An master can have multiple slaves because he need not obey his slaves (although he can if he wants to) but a slave cannot have multiple masters and all of them if they have irreconcilably contradictory commands. So a wife cannot obey two husbands that irreconcilably contradict each other, but two wives can obey one husband.
-
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.
An master can have multiple slaves because he need not obey his slaves (although he can if he wants to) but a slave cannot have multiple masters and all of them if they have irreconcilably contradictory commands. So a wife cannot obey two husbands that irreconcilably contradict each other, but two wives can obey one husband.
Wow.DiscussingTheTopic said:
You've just hit the pith of the thing & don't even realize it. So. Wow.
A wife is a slave in your eyes? That is the whole matter in a nut shell. A man who taking more then one woman as a wife is necessarily treating her like a piece of property, as he would one of his cattle. I can not see how anything but blind passion can permit one argue past that simple truth.
This thread was begun in misunderstanding. I was never addressing gematria except tangentially to the issue of typology & its use of polygamy as sign of unrighteousness. But this is also a secondary consideration. The real issue, which demonstrates the wrongness of polygamy is the Golden Rule. Too many argumentative cats have gone in too many directions. I can't hope to herd them all now. Perhaps I shoul address all these issues in seriatum from essential issues toward the more peripheral. I will now start discussion on the Golden Rule.
I would like address this metaphor of the errant daughters in Jeremiah. I have taken much note of it b/c I found this whole use of this passage rather meaningless & tendencious. Even if I grant the meaning that you all wish to impose on it (which I don't), it proves absolutely nothing.
How wouldn't God use an analogy, or metaphor, or a parable that threated Himself as though He were a sinner? He actually did so & worse. In the two old testament cases of Job & in the Akadah of Isaac, He seems to actually act unrighteously. We can say that God was only testing Abraham. This would mean that God didn't really mean it when He gave this command. This requires God to speak an untruth, or it seems to. Perhaps this isn't the case, a reason can be given where this wasn't a problem. God had no intention to deceive Abraham but only to play act so as to show Abraham a deeper truth. None the less, He was acting a wicked role. Pretending to be wicked, even temporarily, goes beyond merely presenting a hypothetical where He is merely said to be wicked.
The Book of Job is said to be a fiction in the Talmud. It is basically there said to be a kind of extended parable. There was no Job, none of these things happened but it was story to examine how God deals w/ man. I don't know if this is true, I need to examine this matter deeper. If it were an actual story, how would you justify God's treatment of Job?
Apart from those matters, Jesus tells parables which seem to praise wickedness & where God is indeed presented as acting wickedly. The parable about the wicked judge & the persistant widow is such a parable. Luke 18. The parable is in praise of persistance of prayer. The wicked judge is like God who answers our prayerfull petitions. God = wicked judge So, your claim about this metaphor has no weight, God does portray Himself as wicked in parables.
How wouldn't God use an analogy, or metaphor, or a parable that threated Himself as though He were a sinner? He actually did so & worse. In the two old testament cases of Job & in the Akadah of Isaac, He seems to actually act unrighteously. We can say that God was only testing Abraham. This would mean that God didn't really mean it when He gave this command. This requires God to speak an untruth, or it seems to. Perhaps this isn't the case, a reason can be given where this wasn't a problem. God had no intention to deceive Abraham but only to play act so as to show Abraham a deeper truth. None the less, He was acting a wicked role. Pretending to be wicked, even temporarily, goes beyond merely presenting a hypothetical where He is merely said to be wicked.
The Book of Job is said to be a fiction in the Talmud. It is basically there said to be a kind of extended parable. There was no Job, none of these things happened but it was story to examine how God deals w/ man. I don't know if this is true, I need to examine this matter deeper. If it were an actual story, how would you justify God's treatment of Job?
Apart from those matters, Jesus tells parables which seem to praise wickedness & where God is indeed presented as acting wickedly. The parable about the wicked judge & the persistant widow is such a parable. Luke 18. The parable is in praise of persistance of prayer. The wicked judge is like God who answers our prayerfull petitions. God = wicked judge So, your claim about this metaphor has no weight, God does portray Himself as wicked in parables.
A
Anonymous
Guest
PolyDoc said:
Polydoc, I have to disagree with you here. You are misinterpreting Romans 14:23 to come to your conclusion.
If Romans 14:23 means that EVERYTHING that is not from faith is sin, AND you consider that since the world began, people have been eating, sleeping, working, breathing, etc., then we either have to assume that all those things are naturally from faith--OR we have to seek a different meaning in this passage.
Pagans do all those things as well. They eat, sleep, work, breathe, etc., and those things are not sinful. Sins are well-defined. Things are not sinful simply because an unbeliever is doing them.
The answer is in the context of the passage. The faith in this passage isn't the Faith we have in God, but rather faith that what we do is "done with a full conviction that it is right, [and that it is not] sinful; whatever is done when a man doubts whether it is right, is sin.” (Albert Barnes)
That is the point and context of this portion of the passage, as we can see from verse 22, "...happy is he who is not judging himself in what he doth approve..."
My point is not to disagree with you, per se, but rather to "correct the record" so to speak, about the doings of unbelievers. When they sin, they sin in those matters that run contrary to the things of God as codified in the Two Greatest Commandments. They worship another god or gods (or none at all), and they sin against others by committing unloving acts against them. Not everything in a pagan culture is "not from faith". They have full faith and conviction that eating or breathing or having a glass of water are good things to do--therefore those things aren't sinful.
We just have to be careful how we approach these questions, because Christianity is not competing with other religions simply on righteousness. We compete on the basis of Truth. Other religions contain many truths and half-truths and falsehoods. Those half-truths and the falsehoods are the problems that need to be overcome by unbelievers.
PolyDoc said:
Are cars built by pagans sinful? Are pagan food recipes wrong? Are pagan buildings or streets bad? Sure, some of these things could have some wicked use within those societies--like a pagan food recipe designed to praise an idol--however, most things in a pagan culture aren't actually wrong in any way. Only those things dedicated to their religions are wrong.
So, don't have contempt for everything in pagan cultures. Some of the things they make or do are really nice. I got a pretty cool shirt in Guatemala made by Mayan pagans. It was still a wonderful shirt.
Some sayings made by pagans are nevertheless true. For instance, Benjamin Franklin was a Deist, not a believer, so he is by definition a pagan. Many of his quotes are wise, even though he wasn't a Christian. "Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise." That's wise advice.
Paul did the same thing. He quoted some of the pagan philosophers to make points to the pagans, and even used some just communicating to believers. Nothing wrong with that. The pagans don't own the words, if they are right words.
I apologize if this offends you in any way, but I wanted to help clarify things so that we don't get off-track with Victor. Our purpose is to convince him through good evidence and reason, not to oppose every wrong thing he might say. We need to focus and stick with the subject so we can help him to learn the truth--and that only if God wants him to know it. Maybe he isn't ready for the doctrine that polygyny is righteous. It's not really a central doctrine of Christianity, even though it can be very important in some Christians' lives. We just need to do our best to tell him the truth without unnecessarily offending Victor, because he is a believer too (I think).
John for Christ
A
Anonymous
Guest
PolyDoc said:
Polydoc, I'm just curious, what is "forced monogamy" in your opinion?
If we are talking about women being forced INTO monogamy, I'd say that more women within polygamy have been "forced" into it, per capita, what with the FLDS and such groups and their wicked religious practices.
If we are talking about the laws in the U.S. and other nations that prohibit polygamy, but allow monogamy, then how is that "forced monogamy"? People are given the choice of remaining single too...
But looking at your premise here--that the divorce rate is high because people aren't allowed to become polygamists--seems to me to be flawed. It doesn't explain the low divorce rate for many centuries within monogamous cultures. For instance, at the turn of the last century, the divorce rate was extremely low. Obviously the difference between now and then is not that people aren't allowed to be polygamous, but rather some other thing that pervades our culture.
In reality, among cultures that deplore divorce and laud the family, the rates of divorce are essentially the same between monogamy and polygamy. It is the beliefs that a culture is founded upon which indicate whether the divorce rate and broken families will be low or high, in my opinion.
John for Christ
A
Anonymous
Guest
PolyDoc said:
Hi Polydoc,
Yes, Victor has presented a number of unfounded assumptions in his arguments, particularly where his arguments deal with how the families would handle polygamy. From what I've seen, it is based upon a misunderstanding of how love and marriage and family work. Not a HUGE misunderstanding, but enough of one to throw his arguments off-kilter. They simply aren't based upon Scripture or even good logic, but upon what Victor feels the situation is from his own understanding. Victor isn't a bad person. He's just ignorant of the ins and outs of polygamy. Given that we've studied it for some time (myself about a dozen years now), he's just woefully behind us in examining these things. That's why I'm trying to go easy on him.
I'm still not certain how you see Ephesians 5:25-28 as dealing with women and how polygamy isn't demeaning to them. It really doesn't matter, because polygamy simply ISN'T demeaning to women. There's no evidence that polygamy itself is demeaning to women. There IS evidence that the Mormons and FLDS forms of polygamy have been and are demeaning to women, but that's because of their religions, not because of polygamy.
Rationally, we can conclude that in a CHRISTIAN polygamous marriage, men would be demeaned the most, being forced to deal with twice (or more) the issues that a man would have to deal with one wife. The women are given the natural advantage, because even in a Christian marriage, women put pressure on their husbands to take care of their needs. They can do that even if they are great wives, just by conveying their needs and desires to their husbands. So really, in some ways, the husband gets the short end of the stick. Yes, there are compensations, but the stress does increase.
Since women have rights in our country, there is safety in numbers of wives. It's far less likely that an abusive situation will develop where a polygamous family lives within our modern culture, where a wife could report the abuses of a husband and have another wife to back her up. Thus, polygamy FAVORS women in modern societies.
I do love both the verses you mention above, Ephesians 5:22 and 5:25. However, I've always seen those as having a perfect balance based upon the nature of men and women as God has created us. It's not that men are more important, so can "teach" their wives righteousness, but not the other way around. No, women, but their righteous examples can teach their husbands too, as Paul notes (1 Corinthians 7:16).
I'm tired, so I'm not certain all of that made sense.
John for Christ
A
Anonymous
Guest
VictorLepanto said:
Hi Victor. You are exaggerating the sense in which DiscussingTheTopic is using that passage. His point has nothing to do with masters and slaves, so much as it has to do with obedience. Scripture tells wives to obey their husbands. They aren't slaves, but they are still called to obedience to their husbands. (And husbands are called to obedience to God to love their wives.)
Therefore by the analogy that ANYONE cannot fully serve two persons at the same level of authority (because if one gives an order, and the other gives a contradicting order, who do you obey?), then a wife could not fully obey two husbands. Therefore, polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands) would be contrary to the principles of Scripture. (Not to mention such a thing would contradict nature and be adultery as well.) But polygyny (one husband, multiple wives) is not contrary to that passage of Scripture.
This is one of many statements of Scripture that are not gender-equivalent. God designed two genders for different purposes. Men aren't the bosses over women. Women aren't any better than men. We are equal in value, different in purpose. A form of patriarchy is God's design for the family, but not a false patriarchy, where men dictate what women can or cannot do, as if they are smarter or more intelligent than women. That simply isn't true. On average, women are more intelligent than men.
But neither are feminism (placing women ABOVE men in authority) nor equality of genders correct either. The problem is that when most people think of equality of genders, they believe men and women are equal in ALL WAYS. That isn't true. We differ dramatically in many THOUSANDS of ways, including physically, mentally, and emotionally, and perhaps in other ways we have yet to discover. So strict equality doesn't work either.
What does work?
The answer is complementarianism. Complementarianism is where men and women are equal in value--my opinion is no better than hers--but where women defer to their husbands when it comes to NECESSARY things, and men defer to their wives in love. (In other words, men put their wives--and families--well ahead of their own interests out of love.) That is the Scriptural description of a good marriage. Men are there to fill in the areas where women need help, and women are there to fill in the areas where men need help.
Let me give you an example of this in action. Men are generally (not always) taller than women. When my wife needs something off the top shelf, she comes to me. When she needs a tight lid removed or something heavy picked up, she comes to me. When she needs protection, she comes to me (actually, I'm there like a pit bull if she is in trouble--she doesn't have to come to me at all).
But where I need emotional support or advice, I go to her. When I need to know how to handle an emotional situation correctly, she offers her advice, being much better at dealing with emotions than a man. When I need sympathy or help handling the children when they are sick. She's just naturally better at those things, by God's design. She can simply think better in some ways, and between the two of us, we are much stronger and healthier than either of us are alone. She defers to me in situations where I need to make an authoritative decision, but in most situations we pretty much deal with things together.
The main point of all this is that it is true that no person can fully serve two masters, whether those masters be bosses, leaders, husbands, or whatever. If you try to serve more than one, you run into problems.
VictorLepanto said:
Gematria was one of the things that you mentioned in a message to Fairlight as one of the "evidences" that polygamy was wrong according to Scripture.
Myself, I have little or no regard for numerology like gematria, except in the most limited cases, such as the obvious examples of Scripture. It doesn't convey rational information in the long run, unless interpreted by a prophet of God or someone like that. I remain skeptical of the claims of anyone who goes beyond what Scripture actually says, in their presentation of what Scripture means. God meant the Bible to be simple, because there are simple people that need to be able to understand it.
The same kind of problems plague symbolism and typologies. Unless it is blatantly obvious in Scripture, I'd rather disbelieve than accept a lie.
Skepticism is a cornerstone of wisdom and intelligence. That doesn't mean that you never believe, but that you don't indulge in "easy believe-ism". It's better to stick with what is known, than to step out into Scripture and preach falsehoods, wouldn't you agree?
I'm looking forward to how you interpret the Golden Rule in relation to polygamy, given that God blessed it for thousands of years...
John for Christ
A
Anonymous
Guest
VictorLepanto said:
I don't find any logic in this statement. How a husband views and treats his wife/wives has nothing to do with the "type" of marriage they have. The Bible is clear regarding the treatment of wives. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Wives are to be submissive to their husbands (Ephesians 5) but they are NOT slaves. If a husband looks upon his wife/wives as slaves, he has a serious problem. FYI, I've encountered more than one monogynous man who treated his wife like a slave and even was abusive to her. It wasn't monogyny that caused those men to behave that way. If a polygynous man treats his wife badly, it isn't because he's a polygynist.
Blessings,
Fairlight
In case you didn't notice, friend Victor has started a new thread and has apparently abandoned any idea he may have had about engaging in meaningful dialog.
I wonder, based on his first post in his new thread...is he really a kid trying to see how far he can take what he thinks is a good prank? His posts seem to be getting more and more childish.
And regarding pagan culture: My wife grew up in a pagan culture (she's Navajo) and she will tell you that everything in her (former) culture is, in some way, tied to the pagan Native American religion. That includes seemingly innocent crafts such as silverwork and rug weaving. Both of her grandfathers were medicine men. She became a born-again Christian at age 12 and was disowned by her father. One of her brothers tried to kill her. Both died as born-again Christians, as did her late mother, because she never stopped praying for them. We are still praying for her other siblings.
That is the perspective I am coming from in saying that nothing in a pagan culture comes from faith.
But prohibiting polygyny sure hinders recovering from that chaos. There's not enough responsible unmarried men to go around! Why be responsible when a "one-night stand" is so much easier to get? If women could have a wider choice of responsible men to choose a husband from (by putting married as well as unmarried men in the "potential husband market"), the number of women willing to have a "one-night stand" would be reduced dramatically. (But not entirely eliminated, because not all women would be responsible.) Outlawing abortion (or at least making an abortion difficult to get) might also influence some women to act like they are a bit more responsible.
In the US, prior to WW I, the divorce rate was very low. It was difficult for a woman to obtain a divorce, and men rarely exercised their more-liberal "right" to do so. In those divorces that did take place, the father was routinely awarded custody of the children unless there was compelling reason to do otherwise. Women were not rewarded in any way for successfully divorcing their husbands (other than possibly getting out of an abusive situation) as they are now. Having a baby without having a husband was a sure way to be ostracized by "polite society."
After WW II, states started liberalizing divorce law. More and more, mothers were awarded custody of the children. As it now stands, all 50 states have so-called "no fault divorce" and mothers are routinely awarded custody of the children, the exact reverse of what it was only 100 years ago. Most divorces are initiated by the woman, not the husband. The perceived rewards, both financial and social, are too great for some to resist. (Alimony, AFDC, WIC, ...) And we have approximately 10 million households headed by unwed mothers. Many of those are 3-generation partial families - an unwed mother and her child(ren) living with her own unwed mother. Very few are because of a mother being widowed; most are because of either "one-night stands" (irresponsible biological fathers, thanks to the "sexual revolution" of the '60s) or divorce.
:lol: )
I wonder, based on his first post in his new thread...is he really a kid trying to see how far he can take what he thinks is a good prank? His posts seem to be getting more and more childish.
And regarding pagan culture: My wife grew up in a pagan culture (she's Navajo) and she will tell you that everything in her (former) culture is, in some way, tied to the pagan Native American religion. That includes seemingly innocent crafts such as silverwork and rug weaving. Both of her grandfathers were medicine men. She became a born-again Christian at age 12 and was disowned by her father. One of her brothers tried to kill her. Both died as born-again Christians, as did her late mother, because she never stopped praying for them. We are still praying for her other siblings.
That is the perspective I am coming from in saying that nothing in a pagan culture comes from faith.
Probably wrong terminology on my part - maybe "legally and/or socially and/or religiously prohibited polygamy" might be a better term to describe it, but that's such a mouthful... :lol: I had no intention of implying that women are forced into a marriage of any kind, although that does happen in some cultures. (Probably including some subcultures in America.) One research paper I quoted from in my Doctoral Dissertation used the term "socially-imposed universal monogamy" to describe the same concept; that author was not saying that people were forced into marriage, either. I sort-of modified that term and came up with "forced monogamy."
Actually, the same forces that prohibit some form or another of Biblical Marriage (that is, any "Christian" culture that departs from Biblical teaching about marriage and the family, such as those of the Western nations that came out of that part of the world formerly controlled by the Roman Catholic Church, including the US) will also, sooner or later, end up with high rates of divorce and other family-related social chaos. So it is not prohibiting polygyny that is the cause, but departing from God's instructions. Both (high divorce rate and anti-polygyny) are symptoms of man's sinful nature desiring to do other than what God instituted. Since the Church is teaching false marriage doctrine, she has no moral authority to oppose further erosion of what God's Word teaches in that area.
But prohibiting polygyny sure hinders recovering from that chaos. There's not enough responsible unmarried men to go around! Why be responsible when a "one-night stand" is so much easier to get? If women could have a wider choice of responsible men to choose a husband from (by putting married as well as unmarried men in the "potential husband market"), the number of women willing to have a "one-night stand" would be reduced dramatically. (But not entirely eliminated, because not all women would be responsible.) Outlawing abortion (or at least making an abortion difficult to get) might also influence some women to act like they are a bit more responsible.
In the US, prior to WW I, the divorce rate was very low. It was difficult for a woman to obtain a divorce, and men rarely exercised their more-liberal "right" to do so. In those divorces that did take place, the father was routinely awarded custody of the children unless there was compelling reason to do otherwise. Women were not rewarded in any way for successfully divorcing their husbands (other than possibly getting out of an abusive situation) as they are now. Having a baby without having a husband was a sure way to be ostracized by "polite society."
After WW II, states started liberalizing divorce law. More and more, mothers were awarded custody of the children. As it now stands, all 50 states have so-called "no fault divorce" and mothers are routinely awarded custody of the children, the exact reverse of what it was only 100 years ago. Most divorces are initiated by the woman, not the husband. The perceived rewards, both financial and social, are too great for some to resist. (Alimony, AFDC, WIC, ...) And we have approximately 10 million households headed by unwed mothers. Many of those are 3-generation partial families - an unwed mother and her child(ren) living with her own unwed mother. Very few are because of a mother being widowed; most are because of either "one-night stands" (irresponsible biological fathers, thanks to the "sexual revolution" of the '60s) or divorce.
My wife has taught me a lot. Her Christian upbringing under the missionaries was more-or-less Baptist, and mine (my father was a pastor) was more-or-less Wesleyan, so we had some fundamental doctrinal issues to iron out between us. Her arguments made me think and study a whole lot, and quite often, I found she was right! (Please don't tell her I said that!
:lol: )
A
Anonymous
Guest
VictorLepanto said:
Victor, you have a serious misunderstanding of Scripture if you think that God was EVER presented as doing something wicked.
Please explain in what way God treats Job unrighteously. You ought to get a lot of great responses on THIS. It's a slightly insane view of God if you ask me. Do you, or do you not, believe in the goodness and righteousness of God?
Job was being tested. God has the right to do as He pleases with His creation, according to Scripture. He is the Potter, we are the clay. God has the authority--His own--to take from people, kill people, etc.--but all in the context of His impartiality.
See, there is a difference between God causing a person to drown when it is their time to go, versus God coming to Earth and stabbing someone out of anger and hatred. God couldn't lower Himself to that level anyway, because He IS the final authority, and His actions are always just, as He is the standard upon which all things are judged.
However, God can be presented in the form of a metaphor as performing an action or doing things. There is no Biblical metaphor of an unrighteous God.
As for the Book of Job, it was a historical event, recorded as poetry. Naturally, there are many exaggerations because it is poetic in nature, yet the core of the story is a truth that occurred prior to Abraham. There is evidence within the account that identifies the book of Job as a historical event. The Talmud is wrong (and not only on the Book of Job, but on practically everything).
As for Luke 18, you couldn't be more wrong. God is not compared to the righteous judge at all. God makes the point that if the righteous judge is willing to listen to persistence for someone who continues to irritate him, how much better will God treat those that love Him (i.e., "His choice ones"). He says that He will "execute justice to them quickly". So your interpretation of this is really screwed up. God is righteous, and does much better than the unrighteous judge, by giving His children speedy justice rather than requiring us to continually pester Him for His help.
But Victor, I'm not trying to be mean when I say this, you do not understand the Word of God if you believe that God could ever be portrayed as wicked within the pages of Scripture. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of God. He cannot do wrong. He cannot be wicked in any manner. It is certainly wrong to present God as sinning, as that is blasphemy. You are missing the boat here in your zeal to combat polygamy.
John for Christ
A
Anonymous
Guest
PolyDoc said:
Well, that was her culture. Not every culture is so invested with their religion. In fact, growing up in Oklahoma, I came to know a lot about American Indian religious artifacts. I don't think that it was as all-encompassing as your wife believes, though I imagine it was very pervasive throughout that society. Not every religion works that way. But even so, imbuing something like our breath with an idea that maybe the gods are giving us life through air, doesn't make breathing "not of faith". A person that believes that the gods give life through air also believes that they must breathe, whether or not the religious belief is there or not. We have faith that we'll stick to the ground as well, but that's not an article of religious faith, but just common natural faith in the way the Universe works.
I think my point is that there are many good things in pagan cultures, but we need to be careful to separate the false religion from the good things. It is the religion that is bad, not the things themselves. A hammer isn't a bad hammer because a Muslim made it. It's just a hammer.
Now Paul gave us an example that directly addresses this subject. He said to eat the meat found in the meat market, and not to bother asking whether it was sacrificed to idols or not. His point was that we know that the meat itself isn't bad whether it was sacrificed to idols or not. It wasn't the meat that is the problem, but the recognition that it glorified a false religion. Paul goes on to point out that if someone alerts you to the fact that it was sacrificed to idols then we shouldn't eat it, for conscience' sake. Not our OWN conscience, which again knows the difference between a thing and the religious thoughts about the thing, but for the conscience of the person that was obviously concerned about it.
So I can wear a Navajo ring that a Navajo may have made with pagan significance without it being an issue for me. I certainly wouldn't go around telling a Navajo that it was a sacred ring to their gods though...
By the way, I'm a bit Apache, I believe, and my wife is partly Cherokee.
PolyDoc said:
The two world wars had a huge effect upon marriage and the family. The cause, I believe, was related to the changing nature of the interactions between men and women during those war years. Women, who had traditionally been in the home, had their husbands go away, and the government calling for a female workforce. The women interacted directly and intimately with men in offices in a way they had little done in the past. That led to many divorces "for cause". Once divorce became common, those in charge decided it was ludicrous to continue requiring a just cause for divorce--which led to an even greater divorce rate.
We can point to many other causes for the failing American marriage (and ultimately the world's failure, through the juggernaut of American ideals) in such things as the Flower Child Generation of the 60's, the rise of feminism, changes in the interaction between religion and schools and government, and so forth. It's a very complex problem.
But I don't think that the issue of polygamy really comes into that problem anywhere at this point. Perhaps in the future, it can be one of several forces that help bring us back to a family- and marriage-centric society, but it's not the sole answer, nor even the best answer to the problem.
One way in which I do think polygamy would be useful is in raising the population of Christians. If we can't do it solely by evangelism, let's make a bunch of little Christians ourselves! ;->
John for Christ
Isn't that exactly what the Muslims did to spread their religion? And the Mormons, until October 6, 1890, when then-LDS President Wilford Woodruf issued the manifesto disavowing plural marriage?
While we American Christians have one or two kids per family so we can "enjoy the good life," those who practice false religions have 10 or 20! And we don't seem to be able to make those one or two into little Christians. Over 85% of kids raised in a home with two parents who take them to church leave church after graduating from high school. In single-mother households, that figure approaches 100%. As my pastor (who won't allow me to teach because of my belief in Biblical Marriage) says, the church is losing ground. We are not even keeping up with the birth rate!
Here's the real solution (emphasis mine):
This applies equally to Christian mono and Christian poly families. Too many children either have a father who does not obey this command of the Lord, or have no father at all. And note that it says "fathers," not "Pastors" or "Sunday School teachers" or "churches."
IMHO, and I just barely touched on it in my late-night bleary-eyed post, the real issue is that supposedly Christian America has abandoned our Christian roots. Most (not all) of the Founding Fathers of our nation were Bible believing Christians.
Agreed, polygyny won't "cure what ails us." Like our other social problems, anti-poly is just one more symptom of our increasingly rapid shift away from Christian ideals. It just started ~800 years earlier than most other symptoms, thanks to the Roman Catholic Church adopting (and here's that word again...) pagan Greco-Roman marriage traditions in place of Biblical marriage instructions, and calling the mess "Christian." Martin Luther made a feeble attempt to correct that doctrinal error, but he rightly put most of his effort into more important doctrines such as those things several of us have in our sigs - "sola fide, sola scriptura," etc. And the RCC still had enough political power to thwart his attempts to legitimize polygyny. (Again, that is documented in my Doctoral Dissertation.)
It does for the person who believes that.
Even a stopped clock has the right time twice a day... :lol: Nearly any false teaching will contain some elements of truth. Even the JWs, Muslims, and Mormons. And even the Roman Catholic Church, which is the second-largest cult in the world. (Islam is the largest.)
John, I think we are on the same page. You have been studying Biblical Marriage far longer than I, so I would be foolish to ignore anything you might be able to teach me. Thank you, brother!
I don't know why people think polygamy will lead to a larger population. Having several wives to a husband will only reduce the gene pool. A woman can only have one baby per year no matter how many husbands she has. & most women are not going to get pregnant every year, even attempting it would often lead to serious health issues.PolyDoc said:
Women are only fertile for a fixed number of years. If they start having children at too young an age, there ability to have children later will be compromised. Then there is menapause at the other end of life. Most women will only be likely to have children between 20 & 40. There isn't much scope beyond this. Caring for each child in between those years also will limit her childbearing.
Western Civilisation far outstripped the Moslems at population increase, until we started shooting ourselves in the foot w/ bad philosophy. It is the atheistic ethic of Europe that is killing them.
WomanSeekingGod
New Member
VictorLepanto said:
You keep referring to a woman having multiple husbands. It makes me wonder if you are under the impression that we support polyandry as well as polygyny. Or perhaps you think they are one in the same?
Just to be clear, polygyny is one husband, multiple wives. Polyandry is one wife, multiple husbands. We support polygyny NOT polyandry.
VictorLepanto said:
It's quite simple really, one man with two wives who each give him three children (an average of the number of children women in Scripture each had), and those six children each have six children, can look forward to his decedents multiplying to 42 people in just two generations. However, a man with only one wife who only gives him three children, and those three children each have three children, can only look forward to 12 decedents. That is a difference of 30 people!
Just look at what happened with Jacob. His wives and concubines only had a few children each, and yet he ended up with 12 sons! From those 12 boys a nation was created! Think of what Christians could accomplish if only 1-5% of us practiced polygyny! (Did you know that in societies where polygyny is accepted and practiced only 1-5% of the population practice it?)
WomanSeekingGod
Victor said:
Bad philosophy - like adopting pagan Greco-Roman asceticism and declaring sex to be sinful without any Scriptural basis at all for doing so.
Bad philosophy - like adopting pagan Greco-Roman asceticism and declaring that celibacy is somehow more holy than being married without any Scriptural basis at all for doing so.
Bad philosophy - like adopting Roman secular law and pagan Greco-Roman asceticism and declaring polygyny to be a sin without any Scriptural basis at all for doing so.
The list could go on and on, but I don't want to get into Catholic-bashing...and that's what it would look like since, for all practical purposes, the Roman Catholic Church was Western civilization for about 1,000+/- years.
Your are exactly right.
Bad philosophy - like adopting pagan Greco-Roman asceticism and declaring sex to be sinful without any Scriptural basis at all for doing so.
Bad philosophy - like adopting pagan Greco-Roman asceticism and declaring that celibacy is somehow more holy than being married without any Scriptural basis at all for doing so.
Bad philosophy - like adopting Roman secular law and pagan Greco-Roman asceticism and declaring polygyny to be a sin without any Scriptural basis at all for doing so.
The list could go on and on, but I don't want to get into Catholic-bashing...and that's what it would look like since, for all practical purposes, the Roman Catholic Church was Western civilization for about 1,000+/- years.
Victor said:
Here's why:
According to the US Census Bureau, in 2008, there were 9.8 million single mothers living with their children. These children are not being raised as the Bible commands (emphasis mine):
The Bible says (emphasis mine):
Those 9.8 million single moms and their kids are the widows and orphans of our society. There are approximately 47% more women than men in the churches of America, and many of them are those single moms. There's a shortage of responsible, God-fearing unmarried men. But there are plenty of irresponsible boys in grown-up bodies who take no responsibility for the results of their one-night stands. (Maybe the gene pool needs a little chlorine. :lol: )
How did that happen? Did the Church fall down in its evangelization of men?
No, Paul said (emphasis mine):
Actually, it won't lead to a larger population overall, but Biblical Marriage (including polygyny) will lead to a larger population of solid, God-fearing Christians.
Here's why:
According to the US Census Bureau, in 2008, there were 9.8 million single mothers living with their children. These children are not being raised as the Bible commands (emphasis mine):
If a few Godly men had more than one wife each, some of these fatherless children would then have a father to do as Ephesians 6:4 commands.
The Bible says (emphasis mine):
Thayer has, as one definition of "episkeptomai" (translated as "visit"):
So that doesn't mean just buy the single mom a bag of groceries and take her kids to a ball game once a month. It means to be a husband to her and a father to her children.
Those 9.8 million single moms and their kids are the widows and orphans of our society. There are approximately 47% more women than men in the churches of America, and many of them are those single moms. There's a shortage of responsible, God-fearing unmarried men. But there are plenty of irresponsible boys in grown-up bodies who take no responsibility for the results of their one-night stands. (Maybe the gene pool needs a little chlorine. :lol: )
How did that happen? Did the Church fall down in its evangelization of men?
No, Paul said (emphasis mine):
And Jesus said:
God brings into His church those He wants to be there. Maybe the fact that He brought in so many more women than men is a not-so-subtle message to us...?
A
Anonymous
Guest
VictorLepanto said:
No offense intended, Victor, but you apparently are neither a mathematician nor familiar with the science of genetics.
My wife noted the immense population increase that is possible with polygamy compared to the same with monogamy, given equal conditions. I'll go one step further and take her example out to five generations of descendants.
With monogamy, if every succeeding generation had three children per marriage, then after five generations there would be 363 descendants.
With polygamy, if every succeeding generation had two wives with three children per husband, then after five generations there would be 9330 descendants. This represents MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE TIMES the number of descendants than monogamy. That is quite a significant difference.
Clearly, this is under ideal circumstances, but the mathematics indicate the significant difference just a few more children per generation would be. Polygamy makes such a thing far more likely to occur.
Concerning genetics, you said that "Having several wives to a husband will only reduce the gene pool." That statement is no more true than a man having a single wife.
A simple exercise in logic will demonstrate the false logic of this argument. Adam and Eve were the source of ALL the genes of mankind, yet we seem to have a tremendous diversity of genetic material among humans. How is that possible? It's possible because the gene pool naturally expands over time. Even if we were reduced to two humans, the gene pool would continue to expand from that point.
However, the gene pool is expanded as one group marries into another. With monogamy, a man marries a woman not of his own family, and therefore the gene pool is expanded. With polygamy, a man marries two or more women not of his family, and the gene pool is likewise expanded. While this may represent more genes from the man, as these children marry into other families, the gene pool is still expanded roughly as much as in monogamy.
If you think about it logically, if a monogamist has six children with one wife, and a polygamist has three children with two wives, both husbands will produce six children, but the polygamist will have twice the genetic diversity on their mothers' side. So, contrary to your opinion, polygamy generally results in GREATER genetic diversity, and EXPANDS the gene pool, more so than monogamy does.
Polygamy also represents only a very small number of marriages in any society that accepts it. It's not as if EVERY man will be a polygamist. About 1-5% could be polygamists in an ideal society, and the remainder would be monogamist (or remain unmarried, I suppose).
Certainly there are limits to how many children a woman can have. Nobody has argued differently. The point isn't how many children a woman can have, but how many a man can have. Men produce an unlimited amount of sperm, and can impregnate as many women as will allow them, given the time to do so. (I'm not in any way encouraging men to go out and get every woman they see pregnant, just making the point that it is possible.) Polygamy simply results in more children naturally, because the average woman has about three children. A man with two wives will likely have six children on average, a man with three wives would have nine, and so forth. Polygamy is simply better at populating.
Incidentally, women can have far more than three children, and are fertile earlier than 20 and later than 40, though it tapers off in the late 30s. I knew a woman who had more than 50 children! She had a bunch, then her first husband died, then she had a bunch more. In two generations, her family was so large--more than 200--that they had to rent a gymnasium for their family reunions! She was one of the sweetest Mexican women I've ever met, and she was a believer as well.
John for Christ
A
Anonymous
Guest
To all,
Just to be clear, my suggestion that we indulge in polygamy to expand the population of Christians is a bit "tongue in cheek". It would certainly work--the mathematics are clear on that point. However, I don't believe that ought to be the reason that people enter into a polygynous marriage, and there's no guarantee that the children will grow up to be Christians themselves. Marriage should always be for love.
Nevertheless, it certainly wouldn't hurt for Christians to become polygynists and increase the Christian population...
John for Christ
Just to be clear, my suggestion that we indulge in polygamy to expand the population of Christians is a bit "tongue in cheek". It would certainly work--the mathematics are clear on that point. However, I don't believe that ought to be the reason that people enter into a polygynous marriage, and there's no guarantee that the children will grow up to be Christians themselves. Marriage should always be for love.
Nevertheless, it certainly wouldn't hurt for Christians to become polygynists and increase the Christian population...
John for Christ
Tlaloc
Member
Thanks for the encouragement womanseekinggod and fairlight
Strictly speaking, polygamy does not tend to population unless there are more women than men. This happens from time to time, but isn't he present case. I agree that allowing it lets Godly men do more to raise Godly kids and Godly kids will be more likely to take the responsibility of larger families, so by extension it does. But in and of itself the math doesn't support polygamy unless you assume that in monogamy some women are not having kids that would otherwise be (sometimes a fair assumption, sometimes not).
Anyway, Victor, it seems you've been pinned back. You're God would do wrong. My God is right; the very definition of right, if he does something, its right, there is no higher power to call on to define right and wrong than my God. I don't know by what power you define your God as wrong by, what you believe is greater than him that would judge him as doing wrong, but clearly we do not server the same master.
No, thats wrong, we do serve the same, but you do not yet appreciate his power and wisdom enough to have faith that what he does is good and never wrong. You have a smaller view of God than me, that isn't bad in and of itself, I do not have a big enough view of him, no one does. But you need to realize the smallness of your view to grow in Him and learn more.
Please understand that you're argument is now "Just because God did it doesn't mean it's right", and you are no longer debating on a Christian plane. I guess I'm out of my element now... Oh well.
Strictly speaking, polygamy does not tend to population unless there are more women than men. This happens from time to time, but isn't he present case. I agree that allowing it lets Godly men do more to raise Godly kids and Godly kids will be more likely to take the responsibility of larger families, so by extension it does. But in and of itself the math doesn't support polygamy unless you assume that in monogamy some women are not having kids that would otherwise be (sometimes a fair assumption, sometimes not).
Anyway, Victor, it seems you've been pinned back. You're God would do wrong. My God is right; the very definition of right, if he does something, its right, there is no higher power to call on to define right and wrong than my God. I don't know by what power you define your God as wrong by, what you believe is greater than him that would judge him as doing wrong, but clearly we do not server the same master.
No, thats wrong, we do serve the same, but you do not yet appreciate his power and wisdom enough to have faith that what he does is good and never wrong. You have a smaller view of God than me, that isn't bad in and of itself, I do not have a big enough view of him, no one does. But you need to realize the smallness of your view to grow in Him and learn more.
Please understand that you're argument is now "Just because God did it doesn't mean it's right", and you are no longer debating on a Christian plane. I guess I'm out of my element now... Oh well.
I really haven't the foggiest what you're talking about. Right & wrong are understood in terms of the will of God. God only has one infinite & eternal will. No shadow of turning enters into it. He doesn't will one thing one day & in one place & something else elsewhere.Tlaloc said:Thanks for the encouragement womanseekinggod and fairlight
Strictly speaking, polygamy does not tend to population unless there are more women than men. This happens from time to time, but isn't he present case. I agree that allowing it lets Godly men do more to raise Godly kids and Godly kids will be more likely to take the responsibility of larger families, so by extension it does. But in and of itself the math doesn't support polygamy unless you assume that in monogamy some women are not having kids that would otherwise be (sometimes a fair assumption, sometimes not).
Anyway, Victor, it seems you've been pinned back. You're God would do wrong. My God is right; the very definition of right, if he does something, its right, there is no higher power to call on to define right and wrong than my God. I don't know by what power you define your God as wrong by, what you believe is greater than him that would judge him as doing wrong, but clearly we do not server the same master.
No, thats wrong, we do serve the same, but you do not yet appreciate his power and wisdom enough to have faith that what he does is good and never wrong. You have a smaller view of God than me, that isn't bad in and of itself, I do not have a big enough view of him, no one does. But you need to realize the smallness of your view to grow in Him and learn more.
Please understand that you're argument is now "Just because God did it doesn't mean it's right", and you are no longer debating on a Christian plane. I guess I'm out of my element now... Oh well.
Anything that would require God to act out of two different wills or nature is illegitimate. You need to try to clarify what your on about.