What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A view of a Carnal & Miserable kind of Polygyny

I think it would be more accurate to say that God is talking about a covenant formed with Samaria and Jerusalem, not marrying Aholah and Aholibah. This is nothing more than a parable explaining the consequences of their idolatry and whoredom. That is what I 'get' when reading it in its context.

So you know where I'm coming from, I shy away from allegorizing scripture in favor of seeking out a literal meaning. Jesus is known as the Groom to Israel (the Bride). Israel consists of both male and female. Are we to assume, using some of the logic I read here, that the Lord is condonig homosexuality by suggesting He is the groom to all these males of Israel?

I sure hope not. :o

A sidebar: what are the prerequisites for marrying more than one female? Is it to be pre-arranged, is it a emotional attraction to another woman, is it a physical attraction? Is it a combination of the above or is it something else?

Jesus said:

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

If one is married and finds himself attracted to another woman, in ANY way, isn't this adultery in Jesus' eyes?
 
vic said:
I think it would be more accurate to say that God is talking about a covenant formed with Samaria and Jerusalem, not marrying Aholah and Aholibah. This is nothing more than a parable explaining the consequences of their idolatry and whoredom. That is what I 'get' when reading it in its context.

So you know where I'm coming from, I shy away from allegorizing scripture in favor of seeking out a literal meaning. Jesus is known as the Groom to Israel (the Bride). Israel consists of both male and female. Are we to assume, using some of the logic I read here, that the Lord is condonig homosexuality by suggesting He is the groom to all these males of Israel?
Click to expand...

You're using flawed reasoning. First off all, Jesus is the one doing the allegorizing. He is the one saying "I married them" in the Ezekiel passage I quoted.
Jesus would not portray Himself as a homosexual. To suggest it in an attempt to win an argument is blasphemous.
I have no problem understanding when Israel is being talked about in the allegorical sense.
Would God refer to Israel in the Male sense when speaking allegoricallly? Of course not. To do so would give sanction to homosexual marriage.
Conversely, Jesus' allegorical mention of being married to two women is one of many instances in the bible of where God approves of polygyny.


vic said:
A sidebar: what are the prerequisites for marrying more than one female? Is it to be pre-arranged, is it a emotional attraction to another woman, is it a physical attraction? Is it a combination of the above or is it something else?
Click to expand...

All of the above.


vic said:
Jesus said:

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

If one is married and finds himself attracted to another woman, in ANY way, isn't this adultery in Jesus' eyes?
Click to expand...

No adultery is only when a MARRIED woman sleeps with any man other than her husband. A married man does not commit adultery when he sleeps with a second or third or hundredth wife.
And by the way, Dude, you need to read my post, Covet & Lust to better understand that misconception.

peace...
 
Perry Reid said:
No adultery is only when a MARRIED woman sleeps with any man other than her husband. A married man does not commit adultery when he sleeps with a second or third or hundredth wife.
And by the way, Dude, you need to read my post, Covet & Lust to better understand that misconception.
Click to expand...

Whoa! Someone who knows what they are talking about! For once! I didn't think I would ever find someone like that on this forum. :D

Be careful there with that one my friend. The Femi-Nazis of the world don't like to let it be told that adultery was particularly a woman's sin.

I don't think Jesus was as concerned about the "moral thing" as most people would make Him out to have been. To the woman caught in the act of adultery, all He said to her was; "Woman, (which was a title of respect) where are thine accusers? And when she answered; "Lord, there are none." He told her; "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more."

(Really hung up on the moral issue, wasn't He?)

If Jesus was as hung up on the moral issue as most people suppose, He would have been the One to cast the first stone.

And those people who are against polygyny/polygamy from a scriptural standpoint have a hard time with the passage of scripture where King David took Bathsheba, and killed her husband. For the sin of taking another man's wife, the strongest rebuke the Lord gave him was: "If all you wanted was another sheep for your pasture, you could have just asked Me." What he paid the harshest penalty for was for having Uriah murdered on the battlefield.

And besides, the covenant of marriage is a type and shadow of the relationship between the Lord and His Bride. It becomes a prophetic picture of sorts in that sense. For the scriptures to state that a man can only have one wife would be to say that the Bride of Christ is all that will ever be redeemed. But this is just plainly not so. Further, for God to not only have allowed, but encouraged and commanded the taking of multiple wives indicates someone other than the Bride of Christ solely benefiting from His "Groomsmanship"; for lack of a better word in the interest of not getting explicit. :oops:

But this is by no means a license to live like a dog. We are talking about real marriages. These are not one night stands, or the experiences of a philanderer. In every way conceivable, wife number two, or even twenty-two was a wife just the same as wife number one, with all the legal rights and privileges thereof.
 
Praak, sehad, and Perry Reid, when the scripture says "...the two shall become one..."; is that not literally fulfilled in the birth of the children coming from that union?

I am interested in your views on that. I am of the opinion that children is the only place and/or manner that these words are fulfilled.
 
post

I think the original post was a bit of a stretch. Polygamy when practiced is not much different that a monogomous relationship. After the infatuation ends the business of marriage takes over. The husband really has his hands full of responsibility as he is obligated to please all his wives. There are rules that he is expected to live up too. The wives instead of feeling rejected or put upon as the post suggests are actually quite powerful in their role. It is they and not the husband that picks out new bride and the head wife is usually grateful for the added help of chores and the added help to the husband. Marriage is a business no matter what system is used. There are pros and cons for either but the post leads me to believe it is a western viewpoint riddled with an overactive imagination.
 
And also feminist, sexist fears and propaganda I might add.

Good point Rez.
 
Perry said:
No adultery is only when a MARRIED woman sleeps with any man other than her husband. A married man does not commit adultery when he sleeps with a second or third or hundredth wife.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight, a man never even looks at the women he intends on marrying so the though of lusting after her never enters his mind?

Jesus said:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So that blows the theory that only a woman can commit atultry. The verse says "his", as in a male.

So who is correct, you or Jesus? If I were a betting man, my money would be on Jesus. You say my reasoning is flawed, but you all condone man marrying more than one woman, condemn woman from having more than one husband AND yet endorse feminism? :o That is flawed, for sure. Not to mention sexist.


Whoa! Someone who knows what they are talking about! For once! I didn't think I would ever find someone like that on this forum.
Click to expand...
Don't fret it Ben, you didn't.

Oh, BTW, look who is on the US 10 Most Wanted List.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/jeff_ws.htm
 
Well, maybe Jeff watsisname needs to be on the 10 most wanted list. I don't know all the details of what it was that happened. Nobody really does. All anyone really knows is what the media is telling us. I don't care to know. What I do know is that the liberal, Jewish run media is making a big deal out of the fact that he has more than one wife. The only reason for that is to stir up public opinion against him to the point that when the State Police or the FBI murder him in cold blood like they did Gordon Kahl, nobody will care. The sad thing about that is that there is no guarantee that what we are being told has any truth to it. Add that to the fact that people in general will take for Gospel truth anything the media tells them, and it is a fearful thing to have somehow gotten on the wrong side of certain powerful forces in our country.
Randy Weaver and David Koresh are two good examples of that.

Gordon Kahl deserved to have been arrested and put in prison. What he didn't deserve was to have been shot in the back of the head in a surprize attack without being given the opportunity to surrender. He was eating breakfast with a friend and his wife. The man's wife had blood and brains and bone fragment splattered all over her. It was so traumatic to her that she had a heart attack, and later a stroke while she was in the hospital with the heart attack. But nobody ever heard about that on the news, did they?

Just in case you have to ask; the man and his wife I mentioned are mutual friends of mine, but I never met Gordon Kahl.
 
Matthew 5:28 doesn't blow anything out of the water. (comment edited out)

I don't recall anyone condoning feminism. Where did you get that idea. We are talking about things that exist in the scriptures; cultural norms that were accepted and encouraged, and even commanded.

Why would God tell us in one place to marry the widow of the brother who had no heir; or to marry the woman taken captive in battle (which He did) and then, tell us not to have more than one wife?

And then again, why would God lay out the definition for adultery in the OT as peculiarly a woman's sin, and then without warning tell us that a man commits adultery in the NT? There would need to be some nexus or change somewhere. And there isn't one.

Now, like it or not, it was allowed, encouraged and even commanded for a man to have more than one wife in the OT. Many of the OT patriarchs had more than one wife.

Lamech had two wives just three generations from the Garden. Abraham had two. Jacob had 4. King David had quite a few, possibly as many as seven or eight. And nary a cross word said to any of them about any of it. But for a woman to have more than one husband was a stoning offense by the same standard. Call that sexist if that helps you sleep at night. Call it chauvanistic. Be my guest. But to argue this point is useless. To say that these things are not in the scriptures is like arguing the existence of gravity. And I have better things to do with my time.

And the old ploy; "If I was a betting man... my money's on Jesus" only works on those who don't have a valid defense or are easily distracted. But thank you for trying.
 
That's not when it happens but....

BenJasher said:
"Praak, sehad, and Perry Reid, when the scripture says '...the two shall become one...'; is that not literally fulfilled in the birth of the children coming from that union?"
Click to expand...
That would be evidence of it, yes.

Hugh McBryde
 
Would it not be more than mere evidence? Have you ever in any other way seen someone who was half woman/half man as a result of two people getting married?

If everything goes as it should, the husband and wife will form a bond that exists on several levels, but they never really become one except in the fruit of their union: children.

Marriage was the first covenant instituted by God with man. Its sole purpose was to reproduce life. That is why Adam said what he did about a man leaving his mother and father and becoming one with his wife. So that there might be the reproduction of life.
 
What is it?

"One Flesh" is a condition that exists between people. It is created by sexual congress or by vow of marriage. A child would be evidence of a "One Flesh" union, it is not the union itself nor is it the "completion" of that state.

Hugh
 
Well, whatever makes you sleep better. This is off topic. But the clear, undeniable evidence is in opposition to the psychobabble we have been taught to believe. Not to mention that clear reasoning will do away with the spiritual, mystical, pie-in-the-sky bazoongle we have accepted all these years without having put it to the test first.

A man and woman are not, and do not become, one flesh simply because they both said "I do" and a priest said "Dominus Vobiscum" over them. It doesn't work that way. Not to mention that there are alot of really nasty implications to that line of thinking.

But we need to get back to the topic of this thread.
 
I promise I am not stalking you, but I just joined Absolute Truth's New Reformation discussion forum.
 
Sawright..

BenJasher said:
"I promise I am not stalking you, but I just joined Absolute Truth's New Reformation discussion forum."
Click to expand...
Speaking as that forum's admin, welcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top