Just curious.
Is that sentence missing a couple of words, or does it mean what it says?
-
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.
So... What are your arguments FOR polygyny?
Is that sentence missing a couple of words, or does it mean what it says?
Also, we were naked, vegan, gardeners before the fall. After the fall, we are all living outside of the “ideal” that God created.
Smilesgalore
Member
How do you know what the truth is? Lots of men have had multiple wives in the Bible snd in life, especially in other cultures. Now the Christian’s all say monogamy. Some Muslims say monogamy but some say polygamy. How fo you know?
Hi @Smilesgalore. Thanks for your question. Having the correct answer to your first question will determine everything else you think and believe. You ask, "How do you know what the truth is?" Jesus said, "Your Word is Truth" (John 17:17). What God has said is The Truth so whatever God says about having more than one wife (or any other aspect of life or faith) is The Truth. He said, "If he takes for himself another woman... ." (Exodus 21:10). He told David, "I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!" Those who knew and understood God's law took multiple wives and were blessed accordingly. For example, we read in 2 Chronicles 24:2-3; "And Joash did what was right in the sight of Yahweh all the days of Jehoiada the priest. And Jehoiada took up two wives for him, and he became the father of sons and daughters." We see in these passages, and in many others, that a man taking more than one wife is right and God says He can/does add more than one wife to a man, blessing such unions. Since God said these things you can be absolutely confident He is telling the truth and not lying.
In reply to your comment; "Now the Christian’s all say monogamy." I'm a Bible believing and teaching Christian, and I believe and teach some men can remain unmarried, some can be monogamous, and some (like me) can have multiple wives. Most men on this forum are Christians and I think you will find they would believe much the same as me regarding a man having multiple wives.
Shalom
@Smilesgalore i'm curious what your religious background is? Knowing that may help us interact with you on your quest.
An additional area you may consider exploring, and we can provide resources, is 'WHY?' Why was polygyny very common across all cultures then Greece and later Rome outlawed it? Was western Greco-Roman culture that much smarter or did they have an agenda that undermined the family, man, etc in favor of garnering loyalty and power to the State? As you dig into this subject you may be surprised to find that there are many advantages to women, men, children, etc that the State doesn't like...
Here's a video from a aeries worth your time:
Smilesgalore
Member
Thanks @PeteR this is really interesting ! I don’t really have a religious background. The only time I have been to church was with my ex bf and he was Catholic. I thought the Mass was beautiful but I never understood any of it. He had lots of rules like no sex ever but would drink all the time. It seemed to conflict to me. Anyway that didn’t work out bc I didn’t want to pretend to believe something I didn’t even understand. I am learning more now that I know more people from other parts of the world.
Certainly, external to your polygyny research, I'd offer that it is well worth your time to consider if there is concrete, knowable truth, and if so, where does it come from? Is there an inherent created order, or are we just an astronomically lucky happenstance from a primordial soup?
And these types of questions play into the foundations of what we believe regarding man, woman, Eternal law, truth, etc... they are foundational to marriage, order, structure, etc...
From a purely natralistic approach, polygyny (one man, more than one woman) makes a lot of sense in terms of protection, provision, family growth (takes a man 15 minutes and a woman 9 months to make a baby), etc... study almost all ancient cultures and tribal peoples and you'll find that polyamory and polyandry are almost nonexistent. Why? These are cool questions to sort out because at the root is design, creation order, healthy society, etc...
Enjoy the journey as you dug into this most fascinating study.
Catholicism makes Christianity seem complicated and confusing. Really it's just getting to know who God actually is. The Mass is beautiful and moving because all of the details are deeply symbolic of beautiful and moving things, but until you understand those details the Mass will make no sense.
Cut to the heart of it and ask "is there actually a God", and "if so, why did He make me? Does He have anything to say to me today?". Then things will start to make more sense.
It means what it says.
Could you please explain how you came to that conclusion?
It is possible that I should have specified Genesis 3 or “the fall” which many call it.
I will attempt to be brief. In studying “the fall” many conclude it was an apple, apricot, passion fruit, etc. again brief here. In examining/studying what truly happened, it was adultery that was committed. Hence the original definition of adultery is “only sex with another man’s wife. David never committed adultery until he took another man’s wife. Being the act of adultery that Eve committed against Adam, her punishment also was based on the crime committed, which is consistent with God. Cain was never mention in the genealogy. Why? Peter even called him, “of that wicked one” which was his origin. Thus, if it was adultery that caused “the fall” the Messiah’s birth had to come outside of the origin of sin or by a virgin. Outside of the act of the original shedding of blood, Eve’s hymen. Then too, this is why His blood had to be shed. Blood atones for blood.
Again this is very brief. As the student I know you are, you will thoroughly study this out and not do as most, conclude it is wrong to begin with and work backwards to the hypothesis. Be blessed my Brother.
I think Genesis 3 needs to be understood in the context of Genesis 4:1 as well to avoid going off on some errant interpretation.
I'm now wondering if Steve's question doesn't remain relevant: did you mean to originally write, "Genesis also explains why the Messiah had to be born of a virgin?"
Also, Curtis, could you point me to the scripture or outside reference that interprets Scripture as indicating that, instead of Eve's sin being "eat[ing] from the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden" [Genesis 3:2-3, CVOT] (later referred to as that which would lead to "knowing good and evil" by the serpent in :5 and was experienced by the woman in :6 as "desirable for gaining insight"), the cause of the fall was the woman committing adultery?
I have heard of the serpent's seed theory before, I believe it was originally a gnostic idea, and then was later used to support racial prejudice (by saying that blacks were descendants of Cain and therefore were "sons of the serpent"). I do not mean to imply @Curtis Gerhart believes those things. But I'd be interested to know if you (Mr. Curtis) believe "sons of the serpent" exist today?
I have never heard someone claim the fruit to have been a euphemism. So when Genesis says Eve gave the fruit to Adam and he also ate, are you saying they both had relations with the deceiver?
Most people see monogamy and polygyny as a moral issue.
We see it as a matter of worship!
To explain, The roman god and goddess for marriage were Jupiter and Juno. Under their worship only monogamy was allowed as acceptable marriage.
Interestingly, Jupiter was a Baal god and Juno was the Queen of Heaven.
According to the OT the standards as set by Jehovah (YHWH) included both monogamy and polygyny.
Now have a look at Deuteronomy 13. you will see that if any person was to entice others to follow any other god but Jehovah they were sinners and were to be removed.
Now considering that Juno and Jupiter were being worshiped well before 800 BCE, we have a conflict between Jehovah and Baal (Jupiter) and the Queen of Heaven (Juno) and the standards of Jehovah are in direct conflict with those of Jupiter and Juno.
So which side did Jesus take? was he loyal to Jehovah and thus remain sinless, or did he align his followers with Jupiter and Juno?
The answer is obvious.
The subject of morality is emotional, the subject of worship is not!
The God or gods that we teach others to follow is indeed the God or gods that we worship.
In this way we have found that we are not telling others that polygyny is for them as monogamy well may be their path. But the point becomes clear that to speak against polygyny is to incite others to follow Baal and the Queen of Heaven.
We see it as a matter of worship!
To explain, The roman god and goddess for marriage were Jupiter and Juno. Under their worship only monogamy was allowed as acceptable marriage.
Interestingly, Jupiter was a Baal god and Juno was the Queen of Heaven.
According to the OT the standards as set by Jehovah (YHWH) included both monogamy and polygyny.
Now have a look at Deuteronomy 13. you will see that if any person was to entice others to follow any other god but Jehovah they were sinners and were to be removed.
Now considering that Juno and Jupiter were being worshiped well before 800 BCE, we have a conflict between Jehovah and Baal (Jupiter) and the Queen of Heaven (Juno) and the standards of Jehovah are in direct conflict with those of Jupiter and Juno.
So which side did Jesus take? was he loyal to Jehovah and thus remain sinless, or did he align his followers with Jupiter and Juno?
The answer is obvious.
The subject of morality is emotional, the subject of worship is not!
The God or gods that we teach others to follow is indeed the God or gods that we worship.
In this way we have found that we are not telling others that polygyny is for them as monogamy well may be their path. But the point becomes clear that to speak against polygyny is to incite others to follow Baal and the Queen of Heaven.
Time for some game theory.
First step is accepting what I call fundametal sex asymmetry. Mother always knows she is mother, father can never be certain (she can cheat).
It logically follows that men will want to ensure paternity of child. And way to be certain it to ensure that female never has another male. Since child's survival is enhanced when both parents cooperate female has to accept man's desire for fidelity. There is no reason for man to raise another man's child.
Above automatically kills group marriage and polyandry and explains why monogamy makes sense. What about polygyny?
Here we have 3 players: man, existing female and new female. For man polygyny makes sense (spreading genes). Only problems are resources like money and time. For females things are little different. There is choice between expanding family or throwing out one female out.
Problem with option throwing out is that winner's position is never secure. She gets more resources for her existing children now, but will she remain favourite forever? There is no principle guarding her. Also throw out requires one female to lose fight and have reduced chances of survival for her offspring. This option ensures losing for someone.
Option expanding family stops someone losing out. Is should stabilize family because females position is always secure.
Resources problem in polygyny and monogamy are same type, only different scale. We cover our costs, new baby is on way, we need to earn more.
In long run since man in always "in market" it should keep him more masculine. It will also keep females in relationship more feminine. Why spend time with "makes my life worse" female when man can spend time with "makes my life better" female?
Competition between females in polygyny shouldn't automatically be assumed to make situation worse. But it will keep them from getting worse. This doesn't stops man from forming emotional connection with each of his females.
No wonder that all cultures accept polygyny (West has special rules). It directly follows from structure of reality.
First step is accepting what I call fundametal sex asymmetry. Mother always knows she is mother, father can never be certain (she can cheat).
It logically follows that men will want to ensure paternity of child. And way to be certain it to ensure that female never has another male. Since child's survival is enhanced when both parents cooperate female has to accept man's desire for fidelity. There is no reason for man to raise another man's child.
Above automatically kills group marriage and polyandry and explains why monogamy makes sense. What about polygyny?
Here we have 3 players: man, existing female and new female. For man polygyny makes sense (spreading genes). Only problems are resources like money and time. For females things are little different. There is choice between expanding family or throwing out one female out.
Problem with option throwing out is that winner's position is never secure. She gets more resources for her existing children now, but will she remain favourite forever? There is no principle guarding her. Also throw out requires one female to lose fight and have reduced chances of survival for her offspring. This option ensures losing for someone.
Option expanding family stops someone losing out. Is should stabilize family because females position is always secure.
Resources problem in polygyny and monogamy are same type, only different scale. We cover our costs, new baby is on way, we need to earn more.
In long run since man in always "in market" it should keep him more masculine. It will also keep females in relationship more feminine. Why spend time with "makes my life worse" female when man can spend time with "makes my life better" female?
Competition between females in polygyny shouldn't automatically be assumed to make situation worse. But it will keep them from getting worse. This doesn't stops man from forming emotional connection with each of his females.
No wonder that all cultures accept polygyny (West has special rules). It directly follows from structure of reality.
I find it strange that nobody except me has bothered to dig deeper why polygyny. I'm not interested in Bible arguments. I know them allready.
There is try by @PeteR, but he essentially uses standard monogamy approach, just more more of same (protection etc....)
Since polygyny is something normal across cultures it must be something in human nature. How about using natural law or metaphysics approach to find out and have arguments? Are you lacking curiosity? Science was created when monks stopped learning about God just from Bible.
No wonder why here people say culture is against polygyny when you have essentially only Bible arguments. It makes us looks like religious freaks. No wonder people who say "Bible approves polygyny" are throw out from churches. Think socially, who wants to associate with freaks?
Gays have used "it is natural" approach, althrough argument is false. Obviously Bible only arguments have failed since they have won acceptance. But we have Bible and nature on our side and we don't get acceptance. WTF is with our approach?
Maybe we should copy gays. More nature arguments, less Bible. It worked for them.
There is try by @PeteR, but he essentially uses standard monogamy approach, just more more of same (protection etc....)
Since polygyny is something normal across cultures it must be something in human nature. How about using natural law or metaphysics approach to find out and have arguments? Are you lacking curiosity? Science was created when monks stopped learning about God just from Bible.
No wonder why here people say culture is against polygyny when you have essentially only Bible arguments. It makes us looks like religious freaks. No wonder people who say "Bible approves polygyny" are throw out from churches. Think socially, who wants to associate with freaks?
Gays have used "it is natural" approach, althrough argument is false. Obviously Bible only arguments have failed since they have won acceptance. But we have Bible and nature on our side and we don't get acceptance. WTF is with our approach?
Maybe we should copy gays. More nature arguments, less Bible. It worked for them.