-
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
Anonymous
Guest
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
And WHAT exactly do you think is wrong with Preterism??? I happen to be both Preterist and Pro-Poly, myself. If you ever want to discuss Preterism, let me know...
But the anti-poly guy's "typology" and "Gematria" message fails on a number of levels. Gematria is witchcraft, plain and simple. The Jews took it from the Babylonian mystery religions, and it is so open to personal interpretation that it's of no useful value.
As far as his comment about King Solomon and 666 talents of gold, he fails to make the connection that it had the slightest thing to do with Solomon's downfall. The 666 talents of gold came yearly, and that happened for many years before Solomon fell. It's completely unrelated.
The numerological concept that 666 is an evil number derives in reverse from the use of 666 for the number of the name of the beast in the Revelation. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that a number that identifies an individual becomes bad because the individual is bad. By that logic, anyone who was evil and had a name that added up to 777 would make 7's evil from that point on. 666 is just a number that helps identify one person in Scripture. It's use elsewhere has no relevance to the much later use of that number.
This Gematria numerologist also makes the mistake of viewing 6's as indicating sin, and 7's as indicating goodness as of God. More precisely, if they did have a meaning, it would be that 6's represented the physical world and 7's the spiritual. For instance, God made the creation in 6 days, and said it was GOOD. Therefore, we have a 6 that is connected to something definitely good. Not only was the 6-day creation good, but it was also manifestly physical. The 7th day was the day that God rested, which could possibly be said to represent the spiritual. However, all this requires a lot of credulity to invent meanings here which aren't naturally evident through reason. We could imagine thousands of interpretations of numbers which would fit.
John for Christ
John_for_Christ said:
Oooh, if you guys get a preterism thread started then let me know.
John_for_Christ said:
Well said!!
This is so much to read. I apologize if I missed something obvious.
If this is about numerology.
I think I saw Chuck Missler give a lecture on this on T.V. (If I have the name Chuck Missler right)
He pretty much thinks most numerology including Gematria is non-sense if I have the name Gematria right and I am not mixing it up with someone else.
he also explained Polytheistic origins of numerology
Now for my opinion
With any finite set of numbers there is an infinite number of functions that can include those finite set of numbers. Hence it is very easy to take a function that contains the numbers in a set extrapolate outside those numbers and produce any fake data points you want so long as the outputs for the new fake data points are not paired with the original data as input values but are merely based on the original data. That is why it is important to make a mathematical model after collecting data and then see if the model holds up with future data that has not been collected yet.
If "A" is a metaphor for anything I want
Then every time a text contains the letter "A" it means anything I want. Do the following for B through Z.
When it is irreconciably contradictory explain that in case 1 A means what I want and in case 2 A means a different thing I want it to mean.
The final conclusion
the anything I want Bible
Do that with numbers instead of letters and you have numerological metaphors for anything I want
If this is about numerology.
I think I saw Chuck Missler give a lecture on this on T.V. (If I have the name Chuck Missler right)
He pretty much thinks most numerology including Gematria is non-sense if I have the name Gematria right and I am not mixing it up with someone else.
he also explained Polytheistic origins of numerology
Now for my opinion
With any finite set of numbers there is an infinite number of functions that can include those finite set of numbers. Hence it is very easy to take a function that contains the numbers in a set extrapolate outside those numbers and produce any fake data points you want so long as the outputs for the new fake data points are not paired with the original data as input values but are merely based on the original data. That is why it is important to make a mathematical model after collecting data and then see if the model holds up with future data that has not been collected yet.
If "A" is a metaphor for anything I want
Then every time a text contains the letter "A" it means anything I want. Do the following for B through Z.
When it is irreconciably contradictory explain that in case 1 A means what I want and in case 2 A means a different thing I want it to mean.
The final conclusion
the anything I want Bible
Do that with numbers instead of letters and you have numerological metaphors for anything I want
A
Anonymous
Guest
alit53 said:
Another "Pastor Jack" fan ! Way to go, Ali !!!!!
Seriously, Dr. Hayford has been one of the finest pastors I have ever had !
Blessings,
Fairlight
Not sure if you consider me pertinent or not, but no, I don't have access to that forum.
:mrgreen: :roll:
Tlaloc
Member
Any person pleased to post a postulation or present pontification or simply peruse the problem is pertinent, pity it appears impractical to post the problem in the private forum due to the paltry number of persons with a pass.
Oh dang, I re-read the header and forgot I wasn't supposed to talk about fight club... Oh well. I'll edit out the references to it, best I can do... :?
Oh dang, I re-read the header and forgot I wasn't supposed to talk about fight club... Oh well. I'll edit out the references to it, best I can do... :?
It seems to me that a great deal of confusion has occured b/c of a misunderstanding over emphasis. I only discussed gematria in relation to its TYPOLOGICAL significance. I have no interest in it beyond what the inspired authors or God might have intended them to signify in the text. I have no interest in any kind of kabbalistic mysticism. I do not believe numbers are filled w/ magical energy, sending their psychic vibrations out into the cosmos. The BIBLE is certainly filled w/ numbers, which have a clear symbolic significance. As is the case w/ a great many other things frequently invoked as symbols in the Bible; water, fire, & other matters.
My e-missive to our common friend was about typology & how it shows that God hates polygamy as being an intrinsically iniquitous practice. It is always an expression of men's violent exploitation of women. Women are forced by men to endure this intrinsic abuse. As Abe Lincoln said re: slavery, "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a slave master." So we should all say, As I would not endure my wife taking a 2nd husband, so I should not ask her to endure my taking a 2nd wife. The simple clear equity of that statement is obvious to even the natural mind. In Lincoln's day; many priests of Ballaam, calling themselves ministers of the Gospel; also made a good living for themselves defending the pagan practice of slavery. Those ministers of the ways of the flesh also cited Bible passages that made allowances for slavery. Lincoln's point was that anything which can not be reconciled w/ the Golden Rule, is unchristian on its face. No further consultation of scripture is needed. If a pagan like the Chinese Confucius, 300yrs B.C., can understand & teach the principle of Lev. 19:18 ("Love thy neighbor..."); certainly we can.
So it is w/ polygamy, any man who wouldn't tolerate his wife using another man in the manner of a husband can not, as Christian, ask his wife to allow him to use another woman as a wife. Not only do we have Lev. 19:18, we also have Gal. 3:28: "...neither bond nor free...neither male nor female..."
I only mentioned how Lamech is six generations removed from Adam b/c it is meant to illustrate the progressive degenerative effect of sin. Both Lamech & Cain are murderers. Lamech is the 2nd murderer mentioned in the Bible & 1st bygamist. His practice of bygamy illustrates how he has become shameless & HABITUAL in his sinning. This is also illustrated by his boasting of his murder. Where as Cain was ashamed of his crime & tried to hide it, Lamech brags about it. Bygamy is clearly linked to violence here, as it later on in the Bible. I have gone on too long, I will elaborate in further posts.
My e-missive to our common friend was about typology & how it shows that God hates polygamy as being an intrinsically iniquitous practice. It is always an expression of men's violent exploitation of women. Women are forced by men to endure this intrinsic abuse. As Abe Lincoln said re: slavery, "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a slave master." So we should all say, As I would not endure my wife taking a 2nd husband, so I should not ask her to endure my taking a 2nd wife. The simple clear equity of that statement is obvious to even the natural mind. In Lincoln's day; many priests of Ballaam, calling themselves ministers of the Gospel; also made a good living for themselves defending the pagan practice of slavery. Those ministers of the ways of the flesh also cited Bible passages that made allowances for slavery. Lincoln's point was that anything which can not be reconciled w/ the Golden Rule, is unchristian on its face. No further consultation of scripture is needed. If a pagan like the Chinese Confucius, 300yrs B.C., can understand & teach the principle of Lev. 19:18 ("Love thy neighbor..."); certainly we can.
So it is w/ polygamy, any man who wouldn't tolerate his wife using another man in the manner of a husband can not, as Christian, ask his wife to allow him to use another woman as a wife. Not only do we have Lev. 19:18, we also have Gal. 3:28: "...neither bond nor free...neither male nor female..."
I only mentioned how Lamech is six generations removed from Adam b/c it is meant to illustrate the progressive degenerative effect of sin. Both Lamech & Cain are murderers. Lamech is the 2nd murderer mentioned in the Bible & 1st bygamist. His practice of bygamy illustrates how he has become shameless & HABITUAL in his sinning. This is also illustrated by his boasting of his murder. Where as Cain was ashamed of his crime & tried to hide it, Lamech brags about it. Bygamy is clearly linked to violence here, as it later on in the Bible. I have gone on too long, I will elaborate in further posts.
I am curious, Victor, if "God hates polygymy as being an instrinsically iniquitous practice," why does He describe Himself as being in a polygynous relationship?
He is the Holy God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He changes not. In Him is no variableness nor shadow of turning. He cannot be tempted with iniquity.
If the above is true, then why would He describe Himself as being married to sisters, when He could have confined Himself only to the analogy of being a Father to the daughters of Jersusalem?
Why would he descrbe the plurality of wives as being a blessing that He Himself gave as a gift?
Why, if He is perfect and righteous, does He illustrate His nature through "an intrinsically iniquitous practice?"
He is the Holy God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He changes not. In Him is no variableness nor shadow of turning. He cannot be tempted with iniquity.
If the above is true, then why would He describe Himself as being married to sisters, when He could have confined Himself only to the analogy of being a Father to the daughters of Jersusalem?
Why would he descrbe the plurality of wives as being a blessing that He Himself gave as a gift?
Why, if He is perfect and righteous, does He illustrate His nature through "an intrinsically iniquitous practice?"
Tlaloc
Member
Welcome to the forum Victor, I hope you have some good conversations.
The way you used the verse ".neither male nor female..."" I suppose you are of the view that it doesn't matter weather one is a man or woman when getting married? There is no difference after all, so what difference is it if its two men?
As for me, I maintain that there is a difference between men and women, and a difference between people of different cultures, and a difference between social classes. I also maintain that the context of Galatians demands that Pauls meaning was that anyone that was baptized is saved by Christ and heir to God's promise, as opposed to other religions of his time and place that would segregate based on those things. He did not mean that everyone is unisex or of the same social class or of the same culture.
Unless you literally mean that male and female distinctions don't matter anymore, you have to admit that there is a difference between men and women, and between becoming a husband and becoming a wife. That difference admitted the 'two husband' argument doesn't work.
As to my great uncles quote, he means that he wouldn't do to others what he wouldn't do to himself. In our case its the question of weather or not it is desirable to be a second wife, and we here would affirm that it is. His quote isn't applicable.
The way you used the verse ".neither male nor female..."" I suppose you are of the view that it doesn't matter weather one is a man or woman when getting married? There is no difference after all, so what difference is it if its two men?
As for me, I maintain that there is a difference between men and women, and a difference between people of different cultures, and a difference between social classes. I also maintain that the context of Galatians demands that Pauls meaning was that anyone that was baptized is saved by Christ and heir to God's promise, as opposed to other religions of his time and place that would segregate based on those things. He did not mean that everyone is unisex or of the same social class or of the same culture.
Unless you literally mean that male and female distinctions don't matter anymore, you have to admit that there is a difference between men and women, and between becoming a husband and becoming a wife. That difference admitted the 'two husband' argument doesn't work.
As to my great uncles quote, he means that he wouldn't do to others what he wouldn't do to himself. In our case its the question of weather or not it is desirable to be a second wife, and we here would affirm that it is. His quote isn't applicable.
VictorLepanto said:
Show me ONE SINGLE PLACE in the Bible that says God hates polygyny. Not some off-the-wall typology that twists some meaning out of Scripture that is not there, but something in plain English. Well, OK, plain Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic properly translated to plain English.
You know, something plain, like,
However, "You shall not have more than one wife" (or anything remotely resembling that) is NOT in any of the 66 Books that make up my Bible.
If your typology says that God hates polygyny, then your typology is WRONG, because it contradicts the plain reading of several passages.
Maybe your Bible reads like this:
But mine reads like this:
Not one word of condemnation for having more than one wife. Not in this passage, not anywhere else in all of Scripture.
Show me where polygyny is ever called "sin" by God. Just one place in Scripture. You can't do it; it just is not there. In the paragraph you wrote that I just quoted from, you are guilty of adding to what God said by calling sin that which is not sin. You would do well to heed:
Adam was the first sinner. His sin was so heinous that it brought guilt and death on the entire human race, and resulted in the death of God's only begotten Son. And Adam was a monogamist at the time he sinned. (IMHO, but this is not spelled out in Scripture so it is just conjecture, he had many wives after he was booted out of the Garden of Eden. Yes, his own daughters and grandaughters, born during the 130 years before the birth of Seth. Do you really think that Cain, Abel, and Seth were the only births during the first 130 years of Adam's life? Talk about celibacy! Catholic priests who actually keep their vows of celibacy have nothing on Adam if there were only three babies born in 130 years!)
Then there is King David, a man after God's own heart.
You are defending the pagan practice of forced monogamy. While there is nothing wrong with having only one wife, it is not a Scriptural requirement that it be so, and so monogamy-only should not be the law of the land or a doctrine of the Church.
I don't live by what is obvious to the natural mind. I study the Bible and strive to live by what it says.
Since when is Biblical Marriage anything at all like slavery? Have you not read:
As to the "simple clear equity" of polyandry vs. polygyny, the Bible does say in plain Greek properly translated to plain English:
There is no comparable verse prohibiting men from having more than one wife. If you apply Gal. 3:28: "...neither bond nor free...neither male nor female..." to Romans 7:2-3, you must also apply it to any and all verses that make any kind of distinction between men and women. For example:
Substitute "man" for "woman" and/or "woman" for "man" in that verse, and that would mean no one could teach, speak, or have authority in the church! What's sauce for the goose is not always sauce for the gander in spite of that old saying to the contrary.
Galatians 3:28 is about our standing before God as redeemed saints, not about the different roles of men and women in the family, the church, or in society that God created us for. Read the context of Galatians 3:28, not just the one verse in isolation.
Show me ONE SINGLE PLACE in the Bible that says God hates polygyny. Not some off-the-wall typology that twists some meaning out of Scripture that is not there, but something in plain English. Well, OK, plain Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic properly translated to plain English.
You know, something plain, like,
That is plain enough for even us simple folk who believe in Biblical Marriage to understand. No typology at all is required to get the message that God doesn't want us to murder other people. Even if we think they deserve it.
However, "You shall not have more than one wife" (or anything remotely resembling that) is NOT in any of the 66 Books that make up my Bible.
If your typology says that God hates polygyny, then your typology is WRONG, because it contradicts the plain reading of several passages.
Maybe your Bible reads like this:
(I put "fake" twice in bold italics so no one will mistake that mis-quoted verse for the real thing.)
But mine reads like this:
Not one word of condemnation for having more than one wife. Not in this passage, not anywhere else in all of Scripture.
Show me where polygyny is ever called "sin" by God. Just one place in Scripture. You can't do it; it just is not there. In the paragraph you wrote that I just quoted from, you are guilty of adding to what God said by calling sin that which is not sin. You would do well to heed:
and
Adam was the first sinner. His sin was so heinous that it brought guilt and death on the entire human race, and resulted in the death of God's only begotten Son. And Adam was a monogamist at the time he sinned. (IMHO, but this is not spelled out in Scripture so it is just conjecture, he had many wives after he was booted out of the Garden of Eden. Yes, his own daughters and grandaughters, born during the 130 years before the birth of Seth. Do you really think that Cain, Abel, and Seth were the only births during the first 130 years of Adam's life? Talk about celibacy! Catholic priests who actually keep their vows of celibacy have nothing on Adam if there were only three babies born in 130 years!)
Then there is King David, a man after God's own heart.
That sure doesn't sound like God hates polygyny.
You are defending the pagan practice of forced monogamy. While there is nothing wrong with having only one wife, it is not a Scriptural requirement that it be so, and so monogamy-only should not be the law of the land or a doctrine of the Church.
I don't live by what is obvious to the natural mind. I study the Bible and strive to live by what it says.
Since when is Biblical Marriage anything at all like slavery? Have you not read:
That doesn't sound at all like any form of slavery to me, except maybe in reverse. Jesus did say that he who desires to be first in the Kingdom of God must be the servant of all. (Mark 9:35) And Ephesians 5:25 commands me to be the servant to all of my wives. (At present, that is all one of them... :lol: )
As to the "simple clear equity" of polyandry vs. polygyny, the Bible does say in plain Greek properly translated to plain English:
There is no comparable verse prohibiting men from having more than one wife. If you apply Gal. 3:28: "...neither bond nor free...neither male nor female..." to Romans 7:2-3, you must also apply it to any and all verses that make any kind of distinction between men and women. For example:
Substitute "man" for "woman" and/or "woman" for "man" in that verse, and that would mean no one could teach, speak, or have authority in the church! What's sauce for the goose is not always sauce for the gander in spite of that old saying to the contrary.
Galatians 3:28 is about our standing before God as redeemed saints, not about the different roles of men and women in the family, the church, or in society that God created us for. Read the context of Galatians 3:28, not just the one verse in isolation.
I can not address vague assertions, please give specific citations. As for analogies, metaphors, & other rhetorical devises; they are precisely that. Rhetorical devises. They prove nothing beyond their use as figures of speech. Is Israel an anatomical part of God's eye merely b/c God says Israel is the apple of my eye? Are to mutilate ourselves b/c Jesus said we should rip out an offending eye? He obviously did not intend this statement to be understood literally. If it were, every Christian should have become blind long ago.alit53 said:
How 'bout this, I'd like to have someone cite me an example of God actually commanding someone to take a 2nd wife. Laws ALLOWING for polygamist practice prove no more then lawas allowing for divorce prove anything. Jesus was clear that many laws were mere concessions to hard hearthedness. Statutory laws prove nothing re: fundamental principles of intrinsic justice. The Constitution of the United States allowed slavery to persists where its was sadly already well established. It commanded no state to establish slavery.
The Bible also says that sinful, idolatrous Judah was given into the hands of Babylon. Babylon was a tool of chastisment in God's hand. Does this make Babylon holy, & just in God's eyes?
The Bible nowhere states that slavery is intrinsically evil. It doesn't have to, the principle of love of neighbor covers this & all matters of intrinsic justice. There is no way that polygamy can be justified in light of the Golden Rule. Any discussion beyond this is just guilding the lily.
As the intrinsic injustice of slavery is illustrated by the Book of Exodus, so the intrinsic injustice of polygamy is illustrated by the Book of Genesis. We must remember, the Torah or the Pentateuch (that is the original 5 books of the Bible) were all written by Moses to illustrate a point. That point being, to explaing to Isreal why they find themselves in the predicament where they find themselves, & to show them how God will deliver them. Genesis is about the seperating the light from the dark, finally, this means seperating sin from righteousness. The ways of the nations, which lead to sin, are contrasted w/ the ways of God. The nation of Israel is being taught (however reluctantly originally) to reject evil & to choose righteousness.
Genesis seems like a random set of incidents, but it is not. It is a tightly woven tapestry, by a Master Weaver. Not one thread is placed w/ a sublime purpose. There are NO incidental details in this divine book. But, one needs a clear grasp of typological idiom beloved by Israel to grasps it structure. What would a Spaniard make of the American expression, when in doubt punt? One needs to understand football to understand this expression. So it is w/ the typological idiom of the Bible. If you don't know it is there, you'll pass right over it not notice.
When one grasps typology, on sees that Genesis is divided into 3 main sections. The distinctions & parallels of detail are shown by many typological figures. When one sees the different though parallel sections, one sees that polygamy plays a central role in this drama of sin verses righteousness. Polygamy is always associated w/ sin, polygamy IS sin. Polygamy is associated w/ sinful people outside the covenant, it leads people into sin who are part of the covenant. In Exodus & in Joshua, all the sinful nations which oppose Israel are associated w/ polygamy & other forms of unrighteous behavior.
I will develope this argument as the discussion progresses, if your moderators allow me to.
The tables of generations are central to seeing how this works. The 1st leg of 10 generations runs from Adam to Noah, the 2nd set of 10 generations runs from Noah to Abraham. There is a 3rd leg which is not directly shown in Genesis, it runs from Abraham to Moses. That takes us out of Genesis & it is simply assumed by Moses. This is paralleled in the NT The Gospel of Matthew. Mat. 1: 17 cites 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the Babylonian exile, & 14 from Babylon to Christ. 14 is the numerical value of David in Hebrew, this is WHY Matthew mentions the number of generations. It is something that would have impressed his Jewish audience but which is usually incomprehensible to us. The D letter in Hebrew, Dalet = 4. The V letter, Vav = 6. Thus, 4+4+6=14. Saying 14 & 14 & 14 is like saying, David, David, David. Triple repetition is the supreme superlative in Hebrew. Thus, Jesus is the ultimate son of David.
Now for how all this ties into sexual sin as symbolic device in Genesis. In the 1st leg of the cycles of generations. We have line of sin through Cain. Cain's linve becomes associated w/ murder. In Lamech in the 6th generation from Adam through Cain, we also have the line of murder then also linked to polygamy. This & other typological devices will also link this line to other sinfull lines later on. In the line beginning w/ Noah, the sinful line from Ham through Canaan (note the pun on Cain) is associated w/ incest. The phrase, "saw the nakedness of his father" in Gen. 9:22 is a euphemism. As it touches on a subject so distasteful to the Israelites, they couldn't use the actual term. Compare this passage to Lev. 18. This is a term for incest. Ham has raped his mother. Canaan is the product of an incestuous union. That is why the Canaanites practiced ritual incest in their temples. Archeologists have uncovered (so to speak) the evidence for this. This is the progress of sin that is being illustrated here. From the sin of Adam (the forbidden fruit) to Cain (murder) to Lamech (murder & polygamy), & them from Lamech to Ham & Canaan (incest). Adam was undone by the fruit of the knowledge of good & evil. Noah is undone by the fruit of the vine. This leads to both violence & sexual sin togther. That is why ritual incest was like Thanksgiving & The 4th of July to the nation of Canaan when Israel invades.
But things only get worse, if that is even possible. When we begin the 3rd generational leg from Abraham to Moses, we see the same things progressing (or degenerating). Abraham's nephew Lot experiences a catastrophy like Noah's After his family is delivered from the judgement on Sodom, he also is undone by the fruit (of the vine again). He also ungoes a trial by incest, bigamy (his two daughters) & violence. The magnitude & speed of the degeneration increases in each generation. Every generation after Abraham experiences some defecttion from the covenant through polygamy. Let's review: Lot (bygamy & incest), Esau (bigamy, also reference Malachi 1:2,3 "...says the Lord, 'Yet Jacob I have loved, but Edom I have hated'"). It is also ISHMAELITES who sell Joseph into slavery in Egypt. The Edomites are the descendents of Esau, Esau = Edom. Every example of a nation associated w/ some product of a bygamist or incestuous union becomes an enemy of Israel.
The Canaanites are from Canaan obviously. The Moabites (meaning from the father) are descended from Lot & his daughters. Edom is descended from Esau. By the way; King Herod, who tried to kill Christ, was an Edomite.
Moses is clearly harping on sexual sins as being central to Israel's troubles. Bigamy is clearly associated w/ incest. This is undoubtedly the case w/ Lot.
It is noteworthy that Joseph uniquely resists sexual sin. He is made even the ruler of Jacob. Jacob was tricked into bigamy, still sin has its consequences. The only truly chaste son of Abraham becomes the master of all. Also Moses must have also been monogamous. All the illustrious patriarchs have their wives listed by name. Only one wife of Moses is mentioned by name. The Cushite wife of Moses that Miriam & Aaron object to must have been Zipporah.
Abraham only took Hagar as a concubine, she was never counted as a wife. He only takes Keturah as wife after Sarah's death (Gen. 25:1). While she is called a wife, only after Sarah's death, her children are a concubine's inheritance. Abraham's estate in its whole goes to Isaac only. (Gen. 25:5) The children of Keturah were only given gifts, like the son of Hagar. Keturah must be counted amongst the concubines mentioned in Gen. 25:6. Thus it is illustrated that Abraham can only be shown to have had relations w/ 3 women. Hagar was NEVER a wife, Keturah only became a wife after Sarah's death.
Thus all of the supposed examples of polygamy in Pentateuch are disposed of. Your fallacious Biblical defense of polygamy is vapor wishful thinking.
The 1st principle you fail to understand is that marriage is for the children & not so much for either the man or the woman. Chidren have a natural right to a strong bond between their parents, it is an injustice to deny this to them. If a man is divided in his affections between two families, his bond w/ all his children is proportionately diminished. God can suppliment our failings w/ his grace, as we all know. That doesn't license us to multiply the occasions which require that grace.Tlaloc said:
Not only are men different from women, every man is different from every other man. & every woman from every other woman. This natural difference doesn't nullify the Golden Rule, as your argument would require. There are a multitude of fundamental differences between men & women.
This doesn't change that fact that every man should have the confidence of the affections of his spouse, w/o fear of some other spouse enterring the picture. Every women should also enjoy the confidence of her one spouse w/o fear of some other spouse enterring the picture. Male or female, each is entitled to equity towards the other.