|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Concubines - 6/23/2009 2:23:00 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3808
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethreadquote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
i feel polygamy is just as much a sin as stealing. You may feel that way, but there is no direct commandment regarding polygamy. There is one, with several examples of how to apply it, for stealing. What exactly do you base that "feeling" on? What if I felt that praying with my eyes open was just as sinful as murder? Does that make it so?
As to polygamy, there are many examples in the bible of why it is not God's best. But we live in a very fallen world which is also not God's best. As a loving Father, we should not be quick to discount or condemn as sinful His provisions for living in these less than ideal conditions.
While we can all have our opinions, we should know CLEARLY where our opinion lines up with scripture and where it does not. And we also should know clearly that others may look at a passage of biblical writ and come away with an entirely different concept. That is not to say that ours is right and their's is wrong, or vice versa. Both may be right or both may be wrong.
_____________________________
Avatar is my daughter Laura and SIL David on their wedding 9/20/09 ====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/24/2009 9:32:58 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethreadquote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
i feel polygamy is just as much a sin as stealing. You may feel that way, but there is no direct commandment regarding polygamy. There is one, with several examples of how to apply it, for stealing. What exactly do you base that "feeling" on? What if I felt that praying with my eyes open was just as sinful as murder? Does that make it so?
Well, yeah, actually that does make it so...for you.
Surely you know this from the scriptures.
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/24/2009 9:38:24 AM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 3617
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
so how do you pro-polygamy folks reconcile Jesus in Matthew 19:5-6 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." this reinforces God's initial marital intention in Genesis 2:24. further throughout the entire NT, there is a lot of other scripture supporting monogamy - the Ephesians 5 illustration of Christ's relationship with His body (church) would be invalid. and if one really wants to get technical the Romans 13 obeying law would apply as most modern nations outlaw polygamy. you can say God allowed for it, but you can't say he commanded it, thus again it would be sinful to practice it.
it seems to me the pro-polygamy folks are looking for a loophole and trying to follow the letter of the OLD law and not the SPIRIT of the law. i also believe it is not God honoring and not His design for marriage - so why would anyone want to try to rationalize it.
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/24/2009 10:11:58 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
There is also much more to marrage than sex, but this simplistic view has lead to many problems in this society.
And that is exactly why polygamy is so troublesome. But it is also true that the purpose of marriage is to become one flesh, since it is from Adam that Eve came.
Genesis 2:23-24
...she shall be called 'woman, for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Can we not even entertain the idea that some people marry for reasons other than sex? If this is the only reason to marry, then what's with all this "soulmate" stuff? ...Let's look at the practicalities of life. People need companionship, a comrade in times of trouble, a legacy and yes intimacy. Will you denigh these to a woman because you believe her husband might actually enjoy pleasing her?
Of course there are more reasons than sex to marry. And of course companionship, comradary, and intimacy are good reasons to marry. But as I've shown, sex is the institution purposely established by God to become 'one flesh', not play Monopoly. Unfortunately, polygamy is the very relationship that dismisses these other wonderful things of marriage.
In general, do you really think these other things are why a man wants another wife? By the very meaning of 'soulmate', is one soulmate not enough for a man? Does it takes two soulmates, or more, to complete a man? That defies the very defintion of soulmate. When a man has truly found his 'soulmate' do you think for a moment another woman fits into that picture? You ladies can probably answer that better than us males.
I don't like 'what ifs' and special exceptions. It's because they are exceptions that they don't carry enough weight to compel the rest of us to change truth to suit them (as hard as they try to do that). Let those who dwell in the exception adapt and understand truth according to their situation and leave the rest of us alone. 'One man, one woman, for life' is the higher truth that Jesus himself taught us. The rest of us don't need to throw it out just to make room for the person who can't accept it. IOW, this higher truth stands whether a man wants to take a second wife or not. No reason to dumb the truth down to accomodate him.
**edit**
iwillfearnoevil,
Sorry for the repetition. I was composing while you posted, lol!
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/24/2009 12:58:15 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 3617
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
**edit**
iwillfearnoevil,
Sorry for the repetition. I was composing while you posted, lol!
no worries - i probably edited my post. sometimes i edit it multiple times as i think maybe i wasn't clear or something didn't sound right. i think it is good bringing up sex as you did again (even since page 1 as it was missing from my posts). having sex with a concubine (or more commonly called a mistress in modern times) is certainly fornication and i'd like to see the loop-holes saying fornication is sometimes okay ...
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/24/2009 1:57:44 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3808
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drakequote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
What if I felt that praying with my eyes open was just as sinful as murder? Does that make it so?
Well, yeah, actually that does make it so...for you.
Surely you know this from the scriptures. I know the scripture you are refering to: Whatever is not of faith is sin.
But what is the sin? The thing itself or the lack of faith? I submit the latter.
Without faith it is impossible to please Him...
I had a pastor once that believed that even smelling alcohol (not even drinking it) was so sinful you lost your salvation. One day he was praying and felt the Lord lead him to go to a bar and hand out tracts. This kept coming up every time he prayed. Finally after several weeks he figured that he could hyperventilate and hold his breath while running thru the bar throwing tracts at everyone. He was so proud that he had figured out a way to obey God without sinning.
What is wrong with this picture?
_____________________________
Avatar is my daughter Laura and SIL David on their wedding 9/20/09 ====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/24/2009 2:07:08 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3808
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
and if one really wants to get technical the Romans 13 obeying law would apply as most modern nations outlaw polygamy. you can say God allowed for it, but you can't say he commanded it, thus again it would be sinful to practice it. Romans 13 is absolutely important to this discussion. The law of these here united states is (or has been) one man and one woman. Anything else is sinful because it breaks the civil law.
But there are places on earth where polygamy is not illegal and is fairly common. What do you do in those places? This is where it is vitally important that we know what scripture actually says and what is our own feelings and (extrabiblical) beliefs. Do we try to superimpose our cultural and legal framework on them? Or try to see how the Word can be expressed in their culture?
I go for the latter.
_____________________________
Avatar is my daughter Laura and SIL David on their wedding 9/20/09 ====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/24/2009 2:13:08 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
so how do you pro-polygamy folks reconcile Jesus in Matthew 19:5-6 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." this reinforces God's initial marital intention in Genesis 2:24. further throughout the entire NT, there is a lot of other scripture supporting monogamy - the Ephesians 5 illustration of Christ's relationship with His body (church) would be invalid. and if one really wants to get technical the Romans 13 obeying law would apply as most modern nations outlaw polygamy. you can say God allowed for it, but you can't say he commanded it, thus again it would be sinful to practice it.
First, I am not pro-polygamy. I just understand the need some my have for it.
Regarding Matthew 19:5-6, we need to look at the question He was answering. (Mt. 19:3) "Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"" The issue is divorce not polygamy. Yeshua's point it that the purpose of marrage is unity. Therefore, we should do everything we can to ecourage unit between a husband and wife. Polygamy does not in and of itself violate this. The wives are not married to each other, they are married to their husband. This is why, I believe, a polygamist can not be a leader. He has his hands full maintaining unity between himself and his wives.
In Ephisians 5, Paul point out that his reference to the two becoming one flesh was to reinforce an analogy and that analogy in turn supports the proper relation ship between a husband and wife. The number of wives is not addressed here. (Vs. 32-33) "This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." There needs to be unity between a husband and each of his wives, just as the church needs to be in unity wiht Yeshua. Now he does imply that one wife is the norm because he does not use the term wives. However, Paul clearly said the point of the analogy is a husbands love and a wifes respect, not the number of wives or any other factor of marrage that one may observe. He limits the analogy, therefore, he is only saying that the loveless husband and/or the disrespectful wife invalidates the relationship with Yeshua.
The problem with using Romans 13 as defining disobeying the secular government as Sin with a capital S is that this view would justify the tatooing of the jews in nazi germany. Those who see tattoos as not clearly forbidden in the Scriptures would be Sinning in this case if they refused to be tattoed with a number. I see this passage as a way of restating what Paul says in (Ro 12:18) "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Therefore, it would be more of a circumstantial sin and not an absolute sin.
quote:
it seems to me the pro-polygamy folks are looking for a loophole and trying to follow the letter of the OLD law and not the SPIRIT of the law. i also believe it is not God honoring and not His design for marriage - so why would anyone want to try to rationalize it.
I am not looking for a loophole. I am looking at what the Scriptures say. The problem with the "spirit of the law" argument is that it often creates more loopholes than it seals up. In my opinion, "the spirit of the law" should refer to the application of the Scriptures to particular situations to take into account the best interests of the people involved. In this discussion the needs of the matron woman are being ignored and a presumed benefit to a man are shouted from the mountain tops. How does the presumed benefit to the man negate the need of the woman.
Finally, the reason why those who disagree with you "rationalize" their position is because they do not accept your "rationalizations". Just because you believe it is not "God honoring" does not mean others must accept that view. I believe many things are not honoring to Adonai, but I have been accused of following "the letter of the OLD law" when I have presented these beliefs. One can not have it both ways. Either one is required to look to the Scriptures actually say or they are not. If one can not nail it down, it becomes a community standard and not a clear commandment.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/25/2009 10:02:03 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am not looking for a loophole. I am looking at what the Scriptures say. The problem with the "spirit of the law" argument is that it often creates more loopholes than it seals up.
Finally, the reason why those who disagree with you "rationalize" their position is because they do not accept your "rationalizations". Just because you believe it is not "God honoring" does not mean others must accept that view.
Is this really your opinion of Christ's revelatory teaching 'one man, one woman, for life'? What loophole does that open up? What rationalization does that represent? It clearly closes up loopholes, and destroys the rationalizations of men (many of which arise from the very kinds of wonderings that the Pharisees were presenting to Jesus that caused him to share the real truth with them).
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/25/2009 10:13:57 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ta_mosquito
quote:
In general, do you really think these other things are why a man wants another wife? By the very meaning of 'soulmate', is one soulmate not enough for a man? Does it takes two soulmates, or more, to complete a man? That defies the very defintion of soulmate. When a man has truly found his 'soulmate' do you think for a moment another woman fits into that picture? You ladies can probably answer that better than us males.
Just to play "opponent's advocate" here - the concept of a soulmate isn't biblical (i.e. from the Bible). 
I'm glad a woman shared this.
In general, woman only like sex if it's romantic (there's another reason, but I'm not going to go there for fear of being hunted down and destroyed). But honestly, when I read the OT, I don't see much Harlequin Romance. I see man's natural desire for sexual gratification, and endless family posturing for positions of influence, and benefit. All of which help us understand the spiritual equivalents of those things--the desire for the joy of intimacy with God, and Him with us, and the longing for the benfits and priveleges of being a part of His family.
Polygamy is a glaring example of this. How romantic is polygamy? It's biology for the man (generally speaking), and it's gaining the benefit of family influence and provision for the woman. But it also can serve as a useful illustration of spiritual realities. God desires intimacy with a beautiful bride adorned with the deeds of the Spirit, and mankind desires the safety and provision of being a part of the Royal family.
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/25/2009 10:22:47 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Theo-Minor
You are not being misunderstood by me. In general, I share your point of view, though I do disagree slightly with the hard-heartedness to an extent. David didn't do it for that reason. In more than one instance, David took a woman to wife when her husband died. Depending on your frame of mind when you read David's exploits of women, they can be considered arrangements of mercy or pity in a society where women can't make their own way without a man. Consider, for example, Abigail and Nabal. When Nabal died, David took Abigail to wife ... and yet, the circumstance is not spoken of in the same manner as when David saw Bath-Sheba and coveted her.
Abigal was smart, and beautiful...and loaded! What a big heart David had, lol! (not picking on ya, just stirring the pot a little)
I like the story about how Micael's husband was crying like a baby when David took her away from him, because she had been promised to him first, but Saul gave her to someone else. Has nothing to do with polygamy, I just thought it was kind of funny (am I being hard-hearted?).
Hmm...David, a type of Christ...takes back the wife promised to him first, but who was given to someone else....Nah! Nothing here folks...keep moving...move along!
quote:
ORIGINAL: Theo-Minor
So again, I agree with you, but I do not think that it is soley the result of hard-heartedness. For that reason alone, I believe the Lord allowed it.
It had it's practical purposes. I'm not sure those purposes need to be served in a civilized society like ours where woman can hold their own.
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/25/2009 10:27:18 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
Polygamy is a glaring example of this. How romantic is polygamy? It's biology for the man (generally speaking), and it's gaining the benefit of family influence and provision for the woman.
Incidentally, the OT laws addressed this by telling the man that he must perform his duties to his wives. No matter how many he had, it was his obligation to satisfy ALL of their needs. That would seem to indicate that women experience some of the same urges that men do. 
Go on, get outa here!
(It's true. It just has to be romantic.)
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/25/2009 4:32:12 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
quote:
I am not looking for a loophole. I am looking at what the Scriptures say. The problem with the "spirit of the law" argument is that it often creates more loopholes than it seals up.
Finally, the reason why those who disagree with you "rationalize" their position is because they do not accept your "rationalizations". Just because you believe it is not "God honoring" does not mean others must accept that view.
Is this really your opinion of Christ's revelatory teaching ?
This is not a load question. No, no bias here. Please, where does Yeshua clearly teach 'one man, one woman, for life'? I am not saying that is not an honorable vow. I am just saying it is a doctrine and as with all doctrine, there is room for debate.
quote:
What loophole does that open up? What rationalization does that represent?
I did not say that that doctrine specifically creates loopholes, but that "the spirit of the law" creates many loopholes. That said, this doctrine can be used to require one to stay in an abusive relationship. It also can encourage self-centered individualism. For example, "not my family, not my problem" and the "power woman" who out of a desire to provide for herself devalues men. These do not naturally follow any more than does lasciviousness naturally follow from polygamy. It is just that there are risks in both cases and there is not a clear command to the contrary.
quote:
But honestly, when I read the OT, I don't see much Harlequin Romance.
I'm sorry to say, I see some Harlequin Romance in the Tanach and it usually does not work out well.
quote:
I see man's natural desire for sexual gratification, and endless family posturing for positions of influence, and benefit.
Maybe you need a new pair of glasses or maybe you are reading the Scriptures with the wrong part of your body.
quote:
It's biology for the man (generally speaking), and it's gaining the benefit of family influence and provision for the woman.
Could this statement be just a wee bit sexist? Just saying.
quote:
Hmm...David, a type of Christ...takes back the wife promised to him first, but who was given to someone else....Nah! Nothing here folks...keep moving...move along!
Yes, there is nothing here. Stretching an analogy to make Yeshua look like a homewrecker? Ya, we had better move on to something more honorable.
quote:
It had it's practical purposes. I'm not sure those purposes need to be served in a civilized society like ours where woman can hold their own.
I'll avoid the obvious crude pun and point out our civilized society has provided well for women, 40% out of wedlock pregnancy, rampent venerial disease, welfare. Ya. that's a much better environment than a society that permits polygamy might provide.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/25/2009 6:02:48 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 3617
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
This is not a load question. No, no bias here. Please, where does Yeshua clearly teach 'one man, one woman, for life'? I am not saying that is not an honorable vow. I am just saying it is a doctrine and as with all doctrine, there is room for debate.
you're right there is a false doctrine, it's called polygamy. Jesus spoke on marriage as one man, one woman and was later reinforced in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
quote:
I did not say that that doctrine specifically creates loopholes, but that "the spirit of the law" creates many loopholes.
i find it hard to believe anyone can ready genesis 2:24 and not think that's the spirit of the law. it's those who are pro-polygamy who argue monogamy is not what God really designed.
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/25/2009 6:40:33 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
This is not a load question. No, no bias here. Please, where does Yeshua clearly teach 'one man, one woman, for life'? I am not saying that is not an honorable vow. I am just saying it is a doctrine and as with all doctrine, there is room for debate.
you're right there is a false doctrine, it's called polygamy. Jesus spoke on marriage as one man, one woman and was later reinforced in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
Regarding the words of Yeshua. Please tell me which ones you are refeing to specifically so we can deal with them one by one.
In the mean time let's look at the passages you have brought up.
I Tim. 3:2 & 12 "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, . .", "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife . . ."
Titus 1:6 "An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife . . ."
These are the only applicable verses I could find. Is everyone to be an elder and/or deacon? Do you believe someone is sinning if they are not able to teach? As I said before, monogamy is an honorable vow, as is celibecy, but neither is required of the believer per se.
What is interesting about I Timothy is Chpt 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." Does this mean women should not speak when there are men present?
Also, Titus 1:15a "To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure." This passage is often used by those who talk of "the spirit of the law". Does this only apply to things that are commanded or does it also apply to things derived from the Scriptures?
quote:
quote:
I did not say that that doctrine specifically creates loopholes, but that "the spirit of the law" creates many loopholes.
i find it hard to believe anyone can ready genesis 2:24 and not think that's the spirit of the law. it's those who are pro-polygamy who argue monogamy is not what God really designed.
I do not claim to speak for those who are "pro-polygamy" I have already stated that monogamy is an honorable vow. So, let's look at genesis 2:24. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
This is commentary Moshe' was inspired to insert into the creation story. We know this because at the time there was only one man and one woman. So, what is the reason for this to occur. A man is to become one flesh with his wife because the orginal man and woman were one flesh before her creation. Now, is this talking about monogomy? No, it is talking about unity. Had this been meant to be talking about monogamy, why didn't Adonai inspire Moshe' to clarify that later in HaTorah. One the contrary, Adonai inspires Moshe' to make provision for polygamy occuring.
You wanted to know how someone can look at that passage and not see that monogany is the "spirit" of the passage. Well there you have it. Now, based on "the spirit of the law" doctrine, how does one refute that?
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 6/25/2009 7:26:57 PM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/25/2009 9:41:21 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 3617
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
since you agree that it's the honorable lifestyle, why wouldn't that be the lifestyle God wants for Christians?
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/26/2009 12:10:06 AM
|
|
|
Theo-Minor
Posts: 282
Joined: 2/9/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
Polygamy is a glaring example of this. How romantic is polygamy? It's biology for the man (generally speaking), and it's gaining the benefit of family influence and provision for the woman.
Incidentally, the OT laws addressed this by telling the man that he must perform his duties to his wives. No matter how many he had, it was his obligation to satisfy ALL of their needs. That would seem to indicate that women experience some of the same urges that men do.
I remember reading that not too long ago. If I recall correctly, it had to do with slaves, or women servants. Or at least it starts that way.
But I distinctly remember the part you mentioned about not witholding the marital duties from the first one taken just because he now had another.
_____________________________
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/26/2009 12:12:45 AM
|
|
|
Theo-Minor
Posts: 282
Joined: 2/9/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
so how do you pro-polygamy folks reconcile Jesus in Matthew 19:5-6 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." this reinforces God's initial marital intention in Genesis 2:24. further throughout the entire NT, there is a lot of other scripture supporting monogamy - the Ephesians 5 illustration of Christ's relationship with His body (church) would be invalid. and if one really wants to get technical the Romans 13 obeying law would apply as most modern nations outlaw polygamy. you can say God allowed for it, but you can't say he commanded it, thus again it would be sinful to practice it.
it seems to me the pro-polygamy folks are looking for a loophole and trying to follow the letter of the OLD law and not the SPIRIT of the law. i also believe it is not God honoring and not His design for marriage - so why would anyone want to try to rationalize it.
How do you reconcile David having many wives, and God giving them to him?
As I said once before, if you are trying to adequately understand the word on this issue, you have to let go of your personal feelings. I'm not pro-polygamy. I am 100% for monogamy. I even think that that's the way God wants it to be. But there's no mistaking the fact that polygamy was permitted in the Bible, and by God himself.
_____________________________
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/26/2009 6:37:25 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3808
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
you're right there is a false doctrine, it's called polygamy. Jesus spoke on marriage as one man, one woman and was later reinforced in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
i find it hard to believe anyone can ready genesis 2:24 and not think that's the spirit of the law. it's those who are pro-polygamy who argue monogamy is not what God really designed. Jesus spoke of one man and one woman in Matt 19.5, quoting Gen 2.24 where it says "one flesh."
Please understand Jesus was speaking "from the beginning," (Mat 19.4) i.e., that was how it was intended to be in a perfect world BEFORE the fall into sin. Before death, before disease, before war, before hard hearts.
Was polygamy God's best or His original intent? Absolutely not.
Did He allow for it and in certain circumstances COMMAND it? Yes.
We should NEVER fall into the trap of thinking that just because we are saved we can somehow return to the state of mankind before the fall. I know of no one who lives physically forever, never gets sick, etc. In 1900 years of Christan believers, if it were possible, SOMEONE would have done it.
So do not condemn the provision God has made for hurting people living in a fallen world. It is to be looked at as God's mercy in certain bad situations. If you and your family are all fine with monogamy, PRAISE GOD!!! But do not disparage HIS mercy on widows and orphans.
_____________________________
Avatar is my daughter Laura and SIL David on their wedding 9/20/09 ====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/26/2009 8:37:44 AM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 798
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
Awesome answers, Theo-Minor and DaveW.
Judging from the length of this thread, it seems like some of us are getting a fresh perspective on Biblical teaching in regards to marriage, polygamy and God's original intent.
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7
www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-743-9
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/26/2009 1:04:14 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
since you agree that it's the honorable lifestyle, why wouldn't that be the lifestyle God wants for Christians?
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
There are many honorable things that are not considered required of all. Celibecy is a perfect example. Paul says that this is his preference for those who wish to live a life totally devoted to Adonai. However, we can't all be totally devoted to Adonai. Some of us have responsibilities to others that keep us from the best. If there were a Temple, it would be best to avoid being made unclean at all times so that we could go there at any time. However, that would mean one could never have sex or attend a funeral. There are justifiable reasons for not following "best practices". Most of these are relationed to loving one's neighbor. Polygamy, if applied properly, could be just such a case.
Paul tells us, (1Co 7:1b) "It is good for a man not to marry." and (1Co 7:38) "So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.".
However, at the same time he tells us, (1Ti 5:11 & 14) "As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry." "So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander."
So, how do we reconcile these two apparently controdictory bits of advise for men and women? Also, if you will note, Paul was not a sexist in regard to "sensual desires". He recognized that everyone has them.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
