[__ Science __ ] Legalized Polygamy in America? It’s Coming

[jasonc]

Even in the reformed you,aren't forced .if you,knew trump or any polician would by policy destroy America by borrowing money and other things ,and had the ability to see his thoights and foreknow the actions .

Would uou support trump?no.

In,the same manner God already knows what we do,the choices and acted upon,them in the past .

God didn't foresee the church ?builds a corporate body without planning who would be a pastor ,the other ministries?

He just wings it?

 

[JohnDB]

Polygamy is absolutely nothing that I'd want anything to do with...
But...
Others might.

And I can't really say that this is a sinful lifestyle like Ken Hand says it is.
Sure, it is not, and has not been a part of Western/Greek/Roman culture...but that doesn't mean that it's wrong or evil. But it also goes against blending in with your culture too. And it was mandated by the Old Testament in certain situations.

Multiple wives used to mean lots of wealth. Because it took lots of wealth to care for the wives and children. And a hen pecked husband busy trying to please the wives.

Jealousy does rule the day in those situations.

Utah has a bunch of this going on under the radar...
Again, I would never want to be involved in polygamy...one wife is more than enough for me. Feeding and caring for her is a full time job. Two of her is more than I can handle.

 

[jasonc]

Polygamy is absolutely nothing that I'd want anything to do with...
But...
Others might.

And I can't really say that this is a sinful lifestyle like Ken Hand says it is.
Sure, it is not, and has not been a part of Western/Greek/Roman culture...but that doesn't mean that it's wrong or evil. But it also goes against blending in with your culture too. And it was mandated by the Old Testament in certain situations.

Multiple wives used to mean lots of wealth. Because it took lots of wealth to care for the wives and children. And a hen pecked husband busy trying to please the wives.

Jealousy does rule the day in those situations.

Utah has a bunch of this going on under the radar...
Again, I would never want to be involved in polygamy...one wife is more than enough for me. Feeding and caring for her is a full time job. Two of her is more than I can handle.

Machine guns,the true reason why they invented them

 

[Barnaby]

When I lived in Israel there was an old joke that went:
Q. What's the punishment for bigamy in Israel?
A. 2 wives.

So are polygamists and polygamists being punished not only for their sins but by their sins?

 

[GodsGrace]

Polygamy is absolutely nothing that I'd want anything to do with...
But...
Others might.

And I can't really say that this is a sinful lifestyle like Ken Hand says it is.
Sure, it is not, and has not been a part of Western/Greek/Roman culture...but that doesn't mean that it's wrong or evil. But it also goes against blending in with your culture too. And it was mandated by the Old Testament in certain situations.

Multiple wives used to mean lots of wealth. Because it took lots of wealth to care for the wives and children. And a hen pecked husband busy trying to please the wives.

Jealousy does rule the day in those situations.

Utah has a bunch of this going on under the radar...
Again, I would never want to be involved in polygamy...one wife is more than enough for me. Feeding and caring for her is a full time job. Two of her is more than I can handle.

You know John,,,it's difficult at times to understand WHY something is a sin.
I know a 55 year old girl that has a husband that has ALWAYS had another "wife".
By this I mean the opposite of a one night stand OR a mistake.
He had affairs (serious ones) for years at a time.
She knew about it and was able to accept it rather than leave him.
Her mother was very upset with her but she told her mom that if SHE could accept it, then h er mother would have to also.

So...
Is this better than divorcing?

And what's the difference between this and divorcing and then having a live-in?
Why did Jesus say that would be adultery, but having two wives is not.

I've seen two movies already this year that portray a relationship with two loves.
I see that this is the next step coming and that it will be accepted easily.

 

[Barnaby]

Oops, my bad.

Previous post should have read:

So are Polygamists and Polyamorists being punished not only for their sins but by their sins?

 

[JohnDB]

You know John,,,it's difficult at times to understand WHY something is a sin.
I know a 55 year old girl that has a husband that has ALWAYS had another "wife".
By this I mean the opposite of a one night stand OR a mistake.
He had affairs (serious ones) for years at a time.
She knew about it and was able to accept it rather than leave him.
Her mother was very upset with her but she told her mom that if SHE could accept it, then h er mother would have to also.

So...
Is this better than divorcing?

And what's the difference between this and divorcing and then having a live-in?
Why did Jesus say that would be adultery, but having two wives is not.

I've seen two movies already this year that portray a relationship with two loves.
I see that this is the next step coming and that it will be accepted easily.

I don't doubt that it's coming.
Paul, in his letter to Timothy and Titus, said that a deacon should be the husband of one wife...
Okay...now these guys were apostles to the Romans...Romans practiced monogamy, not polygamy. So why say such a thing?
Because Romans practiced monogamy with the husband having a "Consort". Which was an official title and position. Paul was again being sarcastic/truthful in claiming that these are wives...they were cared for financially and emotionally by the man.
Of course the Romans were insulted by such an accusation...but the letter was addressed to Apostles/pastoral staff.
Today this sort of thing still goes on. The rich elite are known to have girlfriends that their wives know about who set them up in apartments and houses and give them a generous salary for being their girlfriend.

Now they are wanting to have legalized/endorsed marriages.

Wasn't me who let the cat out of the bag...that was the activist supreme court that did this.

 

[Barnaby]

Hi JohnDB,

I can't comment on the American situation.

However, in Australia, with the legalisation of gay and lesbian marriage, multiple-partner marriages are almost inevitable.

The important legal term here is "consenting adults" meaning polygamy and polygamory will most likely be approved here.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't doubt that it's coming.
Paul, in his letter to Timothy and Titus, said that a deacon should be the husband of one wife...
Okay...now these guys were apostles to the Romans...Romans practiced monogamy, not polygamy. So why say such a thing?
Because Romans practiced monogamy with the husband having a "Consort". Which was an official title and position. Paul was again being sarcastic/truthful in claiming that these are wives...they were cared for financially and emotionally by the man.
Of course the Romans were insulted by such an accusation...but the letter was addressed to Apostles/pastoral staff.
Today this sort of thing still goes on. The rich elite are known to have girlfriends that their wives know about who set them up in apartments and houses and give them a generous salary for being their girlfriend.

Now they are wanting to have legalized/endorsed marriages.

Wasn't me who let the cat out of the bag...that was the activist supreme court that did this.

How was it the supreme court?
I don't even know what's going on over there anymore.
A case was brought to it/them? (the judges).

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi JohnDB,

I can't comment on the American situation.

However, in Australia, with the legalisation of gay and lesbian marriage, multiple-partner marriages are almost inevitable.

The important legal term here is "consenting adults" meaning polygamy and polygamory will most likely be approved here.

It has a name already.
It's called Polyamory.

For those interested in the coming near future:

Polyamory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Barnaby]

Try again...

Hi JohnDB,

I can't comment on the American situation.

However, in Australia, with the legalisation of gay and lesbian marriage, multiple-partner marriages are almost inevitable.

The important legal term here is "consenting adults" meaning polygamy and polyamory will most likely be approved here.

 

[Barnaby]

Hi wondering,

A typo on my part.

Multiple-partner marriages covers both polygamy and polyamory.

 

[Barnaby]

Hi wondering,

Polygamy and polyamory are two different forms of what is known here as multiple-partner marriages.

Blessings.....Barnaby

 

[GodsGrace]

Your with Wesleyan ... hmmm .. read https://davidfwatson.me/2019/02/18/did-john-wesley-affirm-total-depravity/ ... it says what I said (not that it makes me right) ... That Wesley was basically in agreement with Calvin in regards to TOTAL DEPRAVITY ... goes on to say he gets past the issue with 'preventing grace' (most call it pervenient grace in my readings)
Maybe I can get Wesley to change your mind about the existence of 'pervenient grace'.

Wesley also thought we could be totally sanctified in this life.

Hey,,, because I know him better than Arminius doesn't mean I agree with EVERYTHING he taught!

I DO believe in EVERYTHING Jesus taught,,,which is why I stick to the bible for supporting scripture.

 

[GodsGrace]

My opinion is that Christians should live as Christians. I don’t expect perfection but in too many ways we resemble the rest of the world way too much. Our divorce rates is one.
Seems we should concentrate on shoring up our marriages. I don’t believe in polygamy. But I also don’t know that we have reason to expect the world to act like it accepts the standards of the Bible. Especially when we don’t do the best job at it ourselves.
There are many cases where we do this. Railing against stores that have “Happy Holidays” signs instead of “Merry Christmas”. We can say “Merry Christmas”, they can do what they want.
We are supposed to understand what we need is the Holy Spirit’s aid, received when we are reconciled to God through Christ, to begin to walk with Him as we should.
For some reason we push for legal/political statutes thinking we can get unbelievers to behave morally.
I don’t recall anything in the NT where Christians are pushing to control the cultures around them through coercion, or political action or legislation.
It’s done by cooperating with God in telling individuals about Christ with strong credibility by living like He has done some special something in them.

I agree with you.

The only part I don't agree with is what you say about legally controlling culture through political action.

We have to be careful because I do NOT care for theocracies....
but we're also getting buried by those against christianity and all the laws THEY are passing which are not only against Christian beliefs but they are against the Natural Law that most humans USED TO agree with....and which are ruining our society.

I don't know what the solution is,,,but I don't think it's not doing anything because it seems like Christians did nothing. They died for their beliefs. Would we be willing to? And don't you think Jesus DID come to change the world?

If we don't put our beliefs into action,,,HOW will the world be changed the way Jesus meant it to be?

If Christians were stronger in the 60's and 70's, instead of thinking nothing could ever come of a movement,,,we may not have SSM today.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

I agree with you.

The only part I don't agree with is what you say about legally controlling culture through political action.

We have to be careful because I do NOT care for theocracies....
but we're also getting buried by those against christianity and all the laws THEY are passing which are not only against Christian beliefs but they are against the Natural Law that most humans USED TO agree with....and which are ruining our society.

I don't know what the solution is,,,but I don't think it's not doing anything because it seems like Christians did nothing. They died for their beliefs. Would we be willing to? And don't you think Jesus DID come to change the world?

If we don't put our beliefs into action,,,HOW will the world be changed the way Jesus meant it to be?

If Christians were stronger in the 60's and 70's, instead of thinking nothing could ever come of a movement,,,we may not have SSM today.

I think the world around us is changed one person at a time. Christians demonstrating Christ to people they are in real contact with. The epistles to Christians in Galatia, Thessalonica, Ephesus, etc don’t reference a call to straighten out their local governments or the Roman government. Or to push for any kind of law changes. I am not opposed to Christians working in government or holding offices. It’s just that unless we are what we are supposed to be ourselves those things ultimately are useless.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Not only that,,,but we have nothing to do whatsoever with deciding to be saved.

Agreed. I can list 20 to 30 verses saying the source of our faith or repentance is God. You cannot give one verse saying it does not come from God. The best you can do is site verses saying you must do 'this or that' and assume God does not control your ability to do 'this or that'; rather, you did it independent of God despite Colossians 1:17, Acts 17:28

What do you think UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION means? It means GOD chooses us based on NOTHING AT ALL...it's at His whim. YOU have no choice as to whether or not you are saved.

The statement, from a reformed viewpoint needs clarification. "based on NOTHING AT ALL" should also state "found in the person". Romans 9:21 Does the potter not have the right over the clay, to make from the same lump [of clay] one object for honorable use [something beautiful or distinctive] and another for common use [something ordinary or menial]?
I also would not use the word 'whim'. "Whim' is defined as "a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained"; God is immutable and therefore does not change His mind. I prefer "pleasure". Philippians 2:13 “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure”.

Does that sound like a loving God to you?

Yes and No. Qualification is needed. A loving God of the elect only; those He chose. His 'sheep'; not the goats.
Psalm 5:5b You hate all who do evil.
Deuteronomy 25:16 For everyone who does such things, everyone who acts unjustly [without personal integrity] is utterly repulsive to the Lord your God.
Leviticus 20:23 23 You shall not follow the statutes (laws, practices, customs) of the nation which I am driving out before you; for they did all these things, and therefore I have loathed them.
... I could list many others. There are more verses in the bible about wrath and hate than 'love'; not that that is of import. God's love is just (righteous) and holy (in Him there is no darkness). He does not love those who sin who are the children of satan.
“A love of holiness cannot be without a hatred of everything that is contrary to it. As God necessarily loves himself, so he must necessarily hates everything that is against himself: and as he loves himself for his own excellency and holiness, he must necessarily detest whatsoever is repugnant to his holiness, because of the evil of it. Since he is infinitely good, he cannot but love goodness Psalm 11:7 “The righteous Lord loveth righteousness,” as it is a resemblance to himself, and cannot but abhor unrighteousness Psalm 11:6A Upon the wicked (godless) He will rain coals of fire, as being most distant from him, and contrary to him.

You will not find a verse saying God loves someone we know went to hell. At best you can find verses that implicitly seem to say God loves everyone (John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4,6, John 6:51); but with close analysis one can show that 'people group' being referenced to (the audience) is not clear.

Good morning Wondering

 

[JohnDB]

Wesley also thought we could be totally sanctified in this life.

Hey,,, because I know him better than Arminius doesn't mean I agree with EVERYTHING he taught!

I DO believe in EVERYTHING Jesus taught,,,which is why I stick to the bible for supporting scripture.

Take this discussion to another forum please.

 

[JohnDB]

How was it the supreme court?
I don't even know what's going on over there anymore.
A case was brought to it/them? (the judges).

A case was put to the supreme court in the issue...as if they didn't have equal rights under the law.
Which in my opinion was totally bogus.
Because contractual obligations can create an agreement between any two parties... without claiming it to be a marriage, but it looks just like one.
However, what it does do is force everyone who doesn't agree with the morality of homosexual unions to now endorse such things. Which is a function of the Legislative branch of Government...not the Judiciary.

Which is in part why I didn't like how this came about. Nothing was spelled out in precise details the way laws do...just a legal precedent which people interpret in obscene ways.
And before this many states had passed laws which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. (Most of them)

So when the Judiciary branch of Government creates laws in this fashion they are called an Activist Court. They defied the constitution by over reaching their authority and the will of the people (over 60%) to create this law.
Now the homosexual lobby wants to (and often does) teach sex education to kindergartners and throughout grade school.

Everything from transgendered to all forms of sexual deviancy...as if this behavior is normal and encouraged.

Which of course is appalling... because if this sort of thing is done by parents or guardians it's often punished by child protective services as child molestation.

Getting the picture?

And what Kevin also mentioned in his article was removing pedophilia from criminal statutes... meaning that children are now subject to molestation without reprisal by law.

Because this is not codified laws that are being created...but judicial precedents which people interpret to be laws in various ways.

 

[jasonc]

I think the world around us is changed one person at a time. Christians demonstrating Christ to people they are in real contact with. The epistles to Christians in Galatia, Thessalonica, Ephesus, etc don’t reference a call to straighten out their local governments or the Roman government. Or to push for any kind of law changes. I am not opposed to Christians working in government or holding offices. It’s just that unless we are what we are supposed to be ourselves those things ultimately are useless.

Slavery and racism were fought against by Christian abolitionists .

If slavery was to return or racism legally why not just go,along ?

Pray for the prosperity of the city ,for in it is your prosperity .written to exiled isreal.

Yet James says faith must have works ,at what point is enough