quote:

Consider also, if you will, that Jesus said (Matt. 5:31-32), whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication (idolatry), causes her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.
Note that Jesus does not say anything about the status of the man who is putting the woman away. She is caused to commit adultery. He isn't caused to commit anything. Because the woman's desire is to her husband, and he shall rule over her (Gen. 3:16). The man, for all intents and purposes, owned the woman. He was in control. He did as he pleased. She had no rights. The man could put her away or not, as he chose, take other wives or not as he chose. None of it constituted adultery. But if a woman took another man, it was adultery. If a man took another man's wife, it was adultery.

quote:

Jesus is not a polygamist. His bride is one Body whose various parts are joined together by the common Spirit that dwells within each part and holds them together. There's no reason to strain to try to defend and explain Jews, Israelites, and Gentiles as not being more than one wife for Jesus. The Holy Spirit makes us all one Body.

quote:

Mark 10:10-12
10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

quote:

ORIGINAL: LBolt

quote:

Mark 10:10-12
10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

The emphasis seems to be on him divorcing his wife and not on keeping his first bride and then marrying someone else as this verse implies. The key is divorcing his wife and remarrying. Not marrying someone else while retaining his first wife. This seems to be deealing with custom of eastern people. Whereas our custom is here in the USA is frowned upon. Besides, you have to be able to support your household.

This goes back to the beginning... Male (singular) and female (singular) is the original intent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

Just to put a fly in the ointment. What about a woman who needs a child to care for her in her old age. I state it this way because that is the usual reason in the "olden days". Today it is a matter of "I want a child." However, I digress. In this case, we have the woman go to a doctor and receive the seed from some stranger who neither she nor the child will ever know. Then if things go bad, we the tax payers pick up the tab. If we are going to inssist that a woman has a "right" to have a child, wouldn't being a concubine be a better alternative to what we do now? Just because she is not his wife does not mean the man is not responsible for the care and feeding of the child of a concubine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

Just to put a fly in the ointment. What about a woman who needs a child to care for her in her old age. I state it this way because that is the usual reason in the "olden days". Today it is a matter of "I want a child." However, I digress. In this case, we have the woman go to a doctor and receive the seed from some stranger who neither she nor the child will ever know. Then if things go bad, we the tax payers pick up the tab. If we are going to inssist that a woman has a "right" to have a child, wouldn't being a concubine be a better alternative to what we do now? Just because she is not his wife does not mean the man is not responsible for the care and feeding of the child of a concubine.

All I can say is good luck finding a man willing to do that--I mean offer just his seed in a test tube and take full financial responsibility for the child. We men might be stupid...but we're not that stupid, lol. Taking her on as a second class concubine with actual sexual priveleges is not too far removed from that. Why don't we humans just accept God's way and leave it at that? One woman, one man in a lifelong marriage, not some goofy second class arrangment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LBolt
but wasn't it God's original intent for 1 man and 1 woman?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

Just to put a fly in the ointment. What about a woman who needs a child to care for her in her old age. I state it this way because that is the usual reason in the "olden days". Today it is a matter of "I want a child." However, I digress. In this case, we have the woman go to a doctor and receive the seed from some stranger who neither she nor the child will ever know. Then if things go bad, we the tax payers pick up the tab. If we are going to inssist that a woman has a "right" to have a child, wouldn't being a concubine be a better alternative to what we do now? Just because she is not his wife does not mean the man is not responsible for the care and feeding of the child of a concubine.

All I can say is good luck finding a man willing to do that--I mean offer just his seed in a test tube and take full financial responsibility for the child. We men might be stupid...but we're not that stupid, lol. Taking her on as a second class concubine with actual sexual priveleges is not too far removed from that. Why don't we humans just accept God's way and leave it at that? One woman, one man in a lifelong marriage, not some goofy second class arrangment.

But that is the Scriptural relationship one would have with a concubine. The Scriptures provide a more gracious alternative to the alternatives of the world that leave the child fatherless, when a women insists, "But, I want a child?". One of these less acceptable solutions that these women turn to is seducing a man, having a child and then requiring the man to provide for the child. Also, this is the reason given by some women for the child theft cases we have seen of late. Wouldn't it be better if this were an up front agreement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

Another twist. If we go with the one man one woman thing that would leave many women unmarried. There are more females that survive to child bearing years and men tend to take part in life treatening activities more often. During the times when these things were more acceptable child bearing was riskier business. Now however, death in child birth is rather rare. How would one resolve this disparity without being hard hearted? Are there that many less women who would like to be married than men?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
All the twists go away and are resolved in the self control that comes from understanding and accepting God's highest truth about marriage and child bearing--'one man, one woman, for life'. And if you can't have that, by God's grace, to be content to have nothing at all. That principle is what truly righteous living is all about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil

i feel twists are nothing but rationalizations. what is someone feels their spouse doesn't show them enough affection, do they deserve a concubine too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil

i feel twists are nothing but rationalizations. what is someone feels their spouse doesn't show them enough affection, do they deserve a concubine too?

That was not the point. What is to be done with the woman who can not find a husband? As I stated before, there are more women who survive to child bearing years and men live riskier lifestyles. Therefore, there are not enough men for every woman to have a legitimate child, if we insist on the one man on woman rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil

i feel twists are nothing but rationalizations. what is someone feels their spouse doesn't show them enough affection, do they deserve a concubine too?

That was not the point. What is to be done with the woman who can not find a husband? As I stated before, there are more women who survive to child bearing years and men live riskier lifestyles. Therefore, there are not enough men for every woman to have a legitimate child, if we insist on the one man on woman rule.

Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."


And for those who can't accept this there are the various aspects of the law to govern second best solutions.

(I keep telling myself that this is my last word on this because I know this has the potential to deteriorate into meaningless talk.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
That was not the point. What is to be done with the woman who can not find a husband? As I stated before, there are more women who survive to child bearing years and men live riskier lifestyles. Therefore, there are not enough men for every woman to have a legitimate child, if we insist on the one man on woman rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
That was not the point. What is to be done with the woman who can not find a husband? As I stated before, there are more women who survive to child bearing years and men live riskier lifestyles. Therefore, there are not enough men for every woman to have a legitimate child, if we insist on the one man on woman rule.

i realize but the loopholes get to the point like what if i'm laid off from work (there are more jobs than people to go around?), does that mean i must lie and steal to get food. it exactly is the point you tried to deny, we don't get to choose what of God's commands we want to obey and what we don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Theo-Minor

Look (speaking to no person in particular), you can't try to rationalize this from a logical point of view. It is not directly stated in scripture that a man can marry only one woman, and it is plainly demonstrated in scripture that God can, and does, allow a man to marry more than one.
Some of you are letting our western influence govern the interpretation of scripture.

Personally, I'm all for monogamy. I think it's the right way to go. I think that God actually did intend one man and one woman.

But that is my opinion based upon my culture and upbringing. The Bible allows a man to marry more than one woman, except in the case of a pastor, wherein it is stated that he should be a man of one wife.

You really have to let go of your feelings in this matter and understand what the scriptures have to say, rather than what you want to infer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake

quote:

ORIGINAL: Theo-Minor

Look (speaking to no person in particular), you can't try to rationalize this from a logical point of view. It is not directly stated in scripture that a man can marry only one woman, and it is plainly demonstrated in scripture that God can, and does, allow a man to marry more than one.
Some of you are letting our western influence govern the interpretation of scripture.

Personally, I'm all for monogamy. I think it's the right way to go. I think that God actually did intend one man and one woman.

But that is my opinion based upon my culture and upbringing. The Bible allows a man to marry more than one woman, except in the case of a pastor, wherein it is stated that he should be a man of one wife.

You really have to let go of your feelings in this matter and understand what the scriptures have to say, rather than what you want to infer.

I hope I'm not being misunderstood as sayng men are not allowed to have more than one wife (in a society that doesn't have a law against it). I think I've made it clear that I'm well aware of the concession made to men to do that, but I've been demonstrating that it's just that--a concession. Like divorce, it was not meant to be that way from the beginning. It's a second best solution given to hard-hearted men who don't have the capacity or spiritual knowledge to control their own sexual desire.

I'm a man. I know full well the motivation for wanting more than one wife...and it ain't to get the dishes done twice as fast. I would be ashamed to take a second wife knowing that it's really an authorized but less than honorable way to entertain your lusts.

I'm not going into any details but my wife half jokingly expressed the desire to welcome a second wife in our home years ago (we're not weird people...really). My worldly, fleshly side said, "yeah, baby"! The spiritual, heavenly part of me said, "get a grip, boy"! And I will add, my wife's motivation and reason was not the same as mine would have been to do that.

I have zero respect for a man who takes more than one wife in a modern, educated society today. I see them talked about on TV occasionally and I see nothing but carnal, unbridled lust in the man, and fearful, weak-willed women. But, you are correct, God would allow it if our country did. But I'm too far in to Christ and his knowledge to settle for far less than the ideal marriage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake

I'm a man. I know full well the motivation for wanting more than one wife...and it ain't to get the dishes done twice as fast. I would be ashamed to take a second wife knowing that it's really an authorized but less than honorable way to entertain your lusts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Sorry, the analogy does not work. There is always work to do. It may not be in your prefered field or pay as much as you would like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Sorry, the analogy does not work. There is always work to do. It may not be in your prefered field or pay as much as you would like.

and not every person of the opposite sex is married. it fits your example perfectly i feel. and with the many scriptures provided, i feel polygamy is just as much a sin as stealing.