-
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.
Meat WHY is polygyny so important?
- Thread starter PeteR
- Start date
So -- and keep in mind that I'm not a Hebrew Roots guy and personally believe that covering has nothing do with salvation or justification or assurance or being right with Yah -- you might yourself want to simmer down. You assert that you didn't say you believe that Steve or Pete or I are tying covering to salvation, but then you say that's how it's coming across, as well as that the mirror is showing us something. That kind of sounds like Through the Looking Glass to me. Could you please help me here, @Asforme&myhouse? What is the distinctive difference between (a) you asserting that the mirror is showing us something and (b) you saying that someone is asserting that covering is a requirement for salvation?
My request is that you don't fall back on saying that someone else has acquired that impression. You talked about a mirror and how smashing the mirror doesn't fix anything, which is a metaphor for denial of truth -- and an instance of someone else asserting that he has that impression doesn't even provide evidence that that someone else actually believes the supposed impression, because that someone else could very well just be using the conversational situation as an opportunity for him to feign being offended on behalf of women.
@Keith Martin and everyone else who thinks I’m attacking them, you all are reading way too much into my comment. It doesn’t matter to me what y’all believe about covering. I disagree with you guys on other topics that I view as being way more important than this topic. All I was saying is that I get why folks think you guys believe that, whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. It’s not an insult. If someone says to me, I thought you believed such and such, and if that wasn’t what I believed, I would simply clarify what I believed. I wouldn’t take it as a personal insult. All I was doing is pointing out the way that some are perceiving the things you say... kind of like pointing out that someone’s fly looks like it’s unzipped. Attack me for it if you want, but it seems kinda dumb to react like that.
I don’t think that you get what you are actually saying.
Anyone who doesn’t believe that women can be saved unless they are covered would be denying the salvation of millions of women.
Maybe that just isn’t a big deal to you, but we take crap like that pretty freaking seriously.
Of course we can’t deny anyone’s salvation, that can only happen in the final judgment. But being accused of it makes me extremely angry.
Please understand that I have dialed my language back so much in order to not offend that this response comes across as being very wimpy.
Anyone who doesn’t believe that women can be saved unless they are covered would be denying the salvation of millions of women.
Maybe that just isn’t a big deal to you, but we take crap like that pretty freaking seriously.
Of course we can’t deny anyone’s salvation, that can only happen in the final judgment. But being accused of it makes me extremely angry.
Please understand that I have dialed my language back so much in order to not offend that this response comes across as being very wimpy.
Everything goes back to the assumptions that you have made.
You haven’t shown a single statement by any of us that would give you the right to assume such a drastic belief. Unless I have missed it somewhere, in which case I will gladly apologize.
You keep blaming us for your assumptions, that’s asinine. Not to mention evil.
Blaming your victim.
You haven’t shown a single statement by any of us that would give you the right to assume such a drastic belief. Unless I have missed it somewhere, in which case I will gladly apologize.
You keep blaming us for your assumptions, that’s asinine. Not to mention evil.
Blaming your victim.
I give Steve full latitude to have the reaction he's having, because, truth be told, the assertion you've made is more directed toward him as a Torah Keeper than it is toward me.
Where he's angry, though, I'm mostly just amused, and, interestingly enough, what I've been doing is just what you're suggesting:
And then I confronted something else about the way you're doing this, sir. You are projecting it out onto someone else. I guess you could just be white-knighting Communickation, but I think you've gotten sucked into what just amounts to being a posture someone else is taking, and now you're jumping on the posturing bandwagon. Are we all supposed to worry all the time about how some uninformed person will misconstrue what we say? And, on top of that, do we also have to worry about how other people who claim not to misconstrue what we've said are going to claim that we're causing others to misconstrue what we've said?
Let @Communication stick up for himself. As far as we know, he's a real man, and on top of that he has clearly come here loaded for bear, he's taken his potshots, so isn't it most respectful to assume that he has it in him to field the natural responses to his potshots all by his lonesome without having to put on an apron and pretend that he's hurt by being confronted?
Lions and tigers and bears -- oh my!
Where he's angry, though, I'm mostly just amused, and, interestingly enough, what I've been doing is just what you're suggesting:
You made an assumption (and it was your assumption, because you referred to our supposed discomfort having a mirror put up in front of us); you were incorrect; I pointed that out.
And then I confronted something else about the way you're doing this, sir. You are projecting it out onto someone else. I guess you could just be white-knighting Communickation, but I think you've gotten sucked into what just amounts to being a posture someone else is taking, and now you're jumping on the posturing bandwagon. Are we all supposed to worry all the time about how some uninformed person will misconstrue what we say? And, on top of that, do we also have to worry about how other people who claim not to misconstrue what we've said are going to claim that we're causing others to misconstrue what we've said?
Let @Communication stick up for himself. As far as we know, he's a real man, and on top of that he has clearly come here loaded for bear, he's taken his potshots, so isn't it most respectful to assume that he has it in him to field the natural responses to his potshots all by his lonesome without having to put on an apron and pretend that he's hurt by being confronted?
Lions and tigers and bears -- oh my!
So... If I’m white knighting for communication are you white knighting for Steve?
Nope. At most I'm tag-team wrestling with him as a partner in this particular dust-up (and even that would be a stretch to assert), but it begs the question: are you tag-teaming with Communication? And where is he now that he's poked the hornet's nest, stirred them into the honey pot and then stuck the concoction in our eyes?
Steve doesn't need any white knighting -- nor do I -- and nor do you? Why is it some feel this need to do so for other men? Is that what we'd want for ourselves? I can only answer for myself, but I assure you I do not, because it falls into that category of being the soft bigotry of low expectations.
The phrase, "If you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen," comes to mind -- and, lest you misunderstand me, @Asforme&myhouse, I'm not directing that at you.
I harbor this ongoing internal wondering: are useful men drawn here because it's a warm and fuzzy place, or are useful men drawn here because it's an environment of rigorous substance? Of course, it's not an entirely dichotomous choice, but isn't it clear which way we should very distinctly desire to lean?
I’m curious why when I spoke up you immediately went to the white knighting accusation. Like guys chime in, to agree with someone else all the time, what would make you go to straight to that accusation? In this case I wasn’t even agreeing with him, I was just pointing out that I could see why he would ask the question. Are people no longer allowed to question you and the circumcision guys?
That's the second time you've used that phrase in this thread and you know full well that you are misusing it. The men and families on this board who keep Torah have been very clear that they neither do it for salvation or adherence to any sect of rabbinic Judaism. You, @Asforme&myhouse , are being willfully inflammatory and further driving the OP off topic. If you feel the need to start a firestorm, then go to the Messianic/Hebrew roots section and draw your sword. Otherwise, apologize and stand down.
Thank you.
Firstly, that’s not what the Hebrew roots section is for, it was put there so you guys could talk about hebrew roots stuff without having to argue about it with non hebrew roots people. So that would be the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen there. Second, your boys say willfully inflammatory things all the time, so put a leash on your crew first and then we can talk about that. Third, You guys believe in circumcising, so what’s your point?
A quotation please.
Or it didn’t happen.
To your points, open a dedicated thread in an appropriate location instead of firebombing this thread. They are not 'my boys'. Each arrived at his own conclusion by searching the Scriptures, and re: circumcision, you are willfully trying to start something.
The next warning will be formal.
The next warning will be formal? Who died and made you king?
You may question me any time you want, sir. But the same is true in reverse. You still haven't responded to my having pointed out that you didn't just say you could see why he would ask the question. You asserted his point of view as if it was legitimate and accurate. You used the mirror metaphor. Mirrors are not magic items wherein one can view another person in the room through the eyes of someone who isn't present. It was just you and me and you and Steve. You presented it as being a situation in which we might be uncomfortable seeing what you described in your mirror. The problem is that what we said could easily be seen in the mirror by anyone looking in it, but when you make up in your own mind that Communication is seeing in the mirror something other than what we said, then you are manufacturing truth -- and then later trying to shift it off onto Communication.
Something about this is incongruous with how you generally present yourself, @Asforme&myhouse, so my sense of intrigue remains engaged. I really wonder why you are so defensive about what Communication's experience might be in this discussion. My request is that you refrain from repeating your accusations but instead address what I'm questioning about how you're approaching this. Please don't continue to focus on what I did in reaction to your accusations. If you would be willing to do that, then perhaps after we clear up that we can move on to discussing why I labeled what you were doing as white-knighting.
I just want to point out that the communicator is blaming the entire BibFam community with what he thinks that he read somewhere.
After this was refuted twice, by Torah followers incidentally, asformeandmyhouse decides to deflect it onto the the Torah followers.
Weird, it’s almost like he has an agenda.
To jump back a couple of days in this conversation, I understand some of you are suspicious that @Communication might be here to stir up strife.
Is it really that easy to stir up strife among you all?
If Satan actually wanted to divide you guys, clearly he'd find it rather easy. Is that what you want? If not, what are you going to do about it?
Hypothetically, let's assume that's true for a moment (I am not accusing him of anything, just talking hypothetically). @Communication hasn't been on the forum for a couple of days now. And here we have @Keith Martin, @Asforme&myhouse, @steve and @PeteR at each others throats.
Is it really that easy to stir up strife among you all?
If Satan actually wanted to divide you guys, clearly he'd find it rather easy. Is that what you want? If not, what are you going to do about it?
All I was trying to say, originally, was that I can understand why Communication would have perceived y’all’s view as being that covering is necessary for salvation. I am not saying that is what you guys believe, but I kind of thought that’s what you believed. Other people have made statements to me privately indicating that they thought that’s what you believed, as well. My wife thought that too. I didn’t correct them, because I also thought that is what you guys believed. When I used the mirror metaphor, all I meant was, I was just telling Steve what non- Hebrew roots folks thought you guys believed based on things that have been said in the past. It was more-so a general impression. So, in my original comment, all I was trying to do was, say “cut the guy a little slack” because I can understand his apparent misconception of what you believe. It wasn’t an attack on anyone, and I wasn’t insinuating that was what you or anyone else believed. It’s merely what myself and others thought might be the case. I wasn’t projecting that on anyone. It wasn’t meant as an attack. But your extreme over-analyzing of it, turned it into something it wasn’t. It seemed like everyone attacked me and projected ill-intent on my original post, which wasn’t meant to be an attack on anyone.
Ok now, why did you jump to the accusation that I was white-knighting for Communication, how did you get that out of what I said??
So anyway, back to the OP:
The Church (and the nation) need strong families. Strong marriages are needed for strong families.
It may be possible to really understand Biblical marriage without an understanding of polygyny, but I think if you understand Biblical polygyny then for sure you understand Biblical marriage, and roles and responsibilities therein. That has been the big plus for me (us) in this journey.
Further to really understand the relationship of Christ and the church or even more generally between God and man, you need to understand marriage. So it really does go to the core of the faith, whether you intend to actually practice it, or not.
The Church (and the nation) need strong families. Strong marriages are needed for strong families.
It may be possible to really understand Biblical marriage without an understanding of polygyny, but I think if you understand Biblical polygyny then for sure you understand Biblical marriage, and roles and responsibilities therein. That has been the big plus for me (us) in this journey.
Further to really understand the relationship of Christ and the church or even more generally between God and man, you need to understand marriage. So it really does go to the core of the faith, whether you intend to actually practice it, or not.
Last edited: