It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christians should accept polygamy

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Because of tradition and law, many Christians find the practice of polygamy as unsavory and in most cases viewed as sinful. Traditionally, it is acceptable to have one wife with many offspring, but having many wives to compound even more offspring is viewed as sexual immorality.

Can any Christian explain to me why it is an incorrect practice when Abraham had multiple wives and a concubine, as well as Jacob (Israel) whom had two wives and two concubines, in addition to many others in the Hebrew ancestry.
Besides the legal reasons, why doesn't every Christian denomination uphold old school Mormonism on this belief as acceptable if it was ok for the Jewish patriarchs?




posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069
Can any Christian explain to me why it is an incorrect practice when Abraham had multiple wives and a concubine, as well as Jacob (Israel) whom had two wives and two concubines, in addition to many others in the Hebrew ancestry.


They lived before the law. The Jews demanded a law, government, and king. Moses gave them one after God's approval. All the patriarchs lived before Moses, therefore before polygamy was officially pronounced as not allowed.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



Okay. Just because of that technicality, what about Solomon?



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Solomon paid for his disobedience in that matter by costing his heirs the throne of Isreal so he isnt really an exmple of why polygomy should be allowed. Further more in todays world we could not really implement this kind of policy because iall things being equal women would then be able to take as many husbands as they chose. Not to mention the fact that half the men of this country cannot handle being married to one let alone half a dozen.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jovi1
 


That's why I want only answers of why it is considered wrong in the eyes of God and believers. I am not talking about reasons of why it is not possible today. Obviously the legalities of it today do not allow it. Everyone already knows that, and I am primarily talking about laws in the US.

If this was considered disobedience and the only one branch of a lineage got some sort of birthright, how is that a disapproval by God? It sounds like the act itself was not necessarily sinful at all, especially since it was practiced often back in those times, especially for the wealthy who could afford paying the dowry.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
i'll do you one better. christians should accept everything...
free will you know. you can accept that others will live their lives different than yours without approving of it.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
It should be the same for women. How'd ya like your wives to bring home a young stud and tell you he's staying and he's the new husband and deal with it?
Monday-Friday: Young stud
Sat and Sun: Old worn out husband.

Yep, fair is fair.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ben91069
 


Its hard enough to live with just one women why would you want to make it worse!!!
lol



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 


yeah, fair is fair....
i still fail to see the problem. if all parties are adult and they consent, then what gives? imo christians should accept polygmy....it's the whole free will deal rearing it's ugly head again



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ben91069
 


Pokygamy is fundamentally against Christian beliefs of what happens during a marriage ceremony. To the Christian believer Marriage is an act of transformation bringing two souls into one being. Simply adding multiple spouses pretty much violates the idea of what a marriage should be as laid out by God when he created the first married couple in Adam and Eve.

Because had Solomon not taken that many wive's his line would have continued to wear the crown. That was the deal made with David that as long as his sons put God and his commandments above all they would rule over Isreal, However because God also promised David that Solomons reign would know no turmoil he had to exercize the punishment onto the posterity of his line.

As to what Boondock stated here while in most things I would find myself in agreement with you this is one of those things a truly enlightened society would reject as not being good for the common welfare of the population. It is very easy for anyone to see that this practice would be very harmful to all the women and children involved and is lust and power based and not an arrangment based on love at all.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jovi1


As to what Boondock stated here while in most things I would find myself in agreement with you this is one of those things a truly enlightened society would reject as not being good for the common welfare of the population. It is very easy for anyone to see that this practice would be very harmful to all the women and children involved and is lust and power based and not an arrangment based on love at all.


we don't live in that type of society though....well, i don't.

how many of us do what is good for the common welfare of the population?
booze and smokes are not good for the common welfare of all either but they are plentiful.

i just don't agree. even if it is lust based, why is that a bad thing? there are many a marriage out there that is not based on love but on convenience.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Jovi1
 


Not necessarily, or it shouldn't be. In fact, the whole premise of this can also be compared to the marriage supper of the lamb. It is said that the congregation or church unites or becomes one with the head of the church, or Christ. It also says that we are one body with many parts. It alludes to the idea that many women become married to one man. Read the part about the head of every woman is a man. It isn't demeaning women, but referring to a spiritual message that many women (parts of the body of Christ) become one with a single man. Why anyone would want more than one wife escapes me since it is difficult enough with one, but some Mormons do practice it and are excommunicated from the mainstream church and other denominations.

As Boondock even states, Christians should not condemn anything, for it is the same free-will that makes everyone believe their ideas are "truth".



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jovi1
It is very easy for anyone to see that this practice would be very harmful to all the women and children involved and is lust and power based and not an arrangment based on love at all.


Anyone who sees it that way as a first thought probably thinks that way in the first place. By the way, if you believe that, you have insulted Abraham, the house of Israel, and King Solomon.

Why is it that people believe love can only occur monogamously. Ever hear of polyamory? In fact, by definition God is polyamorous in that he loves everyone. I think within Christianity, those who cling to monogamy reflect the desire to also want a God who only loves them and no one else - they are unwilling to share and would be envious if they knew deep down that God loves others who they personally do not love.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ben91069
 


Remember the contention between Rachel and Leah. They were always competing between each other for children and time with Jacob. In the beginning of Genesis, it is even implied the best way is one man and one woman. It was the same way with Sarah and Hagar. It might "work" but it's not ideal.


[edit on 1/13/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Polygamy in the OT sense was about ownership of women and children as property.

I think even if I were a Christian, I'd have to pass on this one, thanks.

why else do the extreme LDS marry little girls as young as 14? Not because they're old enough to make an informed decision on whether they want to be the 12th wife of 20 and squeeze out a kid a year for life.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction


why else do the extreme LDS marry little girls as young as 14?



cause they're freaks....i like to make my point very clear. as long as the parties involved are adults and consent, then i could care less. i mean, who am i to dip into their life/lifestyle?
just cause i do not agree or support it does not mean it is wrong.

my neighbor could have 10 wives or the wife could have 10 hubby's and it honestly would not bother me. if it was based on lust that would not bother me either.

people mention kids and such but a a child growing up in a home with two parents is a guarantee of NOTHING. so, whats the prob you know?

as far as some of them marrying 12 and 14 year old girls....imo this is just another way for religion to mask sick # that people do.
you know, pastors touching little boys and polygamist dudes offering up their 14 year old innocent daughter.....
do it in the name of religion and at least some will entertain it...
pretty disgusting



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I'm going to throw in my hat and say that you can't find any instance in the Bible that states it's a sin to have more than one wife. It's only considered a sin to divorce your wife (for reasons other than infidelity) or covet someone else's wife.

You know, some Old Testament laws required individuals to take a second wife. If your brother had a wife and he died before she had any children, you were obligated to marry her and give her children. Children were the only means of having a good retirement in those days. Before we get carried away with this, do remember that many of these laws were not religious laws that dictated your relationship with God, but laws of the state. These laws were set up to organize the society of Israel and don't actually apply to a Christian's realtionship with God. So you can breathe easy if your brother dies leaving behind a childless old hag. You don't have to marry her.

In the New Testament we can find off-handed remarks that recognize that some Christians had more than one wife.


1 Timothy 3:2, 12
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."


The most literal translation is that church leaders shouldn't have more than one wife implying two was acceptable, but not for leaders. Of course you could say that it implies divorce isn't fitting for leaders, or that leaders must be married. We can throw out the last theory. We know that Paul wasn't married and even stated that it was better since it gave him more time to devote to preaching. The best way to read the Bible is literal, unless you have good reason to believe it's figurative. That gives the most weight to the first translation.

Look at Christians today. Many have multiple wives. True, they only have one at a time, but is that really any different? Divorce and remarriage (except for infidelity) is in my opinion, worse than having a second wife. While we can find all sorts of scripture that points towards divorce being bad, you're hard pressed to find a ruling against having more than one wife.

Basically it's a social thing, but if you're going to have more than one take warning. Adam is the role model for all men and God gave him one just one wife. Time and time again we see that just because God allows something doesn't mean you should do it. Solomon proved that you can have too much of a good thing. It's probably best to just have one wife and avoid all the issues associated with having more than one.

Two women with PMS? No thank you.(Ducks flying shoes) Besides, my wife is so great, any other women would fail in comparison.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
It should be the same for women.

No, that's not the same. Wife 1 wouldn't have to compete with Wife 2 when it comes to having babies with the same husband. Two men and one woman. It's quite possible that only one man would have children with her leaving the other childless. That wouldn't turn out very well.

I'm not saying that either case is good, but your option is mostly unworkable.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
These laws were set up to organize the society of Israel and don't actually apply to a Christian's realtionship with God. So you can breathe easy if your brother dies leaving behind a childless old hag. You don't have to marry her.


This brings up a good point, however. Thanks for mentioning that law. Many Christians use the scripture:



Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill,


as making the point that we are to still follow the law. Some say only the 10 commandments, others say all of it. Yet, they fail to fulfill the parts of the law (like marrying your brothers spouse after death).

Every Christian woman who claims that we are still to follow the law, must marry their husbands brother if they are childless, and a brother must marry his brothers spouse likewise in the event of death.

If they claim we are to follow law and do not do this, then there is something hypocritical about their convictions.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ben91069
 

Yes, but what did Jesus mean by "fulfilling" the law. That's a really deep subject. Any Christian who subscribes to following the completely should read Acts 15 of which I will quote a small part of.


Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?

Paul pointed out that they were fools to think that new Christian converts should be made to follow the law since not even the Jews could keep it. One of the main things the Law did, was prove that man alone was not capeable of living up to God's commandments. Are we required to keep every law? Hardly. Take an honest look at the laws in the Torah and ask how they relate to your relationship to God. Jesus himself pointed this out when he was asked what the greatest law was.

Matthew 22


37 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."


Funny that this came up. Also in the same chapter we find Jesus presented with the ridiculious arguement that concerns this exact law we were talking about. Start reading in verse 24.



24 Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"

If anything this highlights the insane situations that you can get into when the law is followed to the exact letter. Of course Jesus laid down the law, quite literally.

""You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God"

Silly Sadducees. Trying to argue the law with the one that created it.


[edit on 15-1-2008 by dbates]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join