My sw told me yesterday that a woman she met online is considering being a man's second wife. The man she has invested 2 years into isn't "ready" for marriage and children. *eye roll*
-
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.
Is Monogamy a Key Cause of High Divorce Rates?
- Thread starter Jason Cook
- Start date
Putting herself away is an option, I wouldn’t disagree. What if she has no financial or familial resources to do so? It seems a bit pie in the sky to think that’s always the solution. I’m not encouraging divorce, and we know that God hates it. But on a justice scale, it less intrusive than potentially irreparable health and harm due to abuse.
I guess she’s getting a job etc until her husband gets right with God. It isn’t ideal but she doesn’t have Biblical Grounds for a divorce. I know that’s not what the feminist want to hear but it’s true.
And multiple dependent children, including infants or toddlers? Mom gets a job to support them? Who cares for them? Strangers? If husband is a drug addict on the street, does she work under the authority of another man to pay for the care that another man has broken his obligation for?
A lot of the points made here, were made in the book "The History and Philosophy of Marriage" by James Campbell written back in 1869, and those of you who are new to Biblical Families, I would highly recommend you either purchase the book and read it, or find a free copy available online. In the book, Campbell (most likely a pseudonym) highlights several things that are wrong with society, and pins the blame squarely on the monogamy only heresy. If you can find an online copy of the book, you can copy and paste (and of course give attribution to) any text that you find that will support your argument against the adherents who claim that the Bible is our sole source of authority, until it isn't, when it comes to this heretical dogma.
I thought isha was always a woman who belongs to a man- in the OT. In the NT we have the greek which uses gyne (goonay) 221 times and in MOST cases it is inferred that she belongs to someone and the translators used the obvious word WIFE (his gyne) and also "woman" because the subsequent phrases includes children, e.g. "women and children".
Therefore when a man looks on a gyne with lust in his heart (Matt 5:28) he is looking at a woman that belongs to someone else, and the resultant adultery charge from Jesus.
Contrast that with "virgin" (parthenos) who obviously has no man. In I Cor 7:34 there is difference also between a wife(gyne) and a virgin (parthenos). The unmarried woman [woman is inferred by translators] (agamos- used only 4x) careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
Now, the obvious question arises, "can a man be committing adultery if he is lusting after an UNMARRIED woman?" Jesus did NOT say so, therefore NO.
Unfortunately the modern church has even condoned the offended wife of a man stuck in porn to divorce her husband as the porn is equated to adultery. It is a mark of a society that a woman seizes control of a deteriorating familial (and churchianity) life A la, Isaiah 3.
Not accurate. Mary was a virgin betrothed to Joseph.
Betrothal was considered the initial stage of marriage, so much so that it takes a divorce to break it. He was going to do it quietly.
Read again my message and think little long term.
Woman would only be married depending how long it takes legal system to execute her husband.
I doubt any legal system would "look through fingers" attempted murder.
If evidence was public and strong enough, everybody would know she would be marriable soon.
Any even if she survives it's evil to put victim and offender together.
You can't qoute Bible verse about divorce. You also need to read verses about murder and asks yourself what if husband attempts to kill his wife. It's possible situation, you know.
Nobody thinking would put divorce verses before murder verses.
There are very few "Marys" in scripture.
How many do you need?
I think Steve's point is just that a betrothed woman was considered basically married (though still a virgin).
The Law said that a betrothed woman (still a virgin) who willingly had sex with a man other than her betrothed was to be put to death (the man too). That was the same as the punishment for adultery.
Things were different if a man slept with a virgin who was not betrothed.
Deuteronomy 22:23-28
Most of ch
Under forced monogamy, there could be room for another version of Jesus, another version of the father. Goddess worship as the pagan traditions. Also, many Christian churches teach an antichrist inversion of who's chosen after Christ. If you don't have the son, you don't have the father. That's why they support antichrist groups made from beast church state theaters. So, they don't know they worship another Jesús, another spirit. That's why they are totally ok with genocides, globalist wars and some woke ideals. God said " my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge, because they rejected knowledge"
Historically, King James instituted the 1604 English Bigamy Act. In this act, a man who was found to have more wives than one would be forcibly separated by sea for seven years. He had to be forced to choose only one, and the other wives would be pawned off to other men to marry. If he refused, he would be put to death and all wives pawned off to other men. It's evil.
Then there's Quanah Parker, an Comanche Indian, had 7 wives. He lived until 1911. He's one of the prominent polygynists in Indian culture. It was known that Quanah Parker had a visit from the Catholic Jesuits and was told that having more than one wife is a terrible sin in the eyes of God. Parker rejected the Jesuits and told them to get off his land. His wives stood by him and rejected the Jesuits too.
There was a wealthy British barrister, who turned into a preacher, named Martin Madan. He wrote in his three volumes of Thelypthora: A Treatise on Female Ruin. He was a staunch proponent of polygyny, used the Bible as a good Berean, and quoted so much from the Bible through Hebrew and Greek. He espoused in these books that polygyny could help cure some societal ills such as preventing prostitution, ruination of women (like today where men can get laid with women and ditch them after they've "captured" their virginity), abuse of marriage and divorces where men could threaten wives that they could marry younger women. Charles Dickens is an example of this.
Believe it or not, polygyny has existed throughout the centuries, even after the Council of Trent. The problem is that the lineage of polygynists were not well known in the 17th, 18th, and 19th Century as there's no migration data or how many polygynists lived. Europe effectively ended polygyny around 1604 because the Catholic Church had such a stronghold over all nations including "divine right by popery". The popes would give kings "divine rights" to be kings provided they were the only kingmakers. As a result, they were able to keep tabs over kings. If any king got out of line, they were anathemized, excommunicated, and wars would result either in their deaths or a breakaway from the RCC.
Then there's Germany who lost so many men through World War I. There was a law back in the day around Munich, I believe, that instituted polygamy. Every German male available were to take two women and propagate. That's how Germany came back and started World War II because the populational loss of men in WWI was too severe. They had to rectify this.
Ethiopia has a long history of polygamy. It was recently in 1956 that they started a ban on it and are working toward outlawing it entirely. In African culture, every woman who has laid with a man sees that man as her husband. She can no longer have sex with another. I've seen a documentary on this where women cried over the fact they had sex with that man and could no longer carry on because they are taken. The prevalence of beliefs such as these is what makes Africa poorer. Men aren't considerate and too willful to sleep around. In fact, prostitution is the only thing African women have to turn to in order to make money, which further exacerbates the problem.
America was relatively untouched until much later on when Catholic Jesuits started roaming the lands, proselytizing their faith to other cultures. They also hunted down polygynists as well to force them to give their wives up. Polygyny did exist in 1900s and onwards. The formation of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, and other religions sprouted up as a means to acquire illegal gains without biblical application of the true Bible.
Marriage did not work a lot under monogamy. Nero executed Poppeia, and his other wives as a serial monogamist, married a boy who was neutered and turned into a woman. He was raped. Then Nero burned Christians on the cross at night, relishing in their screams and the light illuminating Rome. The accounts given around the fall of Rome showed that decadence, corruption, and sexual impurity were being carried out. Prostitution, engaging in sexual acts, even inside the temples and whorehouses, were seen as a rite of passage for young men and the elders would encourage the continuation of slavery. The Praetorian Guard fell to their deaths due to skullthuggery and were slain. There were other evil emperors too at the time who did abuse their wives. Then there's King Henry of England (I forget which number) who would marry multiple women including Anne Boleyn then had her executed.
In Madan's three volumes, he also outlined what happened in Victorian England. The men were drunkards, serial monogamists, wife abusers, rapists of women. He even pointed out that they also chased after children. And there's a whole slew of how the men would abuse the law of God through their manmade laws by enjoying marrying one wife, divorcing her, then marrying another without biblical grounds for it. The way Madan wrote it, it's similar to our time only that each century is dressed up in a different way with the same methods being applied throughout all centuries.
No fault divorce may have contributed to the rise of divorces through non-biblical grounds but it is not the defining factor. The problem is that despite Madan's records and testimony of what happens in Victorian England, you will always see the same things being done in each century. I am sure that in Victorian England, they had no laws about no fault divorces. I am not 100% confident on that but I am sure that they did not. Do you know why?
Our laws in the U.S. are modeled after English Common Law. The laws of bigamy only sprouted up when Republicans back in the day called for the end of the twin relic of barbarism: slavery and polygyny. Slavery still exists today but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Polygyny is still thriving, but not in mass numbers. However, we do have anti-bigamy laws that existed in recent times, which suggests that since 1604, that mere measure being instituted by King James, England was already working toward that ban. America only followed after in 1856 when the Republicans called for that ban. That's 252 years in-between.
I've said it before. Common Law in the US derives from English Common Laws. All English Common Laws derive from Catholic laws. All Catholic laws derive from Rome, who instituted their principles and formation of laws. As the quote goes, "All roads lead to Rome." In this case, "All laws lead to Rome."
It was King Henry VIII. Interestingly enough Martin Luther of all people. told King Henry that is would be better to remain married to Catherine and go ahead and take Ann as a second wife. Needless to say King Henry refused to do so. Also the United States, in an effort to crack down on Mormon polygyny, instituted laws against fornication, but of course they only selectively applied those laws to the Mormons.
They further cemented the ban on polygyny in Utah. The Supreme Court would have heard the case of Brown v. Utah but the Supreme Court worked behind the scenes with legislators in Utah. They worked together before the court date showed up and changed the language that sounded religious in nature. When they finally changed it to a neutral tone and applied it broadly rather than specifically, the Supreme Court dropped the case.
The case would have been argued very eloquently by a lawyer named Jonathan Turley and I am 100% confident Brown would have won this case. A lot of "Christians", serial monogamists, and many others believed that it would lead to a slippery slope. The fact they would allow homosexuality, adultery, and so on already shows we are on a slippery slope already. However, the Constitution is clear on the rights of individuals, regardless of religion, sexual orientation, and other descriptors. Homosexuals, adulterers, and others have rights like we do. The way the Brown case would have been structured is through enumerated rights, civil liberties granted to homosexuals, and other amendments that back up Turley's argument.
Suffice to say, the way the Court did it, it's shameful. However, Kody Brown is not the perfect example of a polygynist. He's one of the worse examples of a polygynist. Today? He's now divorced by all his women and has no one right now, I believe. The show, Sister Wives, started off nice and cool but then it showed a lot of the flaws Kody Brown had with his multiple wives. Many monogamists tend to support the argument that Sister Wives is the smoking gun they need to prove that anti-bigamy laws are here to stay.
It seems Jonathan Turley has gone quite conservative since this case, which is what makes him such an interesting person for all these conservatives who laud praise on him.
Not to go on a rabbit trail but I don’t think Turley has necessarily gone anywhere. The Left has just gone so far to the looney side that everyone else near the center or civil libertarian minded looks like they’ve moved right.
Agreed. And I "laud praise" on him for being able to maintain his own sanity, and clear-headed reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights - in SPITE of the obvious pressure to "go along" with the Insanity. (Likewise: Naomi Wolf, who HAS actually "moved right.")
Turley is respected, even by some of those who now hate him, because of that consistency.
PS> He would make a FAR better jurist than ANY of the 'Black-robed priests of Satan' on the far left of the USSC. Including Roberts.
Reynolds is one of the worst anti-Bill of Rights rulings in history (up there with Dred Scott and Roe v Wade, almost as bad as Miller.)
The clear (admittedly oversimplified) reading is "to hell with your Right to 'free exercise' of your faith in the Real Creator and Author of Scripture."
Oh, and PS> They're repeatedly done the same thing with Second Amendment cases - rejecting the REAL ones, to allow "hard cases to make bad law" - so that Miller doesn't have to be reconsidered - because it would fall apart on any honest re-examination by the USSC.
Last edited: