False Witness on Polygamy: A Response to Michael Foster

[YoreyC]

Correct. I’m not sure how what I wrote is in contradiction to this. If I lust for a Ferrari that is LIKE his, but NOT his, or anybody else’s, then it’s not sin.

every ferrari belongs to somebody else before you buy it. of course i can desire something someone else owns.

it being presently for sale doesn't matter either.

I didn’t say using them is foolish. I said relying on them is folly. Perhaps a more precise way of expressing that would be to say that ONLY relying on them is folly.

thats even worse because now you are arguing with precisely no one.

Not necessarily. Often, the implications are there. They just can’t be used to justify prohibitions.

if "the implication" which is "there" is a prohibition, then yes, it can be used to justify prohibitions. obviously.

I’m speaking generally of those who use implication to override strict interpretation when questions of morality come up.

implication should override "strict interpretation" (whatever that means) when it is correct

 

[Joleneakamama]

Normalization in my opinion will be found in showing/describing happy families and more focus on the inherent advantages to the natural human marriage.

Nice try. The trouble is some Christians have Knostic residue in their thinking. They think EVERYTHING physical, sensual, or sexual is inherently bad=sinful. The couple I was visiting with a week ago brought up satan offering "benefits" when I mentioned that I long ago could see the benefits of having a sisterwife. I have no idea where their minds were, but I am sure with their large family they regularly enjoy the kind I was thinking of that just go with many hands for chores and people to visit with while working....having people you trust to watch your little ones. People with a knee-jerk reaction to a word like natural because they read that natural man is emnity to God are not going to be thinking anything positive when you say that no matter how well the stepson fits in and relates with your children.

Let’s refine: Lust/desire for something that belongs to his neighbor and is not specifically available or offered in commerce.

I was just thinking this morning about some division that started years ago in the family because of someone asking for stuff. It was a family member...context was "What are you going to do with that _____(fill in the blank item laying around the homeplace)____, Can I have it?" I can see wisdom in not even looking at "things" that belong to your neighbor. Keep in mind that daughters were not included in the list of things one should not covet.....and maybe just look at the girls!
Once you KNOW something is for sale....it is a whole 'nother matter though! Jump right on it and be first in line if it is an item you need.

 

[Mojo]

"strict interpretation" (whatever that means)

I understand that you don’t know what this means. You’re so caught up in implications and logic frames that plain language escapes you. Just consult the scriptures and they will interpret themselves.

Jesus: “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

What did Jesus mean? Wow! Adulterous hearts? What are those? What are his implications? He seems to really be making things hard. He’s increasing the expectations. He’s saying the law didn’t go far enough. His implications are so myriad that we can’t just stop here. What else does an adulterous heart imply?????

I would suggest parsimony.

Torah: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Just read what His word already has to say. It’s been tried in the fire for thousands of years.

 

[YoreyC]

I understand that you don’t know what this means. You’re so caught up in implications and logic frames that plain language escapes you. Just consult the scriptures and they will interpret themselves.

reframing a stupid thing you said as "beyond comprehension" is just retarded. you'd do better to accept correction and repent graciously instead of doubling down into more folly.

 

[paterfamilias]

Nice try. The trouble is some Christians have Knostic residue in their thinking. They think EVERYTHING physical, sensual, or sexual is inherently bad=sinful. The couple I was visiting with a week ago brought up satan offering "benefits" when I mentioned that I long ago could see the benefits of having a sisterwife. I have no idea where their minds were, but I am sure with their large family they regularly enjoy the kind I was thinking of that just go with many hands for chores and people to visit with while working....having people you trust to watch your little ones. People with a knee-jerk reaction to a word like natural because they read that natural man is emnity to God are not going to be thinking anything positive when you say that no matter how well the stepson fits in and relates with your children.

So benefits are satanic...huh. so I guess they don't mind if I have any free stuff coupons they get in the mail right? Or that perhaps my using a loyalty card today at the store to get my briskets at $2.47lb rather than $4.99lb was some sort of evil influence involved?

Apparently I should not invite gnostics to a cookout

 

[Mojo]

reframing a stupid thing you said as "beyond comprehension" is just retarded. you'd do better to accept correction and repent graciously instead of doubling down into more folly.

God bless you brother.

 

[steve]

21Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.

You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor, except one thing is left out.
The one thing that your neighbor knows that he won’t be keeping.

His daughter.

Everything/body else he has reason to expect to retain. That puts them off the table as far as you coveting them.

You can covet his daughter.
Prove me wrong.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

21Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.

You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor, except one thing is left out.
The one thing that your neighbor knows that he won’t be keeping.

His daughter.

Everything/body else he has reason to expect to retain. That puts them off the table as far as you coveting them.

You can covet his daughter.
Prove me wrong.

I think desiring something that is possible is not wrong in any way. Even if you can't afford it.

Girls can be expensive!!! lol

 

[steve]

I think desiring something that is possible is not wrong in any way. Even if you can't afford it.

Girls can be expensive!!! lol

That’s why I go to work every day, I desire things that I can’t presently afford.
Without a vision the people perish. What is a vision? A dream of something we don’t have.

Edit; Yes, I can dream about that unattached female, but I need to stay grounded in reality.

 

[Joleneakamama]

21Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.

You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor, except one thing is left out.
The one thing that your neighbor knows that he won’t be keeping.

His daughter.

Everything/body else he has reason to expect to retain. That puts them off the table as far as you coveting them.

You can covet his daughter.
Prove me wrong.

Agreed!

I remember a few years back a man we knew asked my husband's brother about getting to know his daughter. Nothing wrong with that!
Trouble came later when she was flattered by his attention, staying with us during the week, and this man was NOT respecting her father's word which was NO!
My husband almost came to blows with that guy. ...over that....and we had known and worked with him probably ten years and considered him a friend. That kind of disrespect and nonsense was NOT GOING TO HAPPEN on my husband's watch!!!

 

[YoreyC]

Yes, I can dream about that unattached female, but I need to stay grounded in reality.

you can dream about attached ones too, for the same reason you can dream about any other attached objects.

You can covet his daughter.
Prove me wrong.

in biblical language, sure, but missing the point in english because "covet" and "lust" in english are sin; object doesn't matter.

what this verse is not saying: you can't desire something that belongs to your neighbor. all trade, commerce, inclusive of marriage, depends on desiring things that presently belong to someone else.

what this verse is saying: there is a kind of desire that is unhealthy and you should not do.

so, what is this talking about? i think its obvious but only if you think about it. wanting a nice car so bad that you put yourself in unmanageable debt would probably be covetous, both in desire and in action. wanting your neighbor's wife so bad that you scheme to sleep with her while he's away on business would be a coveetous thought. wanting your neighbor's ox so bad that you entice it over the fence and steal it would be a lustful action.

this is said in a high-context style and language. we are expected to think on it and make wise conclusions; grasping for an explicit or lexical yes or no is the behavior of milk-fed babes.

 

[steve]

you can dream about attached ones too,

I sure wouldn’t

 

[steve]

in biblical language, sure, but missing the point in english because "covet" and "lust" in english are sin; object doesn't matter.

in Biblical language it simply means to desire.
Surely you can understand that it is sin to desire your neighbor’s wife, but it wouldn’t be sin to desire his unattached daughter.

The English meaning of the words doesn’t matter here.

 

[Mark C]

Although those of us who DO understand the distinction will try to use the words contextually to outline that difference.

For instance, I try not to "covet" anything, and choose to use that word only in the context of the commandment forbidding it.

As to "lust", however, I'm perfectly willing to lust for my wives, when the mood arises.

 

[YoreyC]

in Biblical language it simply means to desire.
Surely you can understand that it is sin to desire your neighbor’s wife, but it wouldn’t be sin to desire his unattached daughter.

no, not "simply."

it is only in some sense you should desire anything that belongs to your neighbor.

it is only in some completely different sense that you shouldn't.

"surely i understand" if you agree with the key distinctives i wrote about. if you're disagreeing, then one of us doesn't understand.

I sure wouldn’t

it is insensible to fail to meaningfully differentiate reality from fantasy.

 

[steve]

no, not "simply."

it is only in some sense you should desire anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Sorry, it’s just that simple.

 

[YoreyC]

No.

 

[steve]

No.

Your response is neither intellectual nor compelling.

 

[Maddog]

It is no sin to BUY your neighbors stuff (his truck and tractor or acreage), IF (key word here) it were FOR SALE. It is transactional (negotiated and concluded) in nature but some things e.g. his wife, CANNOT be "for sale". Again, for one to get gain via purchases is no sin but theft is. One must desire the object before transaction- the prospective new owner needs to see how an object fits into his capital plan. A man does see a random piece of land without considering many aspect of that- is that land workable and fertile or barren scrub land. Its utility is paramount to the negotiation. Is the neighbor's daughter so constituted as to make a mud fence look pretty?

 

[frederick]

Is the neighbor's daughter so constituted as to make a mud fence look pretty?

With thoughtful planning and hard work a mud fence can be transformed. The advantage of the mud fence appearance is the up front cost can be minimal while the end result spectacular.