-
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.
The Polygamy Litmus Test
- Thread starter rockfox
- Start date
I think perhaps patriarchy is the issue, and faith based polygamy cuts to the root of the matter, because you can do monogamy and disavow patriarchy or fake patriarchy depending on who you want to fit in with.
Agreed. The new age kind of polygamy for non-faith reasons, or the polyamory plus kind of polygamy are forms that do not really help except maybe in helping to advocate for freedom for all.
Agreed. Patriarchy is what we need to get too. But it's going to be hard. Getting societal acceptance of polygamy will actually be easier. But if accepted, polygamy can help us push social change at the grassroots level.
Unfortunately those types are quick to virtue signal against bad old patriarchal polygyny. They may establish a precedent that could help us. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them throw us under the bus in the process. Although I don't know if that will matter beyond rhetoric (in which case it helps us all).
I spent quite a bit of time a while back looking around Stan's fecpp/HEM pages, and I think he has quite a bit of solid material, but there are certain topic areas of his writings that I find rather concerning.
http://www.nccg.org/AposInt13.html
"The biblical teaching is explicit: there is to be no kind of sexual contact whatsoever, and that includes petting and kissing, until a couple are married. .. Anything that might be remotely construed as sexual belongs solely to the marriage covenant."
Where is this explicit teaching?
"To be entitled to have sex with another person means to enter into a life-long commitment in front of two or more witnesses. This is how Elohim (God) defines legal sex."
Where is this legal definition saying that commitment is required, or even that commitment requires two+ witnesses?
"Q. ...."
"A. ...."
"Q. There is no revelation on that, is there?"
"A. Does there need to be? Anyone who is walking in the Ruach (Spirit) will be automatically repelled by such a thought."
I find that statement, or rather the mindset, to be very concerning. Do not monogamy-onlyists say the same thing about polygyny?
https://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?p=17966697#post17966697
He sees masturbation as a sin, even "auto-homosexuality".
https://www.nccg.org/fecpp/CPM108-Masturbation.html
He specifically claims that this knowledge ("auto-homosexuality") was revealed to him in a dream.
This next page was not written by Stan, but he linked to it as worthy reading material.
https://www.nccg.org/015.html
Notice the words which were added to the end of Mat 5:28.
In his bi-women section (http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/biwomen-index.html), he uses Romans 1:26-28 (http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/CPM150-Bisexuality.html) to argue against female bi/homo-sexuality. He says "that sole passage of scripture which addresses same-sex attraction and activity for both men and women." Rom 1:26-28 is a *description* of past events, not a *prescription* of a new precept. Whatever they did, it was wrong before Paul spoke. How then can this be said to be where we learn a precept? Here (http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/CPMFAQ025-Bi.html) he says "The cure for lesbianism and bisexuality is: (a) Recognition that its origin is demonic; (b) ...". What?! How can this be, seeing that lesbianism and (female) bisexuality are not prohibited?
I think Stan doesn't have a clear understanding of what sin is, or how it's defined, and therefore ends up calling something sin based on his own [mis]understandings and personal biases; possibly having looked at some doubtful passages where he interpreted meanings based on what he expected to see (confirmation bias).
I think we can gather some understanding of what sin is, and what it is not....
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1Jo 3:4),
"where no law is, there is no transgression." (Rom 4:15),
"sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Rom 5:13),
And as for personally knowing something is a sin, apart from there being a specific, citable law against it, I think we have...
"I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." (Rom 7:7),
"by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:20).
And for what one does know to be right/wrong, apart from there being a law...
"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (Jas 4:17).
With all that in mind, I read what he writes with degree of skepticism.
And he goes on to contradict himself saying...
If the Bible has nothing explicit to say on oral sex, how can it be explicit about "no kind of sexual contact whatsoever".
Explicit seems to be a favorite adjective of his; but he is playing fast and loose with it. That's the sign of a rhetorical, not logical, thinker. He may not even be capable of untangling the mess that is our mishmash of pagan, Greek and Hebrew ideas of sex.
Oh and his claim about SOS is ridiculous; you have to really not want that to be about oral sex to not see it there loud and clear (nor are those the only two references).
I see this scripture as having one of two meanings. As you read it, one meaning it could have, is what the author is suggesting. Girl on girl. The other possibility is it is saying in verse 26 that anal sex is wrong as it is in verse 27. Both verse 26 and 27 use the term natural use and verse 27 goes further to say ‘the natural use of the woman’.
IMO, you have to make a personal decision as to whether that verse is talking about girl on girl or anal sex. The verse is somewhat inconclusive. The context of the three verses, to me, seems to be the latter.
There is a 3rd interpretation.... it is talking about lesbianism; i.e. rejecting men entirely in favor of just women.
And this is why I stick to conversation with you guys instead of random folks lol
Yeah, just to be excruciatingly clear, I only cited that site for the sole point about a final sifter, or Shibboleth, say. The rest of it ranges from not particularly profound to downright weird. Let's get back to the OP, and rockfox's assessment (with which I agree 100%) that this issue is the issue of our time.
If that's true, what implications does that have for us? If you think that's not true, then why not?
If that's true, what implications does that have for us? If you think that's not true, then why not?
I think it's true. The question is how many people are going to ever even think about it or REALIZE it's an issue to discuss. But I suppose that is a matter of concern for the Holy Spirit.
For me, this is something that was 'always there', for lack of a better term. I ALWAYS wanted multiple women lol. Maybe that's just being a guy. But I've also always had a heart to be a leader and caretaker of multiple women, as my first wife can attest. Even when I was in college and this idea was miles outside of my mental viewport, I'd still comment to her that I wished there was a way I could be a boyfriend/husband to the other single women I knew who were lonely and needed a good man to take care of them. Maybe some of that was hubris (those who know me can attest that pride is NOT something I struggle with - the opposite in fact), but either way. It was really studying what the Bible had to say about sex and relationships in general that led me to study polygyny, and thus the story started.
For me, this is something that was 'always there', for lack of a better term. I ALWAYS wanted multiple women lol. Maybe that's just being a guy. But I've also always had a heart to be a leader and caretaker of multiple women, as my first wife can attest. Even when I was in college and this idea was miles outside of my mental viewport, I'd still comment to her that I wished there was a way I could be a boyfriend/husband to the other single women I knew who were lonely and needed a good man to take care of them. Maybe some of that was hubris (those who know me can attest that pride is NOT something I struggle with - the opposite in fact), but either way. It was really studying what the Bible had to say about sex and relationships in general that led me to study polygyny, and thus the story started.
Because of all of the issues involved, I see more of the Refiners fire in polygyny than any other understanding/belief/doctrine being delt with by today’s believers.
Is it the most important one? A resounding NO. But it appears to be the most productive one at this point.
Is it the most important one? A resounding NO. But it appears to be the most productive one at this point.
I agree. This issue more than any other demonstrates a willingness to face ridicule and ostracization to take God at His Word. It might be the closest an American believer can come to persecution. Someone who is willing tonstand up for all of the aspects Biblical marriage is someone I would consider to have demonstrated moral courage clear thinking.
Yeah, I definitely dont think that this is a salvific issue. But I do think that, as @ZecAustin said, short of proselytizing in an Arab nation, poly is the number one issue that will cause real widespread persecution, especially in the West, and that alone should indicate the way the Enemy views this.