taken" is a LIE from the 'pit of Hell.)
Let's turn the crank.
That point is exactly what I boiled down to in my paper (that’s turning into a book). Polygyny is not only NOT sinful. But it’s good, blessed, and needful in some situations. In fact I’d even say there are situations where it’s actually sinful to not take an additional wife. It’s good to emulate God, and taking multiple women is in fact emulation.
I agree, it is just a really tall order to move a negative person that far in a single discussion. Tactically, win the easy ground, solidify, then assault the harder ground.
Indeed, what I've found is that getting someone from "it's a sin" to "ok it's not a sin..." is relatively easy... but the very next stage and reply is usually "yeah, but it's not God's ideal..." and that, is a much more difficult place to get them from and where so many fallacies, between the line arguments, and reading into the text come from.
I don't think there's a need to change their mind on whether it is God's ideal @DustinM. Leave them there, and discuss from that basis - because trying to change THAT is not only very difficult, because it is based on emotion not logic & law so cannot be reasoned away from, but also completely unnecessary.
Because so many situations are not ideal, but still fine and even desirable.
Remarriage of widows is "not ideal", because ideally they would never have become widows in the first place. Pre-fall there could have been no widows, because there was no death. Death is non-ideal, widowhood is non-ideal, and therefore remarriage of widows is non-ideal.
But remarriage is strongly encouraged, even commanded in some cases, and held up in scripture to be a good thing.
So something can be simultaneously not ideal, and also the right thing to do in a certain circumstance.
Many people saying monogamy is ideal will conclude polygamy was only allowed after the fall. So, it was allowed after the fall. God must have allowed it for a reason. What problem(s) of a fallen world does it solve? Do those problems still occur today? Is God's solution to those problems still relevant in those circumstances?
Leave them believing monogamy is God's Ideal. Honestly, you don't know God's mind either - maybe it is! It's irrelevant either way, because absolutely none of us fallible humans can live an ideal life. Don't get sidetracked into having an irrelevant argument you are going to lose and don't need to have anyway. Just move forward into "given you say God has permitted this non-ideal thing to cope with the fall, what does that mean for humans today?".
Because so many situations are not ideal, but still fine and even desirable.
Remarriage of widows is "not ideal", because ideally they would never have become widows in the first place. Pre-fall there could have been no widows, because there was no death. Death is non-ideal, widowhood is non-ideal, and therefore remarriage of widows is non-ideal.
But remarriage is strongly encouraged, even commanded in some cases, and held up in scripture to be a good thing.
So something can be simultaneously not ideal, and also the right thing to do in a certain circumstance.
Many people saying monogamy is ideal will conclude polygamy was only allowed after the fall. So, it was allowed after the fall. God must have allowed it for a reason. What problem(s) of a fallen world does it solve? Do those problems still occur today? Is God's solution to those problems still relevant in those circumstances?
Leave them believing monogamy is God's Ideal. Honestly, you don't know God's mind either - maybe it is! It's irrelevant either way, because absolutely none of us fallible humans can live an ideal life. Don't get sidetracked into having an irrelevant argument you are going to lose and don't need to have anyway. Just move forward into "given you say God has permitted this non-ideal thing to cope with the fall, what does that mean for humans today?".
Well said and I agree. I suppose I wasn't entirely clear in the way I worded it. The gist of what I was saying is that they will argue that it is the ideal, and as a result it is the only thing we are allowed or should do or promote as an option. So getting them from there to what you've described, is very difficult.
I don't ever argue that polygyny/monogamy are God's ideal, I tend to just stick to trying to frame it as what it is, marriage... whether it's 1 wife, 2 or 5 it's just marriage. What is ideal is going to entirely depend on the circumstances on the smallest level (the man and women) all the way up to the societal level (population split, etc)...
The ideal is that every woman below a certain age is with a husband.
Period!!!!
Argue that!
Again, I agree, but not necessarily defensible in front of a three judge panel steeped in western christian feminism.
Juxtaposed against the idea that monogamy is the ideal, it is more defendable.
If monogamy is the 'ideal,' and 'God's Preferred Plan,' because - you know - Adam and Eve -
...I like to point out that Monogamy is thus THE form of marriage by which "sin entered the world," and it also brought forth the First Murderer.
I'm OK with the "ideal" argument, if we do it halfway honestly.
...I like to point out that Monogamy is thus THE form of marriage by which "sin entered the world," and it also brought forth the First Murderer.
I'm OK with the "ideal" argument, if we do it halfway honestly.
When I think about those that fight so hard against poly, I'm reminded of that old saying "so heavenly minded you're no earthly good."
I tend to break the ice in such discussions by telling a tale from the early missionary work in the Americas, that I believe I read in "The History and Philosophy of Marriage" - but could be wrong.
The gist of it is that an Indian chief converted to Christianity, but had two wives. An older wife he had married while young, who was barren, and a younger wife he had married later in order to produce an heir, who had one son. The missionaries told him that to be a Christian he had to divorce one of his wives and be monogamous, so he had to decide which he would divorce. The chief told them that he could not decide to divorce either, they would have to tell him which one. The missionaries told him he had to divorce the young wife, and keep the wife of his youth.
So he divorced the young wife, keeping the old wife - and keeping his son, who was his only heir. This young woman lost her husband, her son, and her family - and went and committed suicide.
Most people are shocked by that tale. And I point out that the same situations are encountered in missionary activity even today, the same decisions must be made. Is what those missionaries taught truly demonstrating the love of God? What would God want to happen in that situation?
Most people will conclude (even if they are unwilling to say it aloud and only show it through their expression) that in that sort of specific case keeping both wives would be preferable, rather than divorce to achieve monogamy.
This helps to show people that this is not just about Western Christian men wanting to accumulate women. It is an issue that has real relevance to Christian ministry, especially in Africa. Monogamy might be "ideal" - but that does not mean everyone must be monogamous. In some circumstances it is better for someone to remain polygamous.