Results 1 - 20 of 36
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Swordman007 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69114 | ||
Hello, justme. I can assure you that I am not bitter, but I am amazed at the gross illogic to which many people resort in order to "win at all costs." I do not consider winning to be the ultimate goal to a debate. The ultimate goal, to my mind, is to discover absolute, unadulteratd TRUTH in all its glory. TRUTH is a living Person, not a collection of right and proper doctrines. I guess you could say that my passion does appear to be rather emblazened, but then I explained WHY it is emblazened. It hurts to see these loving families wrongfully ostricized by religious zealots like the pharasees of Jesus' day. They will always talk about how sinful those families are, and all the time give little to no thought for those in need in their own midst. The arrogance and avarice of today's Americanized brand of Christianity is an ongoing tragedy of secular compliance and grudgery. THAT, my friend, is what helps to give force to my seeking out what others have to say on this issue. I have long since learned that thinking from the foundation of emotion versus thinking from the foundation of logic tends to shed much light on many different issues. We sometimes discover just how wrong we were about some key prejudices we held all our lives. Yours in Christ Jesus Don Dean |
||||||
2 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69113 | ||
You said: "yes "marriage with out legal paper work" is wrong!" Who says? You? I am curious, by what standard do you judge this by? Your own personal standard, or something you have read in God's word? You said: "If the man dies after living and having children with this woman, who did not think a "piece of paper" was important, the "wife? and children would get NOTHING." My friend, you must not be much aware of Wills and Power of Attournys. There are MANY legal avenues to ensure that the property remains as it should. As for Social Security, well, talk to those who are on it, and you will discover that a government fixed income is hardly a means of support. If Social Security is the only basis for declaring it wrong to not have the license, then that indeed is a shabby foundation. We are talking about the moral implications, not the social/economic implications. Like I had said before, I know several polygamous families whose economic future is FAR brighter than ANYTHING the government system can possibly match. I also know many monogamous families who give little to no thought for relying upon support from Social Security. It makes good sense, that even Larry Burkette has confirmed, to make one's plans APART from reliance upon Social Security. Life insurance and other forms of financial investment will go MUCH farther in keeping the family finances alive than the government hand-outs. The line for the beneficiary does not at all ask as to if you are legally married to the woman you write into that spot. You said: "show me a verse that gives God's approval for plural wifes!" It has been my contention all along that God did not DISALLOW plural wives, in spite of all the general statements to the contrary, all being flung around like refuse out of a fertilizer spreader. You then make referrence as "how the world" sees all this. Did Jesus care how the world saw Him? Does TRUTH ever care about how the world beholds its untouchable majesty? If how the world views things is the basis of your measurment of something being right or wrong, then you are relying upon an terribly inferior standard compared to God's word. Any sports enthusiast who watches a ball game end prematurely knows that there is no real winner until the game is allowed to play out to the end. In this posting, you have appealed ONLY to the secular view of marriage, not the word of God. As believers, we are called to a different Kingdom than the kingdom of this world. Yes, it is implicit that we THEN adopt the standards laid out by God's word rather than the standards of this world. God's ways have ALWAYS clashed with the ways of this world. That is why Jesus HAD to rise above any concern for how the world saw Him and His mission. If we are to imitate Him, then we too are called to live this same way no matter what the world around us may think. Hank Hannagraff said it well when stating that if a lie is repeated often enough and loudly enough, then the general populace begins to believe it.....even many of those who profess to follow Christ Jesus. Don Dean |
||||||
3 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69085 | ||
Nobody can refute you when you choose to engage in inuendo, assumption, and simply ignore ALL that I have said on this issue. What the commentators did NOT metion in the article is that "mia" is also the word for "first". 1520 heis (hice); (including the neuter (etc.) hen); a primary numeral; one: As you can see, Paul did not choose the Greek word "heis", which means STRICTLY "one" in a singular sense, which would THEN have made this an irrefutable disallownace for church leadership to have more than one wife! However, he did NOT use that Greek word in these two passages. KJV-- a (-n, -ny, certain), (plus) abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also 1527, 3367, 3391, 3762. His use of the Greek word "mia" in these two instances instances creates difficulty for the translators when trying to refrain from social bias. 3391 mia (mee'-ah); irregular feminine of 1520; one or FIRST: (Yes, the emphasis is mine.) KJV-- a (certain), (plus) agree, FIRST, one, X other. There is therefore GOOD reason to question the ABSOLUTE translation of "mia" (in these instances in question) as being ONLY "one" rather than POSSIBLY being "first". I have no problem with EITHER translation. The commentary I quoted from CLEARLY said "THE ANCIENT INTERPRETATION THAT THE PROHIBITION HERE IS AGAINST POLYGAMY IN A CANDIDATE BISHOP IS NOT CORRECT." This was only to point out that polygamy was not the issue in relation to church leadership. Now, you can conjure up all the idiotic snideness you want, but then you are only demonstrating your own lack of consideration for what others have said and for common courtesy. I already said that the threads are quite numerous here, so it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with it all, but that does not give you the right to conduct yourself in such a childish manner. If you want to talk to me like a man, then do so. If you feel the need to continue talking to me like some snot-nosed punk with no decent sensibilities toward others, then I have nothing more to say to you. Don |
||||||
4 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69078 | ||
Hello, Hank. Please let me make this clear. I never stated that I represent the Southern Baptist Convention on the issue of polygamy. I also never said that they are in agreement with me on this issue. Why would it be curious to your way of thinking that I do not agree with the SBC on every point of doctrine? Granted, this is a more radical departure from their dogmas. However, do you believe every dogma they hold near and dear? Do you have a formidable knowledge of ALL their doctrinal beliefs? It is probably a given that you agree with "enough" of their dogmas that you therefore feel comfortable being a member, just like the rest of us. Some Southern Baptist ministers once taught that if you are not in "church" every Sunday morning and faithfully giving your "tithes", outside of sickness, absence or some other relative allowance, then you are going to Hell. For any man to think that a man-made, religious institution (like the Southern Baptist Conventoin) can possibly be infallible in its belief system is undeniably a man steeped in a form of self-refutation and self-delusion. I think we can both agree on these points. The identification of my being a Southern Baptist simply is a declaration that I hold to many of the same doctrinal beliefs of that particular mainstream denomination. Others can better relate when they have a knowldge of another's general belief system. Yes, the SBC IS a man-made institution, just like all the other religious institutions in the world. Just because the TRUE Church happens to be populating those institutions to varying degrees, and even heading them, does not mean that they then automatically hold God's stamp of approval, especially when you consider the division that exists between them. Now, if I were a Mormon, most people would then know that I rest my case upon "authorities" quite set apart from the Bible; "authorities" that are known to be riddled with inconsistency and falsehood. Argument against those who do not hold the Bible as being the ultimate, written authority in defining doctrine and absolute TRUTH is like shooting at a moving target. Now, Hank, for you to say that I have convinced no one is pure assumption on your part. Unless you are God, you cannot possibly know the impact this has had in helping others to realize the need for ALL of us to take proper responsibility for what we choose to believe rather than simply choking down what we are spoon-fed by ministers. Remember, Paul called the Bereans "more noble" than the Corinthians because, rather than merely taking his word for it, they CHECKED the scriptures to see if what he was teaching them was actually consistent with the WRITTEN authority. Many ministers take GREAT exception to any of their congregant members not believing what they are being spoon-fed. Paul, whose example is being ignored by many, was quite radical in his thinking for him to uphold the need for each believer to do his own study in order to know TRUTH. 1 Jn 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of ALL things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (KJV) (Emphasis mine.) Thanks, Hank. In Christ Jesus |
||||||
5 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69073 | ||
Please allow me to state my position: The scriptures make no prohibition against a man having more than one wife. That is my statement in relation to polygamy. Some men were given one, some were given many. The order of their birth forces no more emphasis of law upon the rest of mankind than does the fact that they also experienced personal, physical and/or visionary visitation from the Lord and/or His angels. Here is what I find to be about as anti-Christ as could ever be demonstrated by our multitudes of institutional "churches": I know of couples who are married, but without the "benefit" of that piece of paper from the state. There is no secular law that states that a married couple must have a "license", and yet most of our institutional churches will definitively declare that such a couple is "living in sin". How anyone can, with a clear conscience, go along with this foolishness is quite beyond my comprehension. Perhaps they are "sinning" against the "social sensibilities" of those "church" members and their leadership, but they are not living in sin as God defined sin. However, when they refer to "sin", we both know to what level of sin they are referring. THEN, these SAME people are going to turn around and apply this same level of reasoning against polygamy? It then makes sense to me why my opponents resort to the more base of tactics do defend their lost cause. If they believe that their understanding of non-existent state law can define sin, in spite of God's Law, then it comes as no surprise that they then feel that they have license to resort to mostly non-existent state laws as defining polygamy to be sin in relation to God's express word. This is what I have termed as being a system of "socially engineered theology." May the Lord bless you and yours, justme. Yours in Christ Jesus Don Dean |
||||||
6 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69070 | ||
Hello, justme. I can accept your analysis of my case if there is qualitative (not quantitative) justification. However, a man's being overly biased to the extent that he cannot see the truth is a two-sided coin. Please remember that the other side making this claim is just as subject to the same clouds of bias as the one to whom it is being directed. That is why none of us can legitimately lay claim to infallability. You see, I am willing to admit error if a clear, concise case is made to refute my position. All I have been given thus far in this forum are the "par for the course" argumentations that I have heard from many others outside this forum. Now, in relation to your personal life, this issue has been front page headlines across this country several times, so I would say that, YES, it is of great importance. It is even MORE important to me when I have close family friends with plural wives being accused by religionists within our many "churches", on an almost daily basis, of living in sin. Yes, justme, I can understand this not really being a big deal to you personally, but then you do not live in a vacuum. You too are living under a system of law that allows for a man to impregnate multiple women without having to take responsibility for his actions, and yet punishes the man who DOES accept loving responsibility for his family if he tries to acquire a license for more than one at a time. Please understand that I am not making a defense for polygamy on this basis. I am simply pointing out to you that you are not so isolated from this issue as you may think. There are two dikes living next to me. I had no choice in their being allowed to live next to me. Does the way they live their personal, private lives have no effect upon me? Certainly it does! I have talked with many a pervert who thinks that what he/she does behind closed doors does not affect others around him/her. We BOTH know that this is blatantly false. We all live in a macrocosm, not a microcosm. One man's personal life affects ALL those around him, no matter how isolated he may think his personal life is from his public life. Clinton taught this lesson to the nation quite strikingly, but America simply did not get it. Yes, justme, this may not appear to you to affect your personal life at first glance, but that only states that you have not yet become AWARE of the subtle ripple effects this is, in fact, having upon you personally. You are not at all isolated from this system of law that is blatantly hypocritical. Does God stand behind a government that enforces hypocrisy? Is that a government God endorses? These are hard questions, but they must be asked. Just as an aside: If a government agent comes to your door and demands posession of your food storage during hard economic crisis, are you going to willingly give it to him, even when you know that your giving it to him would place your family in grave danger of starvation, and violate God's word concerning your responsibility to see to the needs of your family? After all, food and raiment are a part of what a family has need of for survival that the man is commanded to provide. When an ungodly, tyranical governement demands from you what you have provided for your family's survival in accordance with God's command, what will you do? Yes, this is hypothetical, but it still demands thought. Paul stated that a man who does not see to the the needs of his own family is worse than an infidel. Even an infidel would defend his family and their provisions becasue of their need for those provisions. If you have the means to defend the provision you have made for your family and its needs, and do not perform what God has commanded, who do you think He will hold responsible for your family's demise? My Mennonite step-father once told me that he would not forcefully defend my mother against a man who broke into their house and began raping and killing her. My point in all of this is that whether it is of a theological nature or of a secular nature in regard to government and secular morals (whatever that is), these things ultimately have a profound impact upon us all, whether we realize it or not. Tyrannical and hypocritical laws being enforced by our government, that tamper with the family, IS a concern for you and the rest of us, whether you may agree or disagree with polygamy itself. May the Lord bless you and yours, justme. Yours in Christ Jesus Don Dean |
||||||
7 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69063 | ||
Tim, I quoted that statement directly from the electronic version of that commentary that I have on a CD-ROM (which cannot be altered), which was purchased at a local computer store quite recently. It is from the "Bible Wisdom" series called "Theophilos Library 3" 4 CD set. The technical support address given on the CD's is www.theophilos.sk. Now, either your copy of that commentary is corrupted, or this CD copy of their work is corrupted.....or....there is another possibility that comes to mind. It is possible that our copies are from a different revision (printing). Authors are known to make various revisions to their work in subsequent printings. I really do not know for sure, but the copy I have makes the case that the "husband of one wife" is NOT in reference to a plurality of wives. Thanks, Tim. In Christ Jesus Don |
||||||
8 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69061 | ||
Dishonesty? Who is REALLY being dishonest here, Joe? I clearly stated to this forum (which you either ignored or did not bother to read) that I quoted only those portions dealing with the statement "husband of one wife" (which were more TECHNICAL in nature rather than mere opinion) since we are limited in the size of our postings here. What is so dishonest about that? I quoted that which pertained to my point. No, my friend, it is YOU who is perpetrating the fraud against me with false accusation. The handle you acquired for yourself appears to be quite fitting.....you appear to "reform" even what people have said. (Sorry, but I could not leave than one be.) Joe, I mentioned the strict, Biblical definition of adultery in relation to marriage, not morality in general. Again, I must set the record AND technical information straight with you, Joe. Here is what the Thayer's lexicon says about that word: Strongs reference 3431 for Adultery (moicheuo) to commit adultery a) to be an adulterer b) to commit adultery with, to have unlawful intercourse with ANOTHER'S WIFE c) used of the WIFE: to suffer adultery, to be debauched d) A Hebrew idiom, the word is used of those who at a woman's solicitation are drawn away to idolatry, that is, to the eating of things sacrificed to idols (Emphasis is mine) Now, did you know about the Hebrew idiom of a woman enticing a man to eat things sacrificed to idols being a form of not only idolatry, but also ADULTERY? May I ask a personal favor of you, Joe? Please do your homework before trying to make a fool of others. This really reflects badly upon your knowledge and your character. I do not consider you to be a bad person, but I think you are allowing yourself to fall into a form of blind zealotry that I find to be dangerous for yourself to say the least. Now, if I have made a typo error somewhere in this posting, I hope you will not crucify me for that as well. In Christ Jesus Don |
||||||
9 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69058 | ||
You appear to have quite a liking for intellectual suicide. Well, until you are willing to study history for yourself, nothing anyone else says will have any real power of conviciton for you. Your bent on utilizing ad hominem tactics to try and win your case are....well....what can one say about such things? Do you know what "ad hominem" means? If not, then let me know and I will explain it to you. Now, I welcome a Biblical perspective of plural marriage if you can come up with one that is valid rather than nonsensical. |
||||||
10 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69057 | ||
You are right, the state does object to a man acquiring a LICENSE for more than one wife at a time. It is also true that a piece of paper from the state is not a part of God's definition of marriage. That "license" serves only ONE purpose: It allows you the legal right to claim "Married" on your tax forms. It also gives the state a level of authority over a marriage that God never made allowances for. To my way of thinking, the state has no right to dabble in a marriage. Now, can you show me where God demanded that we submit to laws that do not exist? What state requires that a man acquire a "license" for ANY woman he is married to in accordance to God's definition of marriage? I would like to see this if you can think of one. You are assuming that a man having more than one wife in accordance with God's definition of marriage is somehow breaking state law, and yet you have not made specific mention of one. General reference does not inform anyone about anything. Please be more specific. YOU are the one who made indirect reference to the license. When you made grandiose statement about it allegedly being a violation of state law for a man to have more than one wife, then you can ONLY be referring to that LICENSE. A man having a LICENSE for more than one wife is the ONLY state and federal law of marriage a man can break. Who is fooling who here? The state only regognizes multiple marriages IF you have attempted to acquire more than one LICENSE at a time. You then said, "However, multiple marriages are against the law in the United States," ONLY if you attempt acquiring a LICENSE for more than one wife at a time. So, what is your point? "...and unless that is a commandment which would cause you to disobey God (and you yourself have acknowledged that polygamy is not a COMMAND), we are to glorify God by submission to the authority He has established." You can assume that the state and federal governement has made some unknown law about a man being limited to only one wife outside of that license all you want, but then you are only spitting into the wind. I can tell you right now that the ONLY KNOWN laws against a man having more than one wife OUTSIDE of (not AGAINST) the legal system of SOME states is "cohabitation" laws. Do YOU live in a state with cohabitation laws? Do you even KNOW if your state has such laws? Have you even checked before making declarations of assumed knowledge of authoirty? You then declared, "And speaking of established authority, the Church was established by Jesus Christ and is not a "man-made institution." We are also called to submit to the church's authority in the Lord." Your attempt at lumping our multitudes of INSTITUTIONAL church ORGANIZATIONS into Christ's definition of His Church is less than impressive, my friend. If you can show me where Christ declared that we are to obey any of our man-made institutions that are defined by buildings, parking lots, plush offices, chandeliers, staffing organization, pews and a pulpit, then I am all ears. (smile) As to your charge of my saying anything about a "tradition of polygamous churches since Pentecost," well, you would have to honestly quote me saying anything about that issue without making something up that I did not say. Your misguided powers of reasoning are quite astounding. If the best you can do in trying to win your case is attempting to cast the relevance of my statements down to the level of the Jehovah's Witness beliefs, then you really have nothing to say of any real account. Can you show me ONE PLACE where the Jehovah's Witnesses factor into this discussion? Their beliefs are theologcially refutable. All you have dealt with is the SECULAR system of licenses and laws. You did not make ANY mention of theological relevance in this message pertaining to marriage. In Christ Jesus Don |
||||||
11 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69010 | ||
1) This is a good point to discuss (concubinage), but I really would rather not get into this one too deeply since the other is still an ongoing debate. However, I will say that even though the cultures of the Old Testament DID differentiate between wives and concubines, this was mainly done within the leadership of a nation or a tribe rather than among the common people. For all intents and purposes, a concubine was STILL the wife of the king (for example) since she was to be sexually and emotionally committed only to the king, just like a wife, but was not "officially designated" as his wife due to political expediency. This allowed the king to have multiple wives without there being problems with multiple queens within the realm fighting over whose child should ascend to the throne. This maneuver was not always realistically successful, but it did work in principal. 2) The issue of God appointing a king against His will is made quite plain within the text. However, there is not even the slightest intimation that God disapproved of a man having more than one wife. The Lord made governing provision for a man to have more than one wife. He governed it by telling the husband that he will not be allowed to instigate preferential treatment (provision) of the second wife over the first wife. If God disapproved of a man having more than one wife, He certainly did not speak as loudly as He did concerning the people having a king in place of His theocractic system of His Law and the judges. His alleged disapproval of polygamy is like silent thunder. 3) I never said that God approved of everything in the O.T. What was sin then is sin now, and what is sin now was sin then. Not one "jot nor tittle" has changed in the foundation of God's moral absolutes with the coming of Christ. God called His people to repentence MANY times throughout history. 4) This application of reason basically is a declaration that David was not one flesh with his many wives, as well as all the other patriarchs who practiced polygamy. Do you not remember where the word of God clearly delcared that a man who lays with a whore has become one flesh with her? It was nowhere mentioned within that context that he was considered one flesh with that whore ONLY if he were not married already. When a man lays with a woman, whether she is his wife or not, he is has become "one flesh" with her. In Christ Jesus Don Dean |
||||||
12 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69003 | ||
I have already addressed my quote from the commentary in another posting, so I will not repeat it here. I made no alterations to the text of the commentary except to leave out portions that were not relevant to the issue at hand. What is relevant to the ongoing discussion is that trying to utilize the "husband of one wife" comment as being anti-polygamy clearly is inconsistent with the Greek texts. Perhaps you have a corrupt copy of that commentary, or you did not read what those men had to say that I DID include in the quote. As to a woman having more than one husband, that is called polyandry, and yes, it is sin as defined by God's word. Anyone who is knowledgable of the Biblical definition of adultery knows that polyandry is is a direct violation of this definition. Going by today's relativistic redefinition of key words such as "adultery" does noting but introduce confusion. The Biblical definition of adultery strictly defines it as a man desiring and/or having sexual relations with another man's wife. If this were not the case, then we may as well expect to see Abraham, Jacod, Gideon, Moses, and numerous of the other patriarchs burning in the flames of Hell for having died as non-repentent polygamists. In Christ Jesus Don Dean |
||||||
13 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69000 | ||
Hello, Steve. I agree that scripture is the ONLY authority for apologetics rather than cultural norms. I have reiterated that in several of my posts. I understand your observation about my comments sounding like post-modern relativism. That was quite an astute observation. I knew that there was a danger of my viewpoint coming across as such. Thank you. When mentioning culture and social norms, one always risks being labeled a relativist. I stand by an earlier comment I had made that absolute TRUTH is not at all defined by cultural or social norms. However, I still emphasize grave problems in the practice of transliterating Christ's and His apostle's comments concerning divorce. Jesus had EVERY opportunity to address the issue of plural wives in the lives of many around him, and yet He was completely silent on the issue. It is a given that most commentaries rest part of their case against polygamy on the comments concerning divorce. These are entirely different issues. How one can honestly bring the two together without any feelings of guilt escapes me entirely. To my own way of thinking, I could not in good conscience say to someone that because God gave king David several wives that He expects all men to go out and seek plural wives. We both know that such an approach is intellecutally dishonest. When Jesus spoke on the issue of a man marrying his dead brother's wife in order to fulfill an obligation to provide an heir for the deceased brother, He said nothing against the fact that the Law made no mention that the living brother HAD to be single in order to take on that brother's widow as his own wife. He had every opportunity to address this alleged "weakness" in the Law, and yet He was completely silent about the issue of plural wives. Was He not smart enough to realize the implications of this? Certainly He knew the Law and its implications better than any man who has ever lived. Now, as for your comment concerning the problems within polygamous families portrayed within the scriptures, there are a few. Jacob had problems of jealousy becasue he had married two sisters, which is a direct violation of God's Law. Moses did not have problems assiciated with his having two wives, neither did Abraham after the death of Sarah (He had two more wives after Sarah's death). We are not told that Gideon had problems with his many wives. His problems were of a personal nature, not family related. In reality, your observation is not only very narrowly applied, but not in keeping with known facts. Too many people assume that ALL polygamous families had problems with strife and jealousy. What monogamous family has not had these same problems at one time or another? There is no such thing as a perfect marriage among men on this earth, so your point is not well taken in this regard. Sorry, but I simply disagree on the basis of what is within scripture AND within the context of personal expeirence with numerous families with plural wives who are living out polygamy in a Godly fassion that brings glory to the Lord. Thanks, brother Yours in Christ Jesus Don Dean |
||||||
14 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 68997 | ||
It is good to hear from you, Tim. I quoted only those portions of that commentary that dealt directly with the misinterpretation of "husband of one wife". I did not say that the writers were pro-polygamy, only that any attempt to utilize Titus and 2 Timothy as being anti-polygamy is actually not in keeping with the Greek. One other member of this forum acknowledged my intellectual honesty for not trying to make the authors out to be pro-polygamy. There are MANY more portions of that commentary that I could have quoted, but we are all limited to only 5000 characters in this forum. I hope that answers your question. Yours in Christ Jesus Don Dean |
||||||
15 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 68996 | ||
Hello, justme. Yes, you are correct. I am not against monogamy or polygamy. As to my being the first person bringing this out in a well thought out manner, well, I would say that some of our fellow believers in this forum would disagree with you on that point. (smile) That's ok. One eventaully has to get to the point that we can all agree that we disagree. In regard to your questions, I would never suggest that a man take a second wife into the family without the full consent of the first wife. Although the churches in this country do not today find this to be acceptable, I openly challenge the idea that man-made institutions we call "churches" have a God-given authority to add to God's definition of marriage by saying that a "license" is now a part of how we define marriage. If that "license" were such a great addition to the definition of marriage, then it certainly has failed most miserably to prove its value. Organized religion (churches) in this country tend to "tow the party line" (democratically defined system of morality and theology). As such, they then logically breed prejudices within the minds of their adherents that seem perfectly logical to the average congregant follower, but is a serious departure from the actual teachings within scripure. This comes as no surprise to those of us who have taken several steps back from the mind control religion tends to exert upon its followers, and have instead allow scripture to speak for itself. Although I am a Southern Baptist, I am FIRST a follower of Christ and His word. This does not make me any better than anyone else. Simply because I do not buy into all the socially engineered theologies that the Southern Baptist convention (and all the other "denominations" for that matter) has chosen to accept as given does not mean that I consider all their beliefs to be false. To address your comments about practicality, you are right that most American women do not find a man's having plural wives to be acceptable to them personally. However, many women in America DO consider an extended family to be not only acceptable, but even preferable. I have spoken with quite a number of them myself. From the economical standpoint, it can be even MORE beneficial than monogamy. I personally know a family with three wives. One wife cares for and teaches the children during the workday while the other two wives and the huband work outside the home. (They simply refuse to turn their children over to a public school system that is very hostile toward family and moral absolutes.) With three incomes, they live debt free in their HUGE, brand new home. To look at the few bad examples of polygamous families in Utah and other places, and the abuses therein, and then use that broad brush in painting ALL polygamy to be unacceptable on that basis is without any merit whatsoever. I could point to FAR more incest, adultery, abuse and abandonment within monogamy than you could ever find within polygamy. Although that really is not saying anything because of sheer numbers, it does make a point about applying standards against what one does not like that he is not willing to apply to his own life. Does that mean that monogamy is therefore an unacceptable form of marriage because of all the abuses we can see within its existence? Not at all. People drive drunk. Do we then do away with cars? I think maybe you see this now with a little more light. It is agreed that incest and all other forms of immorality (abuse, abandonment, etc.) are against Biblical standards. What is staggering is that none of my opponents have answered my observation of how inconsistent our laws really are, and yet they enjoy trying to use those very corrupt laws as a reason for a man being limited to only one wife. Our laws allow a man to impregnate multiple women living in different homes without his having to exercise financial responsibility for his actions, but the man who seeks to acquire a license for all his wives, therefore exercising responsibility for his family, is considered to be a terrible law-breaker. The hypocrisy of all this is self-evident. In Christ Jesus Don Dean |
||||||
16 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 68959 | ||
I have been very busy, so answering everyone has been a luxury I have been afforded these past few days. If I may, I have backed off from using words like "endorse" and "ideal" since such words can be carried to the extreme, depending upon who you find yourself talking to. That is why I have maintained my position against God's allegedly having "condemned" polygamy. The numerous attempts by various individuals to place me on the defensive by asking questions that stretch my words beyond the extreme are exactly what I have avoided for obvious reasons. It makes no sense to defend what one never said in the first place. Now, Steve, the vigor of my defense does not automatically mean that I am assuming that God fully endorses polygamy for all men. I have repeatedly stated that polygamy is NOT for all men since I know that all men could not/would not handle such a family structure. Not all men have a desire for more than one wife. However, as some have indicated to me before, for anyone to assume that a man desires more than one wife strictly on the basis of lust is just as idiotic as saying that a man's desire for one wife is based strictly on the basis of lust. We ALL know that this is not a general rule for all men. It is astounding to say the least just how heartless men in this country can be toward the many single, believing sisters who admit on a regular basis that they cannot find a decent, reliable man to love. Many men in this country of ours are simply dysfunctional as REAL men. I know that there are those who would argue aginst this, but then all one has to do is perform a general consensus among different churches and find out that it is quite true that women in churches outnumber men. I am not presenting this as an apologetic FOR polygamy since only the word of God can answer that issue. However, the rabbid bias against polygamy might be better tempered if due consideration were given to those who DO seek a loving family to become a part of, but simply cannot find a godly man to fill that void. Most men simply do not care at all what many of the single sisters are going through. Feminism has done more harm than good in our culture. I also realize that my words may very well be twisted out of context by some....again. I have mentioned the above concerning the many single sisters because it is part of what is NOT being considered in the midst of all this anti-polygamy rhetoric. That is essentially what I have been getting all along so far, rather than clear Biblical teaching to back the anti-polygamy position. I have already dealt with the "husband of one wife" issue in Titus and 2 Timothy, and I have also dealt with the elusive, and outright non-existent command of only one wife for each man sinply based upon what Adam was given. And yet the nonsensical arguments continue to surface, even to the extent of accusing me personally of living in sin and lust. (I am not talking about you, Steve.) If personal attacks (ad hominem) are the final resort of those who fail to realize that their case is weak at best, then it is only logical to leave those individuals hanging without due consideration. Now, Steve, to address your reference in James, the word of God is right. If polygamy is wrong for you, then by all means avoid it in your own life. But to try and force God's word into conformity to your own personal conscience concerning polygamy simply because it does not set well with you personally (consdiering that the Word of God clearly does not condemn polygamy), well, I find that to be highly questionable. Don |
||||||
17 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 68733 | ||
I will repeat myself AGAIN: I never said that God "endorsed" polygamy. The main thrust of my argumentation has been that God did not command AGAINST a plaurlity of wives. He never declared it to be sin nor did He declare it to be against His perfect will. Most of the arguments presented to me are rooted in what is known as "natural law" rather than the "written Law". When one rests his case solely upon the basis of "natural law", he is resting his case upon a foundation that is subjective rather than objective. Nobody can possibly otherwise convince those whose case is built upon a shifting foundation of subjectivity. The greatest of athletes cannot win at a game whose rules change like the wind. Now, the rest of your post I will not answer due to the spirit of your message. Your ungracious and unChristian accusation of my allegedly leading a "sinful, lustful lifestyle" clearly does not warrent a response. A question mark at the end does not make your tone any more acceptable and gracious. You do not know me nor do you know how I live. You can attempt to usurp the Throne of Christ, but I think you will find that you are pitting yourself against an impossible acquisition. Quite simply, your questions in this most resent post to me are not worthy of an answer when you conduct yourself in such an ungodly manner..... Good day..... Don Dean |
||||||
18 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 68723 | ||
Pointing to the fact that Adam was given only one wife in the garden before the fall is precarious at best. Many believe that his having been initally given only one wife became some sort of "unwritten law". This is highly questionable. Besides, I never said that polygamy is God's ideal for marriage, as many have assumed concerning my position. I also never claimed that God "endorsed" polygamy. What I DID say is that built into the protections that beneift the first wife, God made "governing provision" for a man to have more than one wife. Many have assumed from this that my meaning had to do with endorsement and even commandment. I made no such claims, contrary to all the false allegations from various of the respondents. One cannot help but to wonder at the declaration that Adam's having been given one wife became an unwritten law for all mankind. By what authority does one make such a claim when God's silence on such an alleged Law is agonizingly evident? I think this is a legitimate question that is being ignored by those who engage in nothing better than knee jerk, emotional reactionism. This is not a matter of tit-for-tat one-upmanship, this is about what I consider to be a legitimate question. Yes, there are many commentaries that carry the same old party line of discussing how polygamy was the cause of many woes in the lives of those patriarchs who practiced, but that party line is without any real merit in relation to MOST of the examples toward which is it generally directed. David did not fall BECAUSE he had a plurality of wives. He fell because of his adultery with another man's wife, and also the murder of that woman's husband to cover his adultery with her. Do I think that God desired that polygamy become the norm? No. Not at all. I know that most men do NOT have either the capacity and/or the desire within themselves to love more than one woman at a time. This is a given. There is a valid degree of legitimacy in questioning this practice of "pulling a theological rabbit out of the hat" from a context that simply does not support the alleged law of "monogamy only" idea. For MOST men, monogamy is the ideal for THEM, but when those very men reach into the "theological hat" and are not able to find that elusive "rabbit" they thought would come jumping out at their beconing, they then are left with resorting to junk theology by pulling that rabbit from a loaded sleeve. In Christ Jesus Don Dean |
||||||
19 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 68718 | ||
For the sake of putting to rest the debate over Titus and 2 Timothy's "husband of one wife" argument, I offer a commentary from three well respected scholars of the Hebrew and Greek languages. The threads of this question have begun to run far too deep to keep up with it all, so I will begin by addressing the "husband of one wife" issue in Titus. (The "all caps" is my emphasis rather than that of the authors.) This quote comes from a well respected commentary, Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Commentary: "husband of one wife -- confuting the celibacy of Rome's priesthood. Though the Jews practiced polygamy, yet as he is writing as to a Gentile Church, THE ANCIENT INTERPRETATION THAT THE PROHIBITION HERE IS AGAINST POLYGAMY IN A CANDIDATE BISHOP IS NOT CORRECT. It must, therefore, mean that, though LAYMEN MIGHT LAWFULLY MARRY AGAIN, candidates for the episcopate or presbytery were better to have been married only once. As in 1Ti 5:9, "wife of one man," IMPLIES A WOMAN MARRIED BUT ONCE; so "husband of one wife" here MUST MEAN THE SAME. The feeling which prevailed among the Gentiles, as well as the Jews (compare as to Anna, Lu 2:36,37), against a second marriage would, on the ground of expediency and conciliation in matters indifferent and not involving compromise of principle, account for Paul's prohibition here in the case of one in so prominent a sphere as a bishop or a deacon. Hence the STRESS THAT IS LAID IN THE CONTEXT on the repute in which the candidate for orders is held among those over whom he is to preside (Tit 1:16). The Council of Laodicea and the apostolic canons discountenanced second marriages, especially in the case of candidates for ordination. Of course second marriage being lawful, the undesirableness of it holds good only under special circumstances. It is implied here also, that he who has a wife and virtuous family, is to be PREFERRED TO A BACHELOR; for he who is himself bound to discharge the domestic duties mentioned here, is likely to be MORE ATTRACTIVE to those who have similar ties, for he teaches them not only by precept, but also BY EXAMPLE (1Ti 3:4,5). The Jews teach, a priest should be neither unmarried nor childless, lest he be unmerciful [BENGEL]. So in the synagogue, "no one shall offer up prayer in public, unless he be married" [in Colbo, ch. 65; VITRINGA, Synagogue and Temple]." [Emphasis mine] |
||||||
20 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 68644 | ||
I do not recall trying to stand upon that section of scripture. I addressed it because someone else was standing upon it and adding what is not there. As for Ex. 21:10, more can be gleaned from this verse than merely the issue of the slave girl. Do you not suppose that if the Lord were opposed to a man having more than one wife that He would make no such provisions for the slave girl? Why make any provisions for ANYONE if He were opposed to a man taking a second wife at all? There would be no need to protect the slave girl's well-being if the danger of the sone taking a second wife were not allowed. As to Adam's possibly having more than one wife, my intent was not to muddy the issue, but rather to demonstrate that the attempt to draw absolutes from the lack of solid information within the text is credulous at best. When people point to Adam's having been given "only one wife" as "absolute proof" that God intended it to be this way for all mankind, we are left the idea that we can draw other equally credulous conclusions that have nothing to do with the text in question. The Lord made no mention of what Adam was given was to be a model for all mankind. Such a conclusion is being drawn out of thin air. So, one is left with following the rules of reasoning of these people in order to TRY and show them the severe lack in their reasoning. Most of the time the attempt is futile when you find yourself basically arguing with people who are arguing simply for the sake of argument. Thanks for your message, Steve. Don |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |