RLB post.
Men value loyalty. If a wife is loyal, a man will put up with a lot of crap. I have seen men put up with women putting on weight that equals the newer economy cars but remain with their wife because they are loyal. If feminism were reversed, women would be demanded to provide sex to their ex. What? Well, why do men have to provide money to their ex?
Men need to take back this issue. I would like to discuss the issue of polygamy as it relates to Christianity. If you find a Christian reason to condemn it please note the reference in the Bible. A Christian man should declare to his wife that he does not recognize the authority of the state over their marriage. If polygamy is a valid option to him but not her, then the church ostracizes the no-fault divorcing woman. The statistics back up the fact that women file divorce 2 to 1 over men. Imagine the changes to our family structure if churches simply adopted this little issue.
I care not about the state's determination considering licensing. I am strongly considering recommending that our children place no importance on licensing as it regards the state. I find the church's agreement to administer a state sanctioning to be contrary to Biblical marriage. I know I'm a little out there. However, I haven't heard a valid argument in favor of the churches being used by the state to sanction marriage. Why would we pretend the state's determination over what marriage is, control our actions as Christians?
Just these couple of sentences bring up lots of issues. I'm very interested in any opinions on this (as long as they are Christian). The others...I have no clue how to deal with people who don't have a moral authority in their life. Go somewhere else.
are you referring to old testament style polygamy? or are you referring to the state being involved in marriages/ licencing/ profiting from divorce?
ReplyDelete1 Tim 3; Titus 1:5-9
ReplyDeleteLeadership in the Bible is restricted to those that have one wife. I'm sure everyone reading this know the multiple verses condemning out-of-wedlock sex.
I happen to be in a leadership position in my church, so those verses most definitely apply to me. For the compliance to the law, just see the opening Verses of Romans 13. We accede to authority, which mandates one wife, out of that context. In general, scriptures refer to how to treat your wife singular, so I can't help but come away from the reading realizing that you are meant one wife and to treat her well. Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3.
The New Testament says polygamy is negative in more places than it says divorce is. Contrary to popular opinion, though, the NT doesn't ban divorce, and I don't think it's banning polygamy either -- although a polygamist will always have problems in the Church (such as being ineligible to serve).
ReplyDeleteThe OT gives more detail about the reasons for polygamy, including some that are somewhat operative even now (well, except for the state ban). One of them is to support a woman to whom your immediate family owes support; another is to support a woman whose chastity you have violated (whether by rape or not). Both purposes are unlikely to work out well in the present environment, since the state taxes at a level that makes state approval HIGHLY important -- leaving an inheritance to a pseudo-spouse could be very expensive.
Personally, I suspect (without Biblical support) that polygamy was the original condition of mankind; when God created Adam and Eve, he also created and introduced formal monogamy.
I'm referring to OT style polygamy. I suppose in some sense the government already condones polygamy. My point is I have known a great many Christian men become quite self condemning about their wife divorcing them. I think if they approached it from the polygamy angle they wouldn't have the same reaction personally.
ReplyDeleteI understand the leadership prohibition is in the Bible. It seems to me that if men want to take back leadership in the church, this would be a great place to start. It would certainly change the woman centric teachings if a church would marry men a second time but not women.
From a biblical perspective pologamy abounds in our society already. Many churches seem to condone it with the condoning of "god would want me to be happy" divorces. Obviously though, you mean actual one man living with multiple wives in a family type of setting. My opinion is that even though not strictly forbidden, it certainly should not be considered good or something we should head towards as followers of Jesus. I could be wrong, but I can't think of any place in scripture where multiple wives lead to anything but trouble for the husband and family. The ideals laid out for deacons and elders in the Bible should be what all christian men aim for. We are after all prophets, priests and kings. So, whether in any official leadership in a church organization or not, I think we should aim for those ideals for ourselves. The more aligned we become with those ideals, then we can be given more responsibility/authority within the church and be recognized at leaders.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I total agree that men must take back the leadership of the church. In my mind that must start with the de-pedstalization of women. Only way I see this happening is for men to lead their families away from churches that are women centric, to churches that are headed by Jesus and shepherded and taught by men.
jf
I'm wondering if the Mormons weren't on to something with polygamy. I think the examples of wtanksley for reasons the church to approve and encourage it in those situations would be a good start. I really think if women knew their husbands could acquire another wife things would improve drastically in marriages. Sex wouldn't be the issue in marriages the way it is today. Wives would be facing the very real reality of losing some of that earning power that their provider brings home.
ReplyDeleteredlegben, I don't think the Church should encourage polygamy. The Mormons were onto something only in the sense that they'd tapped onto a fundamental element in human nature, and not a good one.
ReplyDeletePolygamy is _dangerous_. In a society where it already exists it's useful to channel it, as Moses did; but where it doesn't exist we should avoid it.
As I mentioned, I suspect that Adam and Eve were united the way they were precisely for the purpose of introducing monogamy. The fact that Adam's descendants would become polygamous was not hidden to God; but He directed Moses to write law that made polygamy very difficult.
One of those laws is that men were not allowed to marry if it would reduce any of the provision they were giving to their existing wives. No penalty is listed explicitly, but in other contexts we see that even a slave-wife is given the right to go free if her owner-husband declines to provide for her; later interpreters took that to mean that if neglect completely frees a slave, surely it also frees a free wife.
I don't get your post. You have discussed several things in one context. Are you against polygamy? Are you against churches performing marriages? Are you against states not recognizing marriages performed without a license and/or authorized person? Are you against divorce? Are you against divorce filed by women? Do you believe sex joins/binds/marries a couple?
ReplyDeleteWhat is your position on the issues discussed in your post?
Blessings~
Alethea
I'm sure RLB will respond to you Alethea, but I'll repeat what I posted on Lori's blog here:
ReplyDeleteChurches today have become very accepting of divorce and remarriage. This is polygamy. Especially if a man is financially supporting the first wife while he provides for the second. Our no fault divorce culture and laws have sanctioned polygamy. And Christians have fallen lock step into agreement with it.
In today's marriages that are void of biblical submission, a man has very few options when his wife decides not to abide by her vows and the Commands of God in her marriage. Dalrock and The Woman and the Dragon have been having excellent discussions about this very thing.
When a man is in a sexless marriage he should be able to let that wife know she is in rebellion and unless she comes to obedience, he will be interviewing for a second wife. Her sin is bringing him to temptation. Husbands today know that should he divorce her with the State, he will be ruined financially because the State does not care that she was at fault and denying the Covenant she made with God and the husband. The State will still punish the man.
For men to reestablish the headship of the family, this discussion needs to be had and can not be driven by women's emotions. The Church needs to abandon feminism. Marriage as the State sanctions it has to be ignored (homosexual marriage, 2nd, 3rd, 4th marriages etc.) by the Church and discussions need to start on proper ways for men to continue their mission unaffected by their wife's sin. The Church should admonish the wife who is in rebellion to God's commands and allow for the husband to put her aside until she is in submission.
In the last year, I have had two different women come to me and discuss their plans for divorce. Both times I said the following: "you're husband is quite a catch, he will not remain single. Are you ready for him to be having sex with another woman? Are you ready to have one or multiple other women in your children's lives?" Both women were horrified at the thought and are still married today. One just had another baby and the other is publicly presenting as a wife very excited about her husband.
Delete"In the last year, I have had two different women come to me and discuss their plans for divorce. Both times I said the following: "you're husband is quite a catch, he will not remain single. Are you ready for him to be having sex with another woman? Are you ready to have one or multiple other women in your children's lives?" Both women were horrified at the thought and are still married today. One just had another baby and the other is publicly presenting as a wife very excited about her husband."
Which shows what unthinking, frivolous, brainless creatures modern women are. Well done for averting disaster (although one can only imagine what sort of wives and mothers such women will make)...
One of them I can not say with certainty. The other was actually asking for good reason (biblically supported). She was scared and asked if divorce is what she's supposed to do*. She is in the process of learning and seeking truth. As she stays on this path, she is a fantastic wife and mother and another convicted voice in this wretched world.
Delete*Our divorce culture has become so overwhelming that young wives are convinced it is what they are supposed to do if husband does x, y, or z. Without strong examples in their lives of forgiveness and perseverance, they just follow the trend of the culture.
I have to say I support polygamy. After all, my name *is* Solomon =)
ReplyDeleteI don't support it in the way described, though divorces and remarriage. Call that whatever you want, but active polygamy, to me, involves the multiple women being present simultaneously.
Having said that, I have no idea how in the world I would execute such a situation, nor how I would afford it. Hard to imagine it going successfully, really.
As for the idea that churches would allow second marriages for men but not women under the tenets mentioned, I'm good with it, but I imagine it wouldn't solve anything- one marriage is all a woman needs to attain cash n prizes and become a ward of the state. I think the problem would be solved by extensive rationalization on the part of offending women, to the point that the measure would fail as a deterrent.
Full ostracism and even possibility of death and starvation are not things you can rationalize away, and would likely be most effective, but our bleeding heart society today won't allow that either, so that will have to come organically after the collapse.
I wonder how this prophecy applies to the topic:
ReplyDeleteAnd in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. ~Isaiah 4:1
I wouldn't say I'm for polygamy. I like what wtanksley said about channeling it in societies where it already exists. I would say after everybody's comments that it already exists in this society and it's the churches responsibility to control it. We just haven't named it what it is. I hate the state's involvement in marriage. It shouldn't exist. Churches should start ignoring the state's authority in the matter.
ReplyDeleteI have zero interest in it personally. That doesn't mean I can't see the benefits of a church taking back the definitions of what marriage and divorce is. I am quite serious about the non-state sanctioned marriage for our kids.
I like the prophecy relation. I also remember hearing about a state considering two different types of marriage contracts. One like it is now and the second was fault based divorce. If nothing else churches could start and petition for such a standard. That would be a practical step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteSolomon, clearly Isa 4:1 belongs in the previous chapter -- because chapter 4 is a series of blessings.
ReplyDelete(I'm joking, a bit, maybe. But seriously, 4:1 really doesn't look like it belongs at the front of a series of blessings.)
And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. ~Isaiah 4:1
ReplyDeleteI am not convinced this was intended to relate to polygamy. I think it harks ahead to a time when to be un unmarried woman will be shameful (as well as poverty-inducing), instead of the 'liberating' experience it is now. The strong, independent woman meme only works in a society that has heavily regulated labour markets that produce women-centic nothing jobs like HR and media.
An anarcho capitalist division of labour might have looked/might well look quite different.
On topic: Serial monogamy is basically polygamy in drag. It does nothing for establishing sound marriage relationships, instead it makes it more difficult by introducing confounding variables in relationships. Settling is out.
Plus, in the current sexual market place (which christians are profoundly influenced by), church girls have ludicrously overinflated expectations of husband-to-be. They use sexual experience to have one night stands with high value men, who have no interest in 'committing' to them. Hence all the 'no good men' rants.
Marriage without the third party would mean the state is unable to regulate the marriage contract and the subsidised divorce industry. The current no-fault divorce and is really just a relational moral hazard that results in risk-free consequences, as I mentioned here:
http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/sunday-supplications-entitled-attitude-loose-morals/#comment-11732
I'm not that keen on polygamy, as it concentrates womens affections on the most desirable men, and alienates those men with less to offer. This might be pleasing to the few men at the top of the attraction and success pile, but less appealing for the rest of men who actually want a wife.
Hence, the result is worthy christian men that are single and burning with desire for far longer than necessary. Not a good recipe for maintaining sexual purity. Plus, chaste church women are prized, whilst less chaaste women get forgiveness, support groups and baby showers.
By contrast, chaste men are shamed in church as pathetic virgins (the dreaded double standard). Unchaste, unmarried men usually don't hang about churches, unless they are partaking of the sunday morning mightclub scene. But that's a discussion for another time.
- an observer
I'm not convinced that there is a surplus of chaste Christian men that need wives. Am I missing out on seeing this large segment of the population? Seriously, no snark. I don't participate in churchy groups anymore.
ReplyDeleteredlegben, great question. The answer to your question is simple -- but let me give it as a question.
ReplyDeleteWhen boys grow up, what do you think the Church wants them to grow up into? Should they, perhaps, become "chaste Christian men who need wives", or something else?
There is no surplus of chaste men. The few that are, are quickly ushered into marriage to the former carousel riders by shaming, man up lectures and churchian pressure to conform. Mostly, they all married and many were then divorced by their unhappy wives who were never attracted to them anyway, and just looking for a beta provider.
ReplyDeleteChained to child support and stripped of most assets, their lives are basically over. Church has become a womens club, with the pastor and a soft harem of admirers.
- an observer
I don't have a problem with the goal. I have a problem with the method. It's a lot like the four star general comfortable in DC setting ROE for the grunts on the ground. The minister/pastor/priest has no idea what the reality on the ground is as it relates to getting married to women today.
ReplyDeleteRed, that makes SOME sense, although it's not true for church qua church. By that I mean that although it's clear that churches aren't preparing men properly for reality, they are not failing because they're churches, but rather they're failing in the same way every other institution is failing in our entire society. Pastors aren't failing "because" they (as pastors) have a special lack of understanding unique to pastors, but rather because almost everyone's effectively deceived.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your question, then. Specifically, I don't understand why you phrased it as a question about numeric sufficiency, if you actually wanted to say something about some kind of process.
The numbers suggest we should start fixing our society's problems at the polygamy end. Polygamy isn't the end goal; it is the beginning of solving the problem. If we already accept that our society is polygamist, then the church needs to use its authority over polygamist marriages to right the ship of our society. Men need to be the leaders of their families and churches in order for us to accomplish this goal. Female hypergamy cannot fit into Christianity. Polygamy can.
ReplyDeleteIf preachers were chastising single moms at the pulpit the way they chastise men for not marrying whores, I would think we didn't need the polygamy discussion. Unfortunately, we have churches that welcome in single moms and declare them Virgin Mary material. In contrast, the few chaste, provider men in the church are encouraged to marry these new-age Mary's that have been plowed more than an Iowan cornfield.
ReplyDeleteWomen want to sleep with the hottest guys they can. Serial monogamy - the currently favoured form of polygamy - is the preferred method.
ReplyDeleteIn twenty five years, I have never seen or heard a preacher criticise hypergamy or the single mommies that result.
I think the church is morally bankrupt. And that saddens me.
- an observer
Well said observer. Based on SD and my lives, imagine how disgusting the current crop of preachers are in order for us to be turned off by the churches.
ReplyDeletered, I've read your posts a few times over, and it still doesn't make sense. I'll set aside your questions/statements about numbers, because you've make it clear that you think encouraging explicit polygamy is a solution to the current encouragement of tacit polygamy. I'd like to challenge you to think that out a bit -- it looks to me like cutting off our nose to spite our face. You're probably correct if you think that women will eventually flock to polygamous marriage, and you're also probably correct that the cognitive dissonance between modern feminism and classical polygamy would destroy one or the other ... but... Well, there are problems.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think you're wrong that what we'd get would be either classical polygamy or modern feminism. Both would morph to a new form, and I'm not historian enough to even guess what that would be. I don't think either one would be "nice", and I don't think that would reduce the problem to something that's been previously solved.
Second, female hypergamy (like male polygamy) are both "how things are". If you think the Church can handle one but not the other, either you're wrong or there is no Church. The Church MUST grow up and handle the former as well as it handled the latter. The church has no more or less authority over one than the other.
At the same time, I respect your desire for truth. You ARE right that the Church should stand up and call the current state of affairs what it is. And if society responds by legalizing polygamy, then the Church will and must work with that, and perhaps your plan will allow the church to face that with equanimity.
I don't really care what society does with the advent of classical polygamy to the current situation. My point is that there is nothing un-Christian about polygamy. The same can't be said about serial monogamy/ONS/hooking up by men or women. The church doesn't have to change classic polygamists because there is nothing wrong with them.
ReplyDeletered, I'm pretty sure there is something un-Christian about polygamy. I think you're basically correct that there's nothing wrong with a "classic polygamist", in that the commitments the man and wives have made are valid and binding; but there is something wrong with a society that treats polygamy and monogamy as morally equivalent -- and worthy of special privileges.
ReplyDeleteSD has been preparing a response for a different blog detailing the Christian theologians perspective on the subject of polygamy. I'll let her address it in a response. There are things that are lawful but not Christian. There are things that are Christian but not lawful. Although you, I, and most Americans consider polygamy to be wrong based on cultural upbringing; the truth of polygamy's usefulness and its operational validity with Christianity remains valid. The fact we haven't used it within Christianity recently doesn't discount its validity anymore than other Christian approved practices. It reminds me of Paul's declaration of Jewish Christians being allowed to continue kosher practices but not required to continue them.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have found is this:
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther:
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)
"Thomas Aquinas noted that the biblical patriarchs David and Solomon had numerous wives. How does one explain that? Aquinas commented in his Sentences that, under certain circumstances, polygamy was reasonable and was not inconsistent with the primary purpose of marriage."
Saint Augustine:
That the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom God gave His testimony that "they pleased Him," [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their wives, no one who is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to certain individuals amongst them to have a plurality of wives, where the reason was for the multiplication of their offspring, not the desire of varying gratification.. . . In the advance, however, of the human race, it came to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of good wives, --- many to each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many to have dominion over one (A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Volume 5, page 267).
This is all from:
http://ispolygamyasin.blogspot.com/
I still need to read more on this site. But it looks to be very thorough (pro and con).
"ispolygamyasin" is precisely the wrong question to ask (there are very few things for which that's a correct question; my experience is that the question itself means that the person is attempting to rationalize the action). The correct question is "what do we know about polygamy?" This knowledge should come from the Bible and wisdom.
DeleteOne of the things we do have reason to suspect is that it's not always a sin -- but that's not all we know. We also know that it's restricted in the Bible in some fairly interesting ways (for example, none of the existing wives may be deprived), and the one time it's recommended, the recommendation is for the specific purpose of support within the husband's brother's family. From all this we know that polygamy is both useful and prone to abuse.
We know that when Christ interprets marriage law, He reads the OT creation story in a particular way that makes it hard to say that polygamy was an intended outcome. We know that Paul speaks on marriage and on unmarried sex in ways that have to condemn prostitution, hypergamy, AND polygamy all at the same time. And finally, we know that although all members of the church are supposed to want to serve, polygamous men are _certainly_ denied any right to serve in any high position -- other readings are contentious, but that much is blatant.
That's a thumbnail of the Bible, and I recognize that this doesn't mean polygamy is a sin. In fact, I find it obvious that it's not. On the other hand, I also find it obvious that both the NT and the OT were designed to make polygamy difficult for an observant religious person to carry out; in the case of Christianity, the polygamous man will be clearly identified as second-class.
There's more data, though, as "an observer" points out. More in a separate post.
From a purely numerical observation, every additional wife a man takes is one woman less in the dating market.
ReplyDeleteI see polygamy as an outworking of hypergamy. Women are only attracted to a small number of men. This is why they always say there are no good ones. They seek to bat above their grade. Polygamy essentially validates that drive and permits an authorised harem of wives to share one high value man amongst them.
From a practical perspective, that seems harsh on the average man, especially younger men in particular with little to offer in the dating market.
This would accentuate the existing trend of many years of datelessness, whilst the equivalent age woman can easilly get attention by virtue of her youth. The average young women can get attention and sex (if she desires that) simply by showing up.
The average young man has to do a lot of work and has a completely different experience, if he is one of the
80% of men invisible to women, thanks to hypergamy. In generations gone by, older women would mentor the younger ones past this filter to better assess the qualities of the available men.
Now its all about dark triad traits and what gets her tingling with attraction. Bad boys rule.
I am uncomfortable with polygamy and cannot recommend it. The NT talks about elders and deacons being the husband of but one wife. Several wives would be distracting.
Not to mention the multiple mothers in law...
- an observer
While that all is true, and I realize you said "from a purely numerical observation" - it does not at all imply polygamy is sinful. It's just not preferable to most men. The current SMP can't possibly be either.
ReplyDeleteSince the older women are not mentoring the younger ones to assess virtuous qualities of available men, we have a problem with future reproduction. And that is the case that is made biblicaly for polygamy.
Today, women are putting off having children far too long, riding the carousal until they realize they're coming up against the wall, and jump off into marriage with a beta provider, or settle into a life with their cats. Those who regret these choices they made and their childless wombs are not yelling from the roof tops for younger women to not do the same. "you go girl" is not going away. And in essence the 80% of men are getting the sloppy seconds of the Alpha males play toys or are choosing to opt out of the marriage market due to the consequences of it. Again, the challenge is/will be in reproduction.
Woman's hypergamy has thrived under no fault divorce to the point that it is out of control and changing the willingness of men to marry (rightfully so). This will put polygamy on the table, whether it is done righteously or under the conditions of polygamy outlined in the Bible, will be up to the church. Today's church is a spineless coward unwilling to even get involved in the problem.
SarahsDaughter says: "it does not at all imply polygamy is sinful. It's just not preferable to most men. The current SMP can't possibly be either."
DeleteThat is not at all what "an observer" said, and it's blatantly untrue. Think about it -- polygamy would absolutely be preferable for most men, given the option and the means. But most men do not have the means, and without a condition of utter enforced subservience against women it's not possible for a society to provide that to many men at all.
The problem isn't that "most men" wouldn't prefer polygamy. The problem is that a society with polygamy is a society with a huge number of unattached young males without ANY VISIBLE OPTION within the current social framework, including many who are reasonably well-testosteroned and who are therefore well-incentivized to change "the social framework" by any means available. This is not just theoretically a problem; it's a known practical problem because it's happened many times before.
The problem with polygamy is that it's more than a solution to feminism -- it's a known problem in its own right.
-Wm
I'm finding you to be increasingly pedantic here, Wm.
ReplyDeleteThat most men, as you say, don't have the means (socio-sexually or financially) is what I referred to as it being not preferable. (Rich Alpha gets the girls - not unlike it is today)
Yes, I understand that sex with multiple women is innate within men therefore they are polygamist by nature.
And, while the population of non Christians multiplies, Christian birth rates continue to decline. Using OT guidelines, a Christian man that can provide for more than one wife would be able to contribute to the "go forth and multiply" command of God's.
Polygamy already exists and is enforced through our feminist laws/courts and feminist churches. Single men, are paying for the women and children of polygamist men (though not defined as such) with their taxes with no authority on how they are raised.
The Church (community of believers) can make headway on ridding feminism from its teaching by embracing polygamy.
It would not be a society with a huge number of unattached young males any more than it is today if the Church embraced the OT guidelines and taught them. The Christian men who are already participating in the State's manner of polygamy (condoned today by the Church) would use the authority of the Church to return to the headship of the family. To date the Church has not been effective in dismantling feminism.
Instead of saying "Nah-uh", please offer up what would be a viable way to change the feminism within the Church.
It'll be a while before I can scan the rest of the comments... but this caught my eye. You might want to rethink your specific choice of rhetoric. As you know from my previous posts, I'm not fighting you or minimizing any of your point. You don't have to call me names.
DeleteYou literally framed your entire reply with derogation. That's sad and needless, because your reply is worth a lot more than that. When I actually reply, I'm going to completely ignore the derogation, and deal with the plentiful substance. But I will not ignore this.
"I'm finding you to be increasingly pedantic here, Wm."
First point. I'm not being pedantic; I'm pointing out that your sentence is not merely a little wrong, but that it's entirely the OPPOSITE of what is true. And this is not some stupid grammar peeve that I have; it's observer's entire point, which you trap yourself into missing by pretending that the issue is what large numbers of individual men "prefer", as opposed to what will actually HAPPEN to large numbers of men whether they prefer it or not.
If you speak a sentence that I misunderstand because we're using different definitions, I will accept your definition because it's your intention to communicate. If I refuse your definition, I'm being pedantic and I must repent. But this is not what's happening here. Observer is speaking, and you refuse to accept what he's saying by making up nonsense.
"Instead of saying "Nah-uh", please offer up what would be a viable way to change the feminism within the Church."
Next point. Here you try to dismiss me as a grade-school arguer offering only illiterate and automatic gainsaying. This has not been my approach anywhere in this thread, so you uncharitably misrepresent me.
What I actually did was to explain why your "solution" will not actually remove the problem. It would appear that you find this unacceptable BECAUSE I'm contradicting your "solution" without proposing my own solution. But cutting out non-solutions is not a bad action. If someone else proposed solving the problem by dancing in circles I'd also tell them "no", and I wouldn't have to offer a real solution there either.
-Wm
My use of the word pedantic was not meant as an insult nor having to do with grammar. It had to do with you being excessively concerned with precision. This response of yours confirms it.
DeleteI confirmed that all an observer said is true. Going by his statements regarding 80% of men, his statement of "I am uncomfortable with polygamy and cannot recommend it" and "Several wives would be distracting." and "Not to mention the multiple mothers in law..." I made the assertion it would not be preferable to most men.
You then told me what I said was blatantly untrue and that the opposite is the case. And then you added to what an observer said with a qualifier: "Think about it -- polygamy would absolutely be preferable for most men, given the option and the means."
Then you restated the problem: "The problem is that a society with polygamy is a society with a huge number of unattached young males without ANY VISIBLE OPTION"
Which I already understood from what an observer had said: "This would accentuate the existing trend of many years of datelessness,"
If 80% of men do not have the option and the means, how then is my statement of "most men wouldn't prefer" wrong?
How about this: Most men would prefer to have the option and the means to institute polygamy because it would satisfy, without being sinful, their desire to spread their seed.
This would be in agreement with an observer's next comment below: "There is a distinct issue with assuming men are polygamist by nature. Whilst men may WANT to spread their sperm far and wide, their actual opportunities to do so are very limited." Right?
In reading what I have of the ongoing trend of MGTOW, and from what I've seen within our extended family, there is a trend of men who are choosing not to marry at all. This leads me to believe that the concern of polygamy leading to huge numbers of unattached men shouldn't be any more of a concern than the current trend.
Perhaps I'm wrong. So you state:
"This is not just theoretically a problem; it's a known practical problem because it's happened many times before.
The problem with polygamy is that it's more than a solution to feminism -- it's a known problem in its own right."
Okay, give me some evidence. When and where has it happened several times before? How is it a known problem? Links, Bible verses, etc. Show me how the biblical practice of polygamy is worse than feminism in the church.
Is it only a problem because of the numbers of unattached men? How would that be worse than the trend of unattached men we are experiencing now?
My apologies you find my summary of what you said being: "nah-uh" as uncharitably misrepresenting you.
You have made many statements in this thread without any backing other than "Wm has said so." A common theme I have found among trolls. If this type of obsession with precision (pedantry) continues in long comments, I will no longer entertain any of your comments.
As it is I'm irritated that I've spent this much time on them.
"Single men, are paying for the women and children of polygamist men (though not defined as such) with their taxes with no authority on how they are raised."
DeleteThis is very illuminating, as have most of the posts here. I think there's a ton of wisdom here, although I think there's also some error.
I have a fundamental problem with this quick definition of polygamy. Frankly, it defines nothing other than fornication. Polygamy is plural _marriage_, not simply multiple hookups. As bad as fornication IS, it's not the same thing as adultery or as plural marriage.
Hmm... Perhaps I'm wrong. Let's look at this, so you'll have a chance to correct me.
I see another post below that which comments "It's the picture of marriage from the beginning: no contracts, ceremonies or rings. In having sex with a man, a virgin has indicated that she is his. For life." OK, this gets to the core of the matter. Is every willing sexual encounter a marriage? We have to agree that every sexual encounter is a physical union (Paul said so, and it's obvious anyhow), but does this equate to a marriage? I'm digging around and I see no direct evidence for that, and some reasonably direct evidence against it.
The best I've found is Ex 22:16-17, in which a seduced woman can wind up not a wife in spite of willingly having sex due to her father's refusal. Then there's Jer 3:1-8, in which God reveals that He has given Israel a writ of divorce, and yet He offers to take her back, thereby making it fairly clear that the remarriage would not trigger the abomination clause even though Israel has played the whore after being divorced.
Time to take a break. What am I missing here?
I won't object to being told that I'm pedantic, as long as you help me understand why the distinction I'm drawing is unimportant. It looks very important to me, and I'd like to hear why I'm wrong.
-Wm
I'm sorry, I think I missed seeing the post where you suggested you might ban me.
DeleteI really did try to clearly express why I disagreed completely with your statement (because I thought it was the opposite of a true statement, in that it claimed the problem was mere preference when the problem was actually practical physical limitations of the real world). I don't think you should ban me for a difference of opinions; although I find no reason to keep talking about it.
I agree with your definition of pedanticism, by the way. Does it count as irony that I agree with it?
"You have made many statements in this thread without any backing other than 'Wm has said so.'"
Wow. Yes, I've stated things without proving them; but so have you and everyone. It's normal to sometimes mistakenly assume that a point will be accepted by others when actually it gets disputed. But I've _argued_ my points with logic and Biblical support; it's just wrong to claim otherwise. Every single thing on which I've been opposed I've attempted to produce a legitimate argument. Not a single one has been merely "well, I THINK so." And I think you have to agree that none of my responses has been in any way ad-hominem.
This is your blog, and you have the right to ban me. I would prefer that you not do that -- I would rather you ask that I no longer do something specific.
-Wm
One more, this time to answer a concrete question: "Okay, give me some evidence. When and where has it happened several times before?"
DeleteExamples of polygamy? Most societies prior to the major success of Christianity (and most originally non-Christian ones). (Did I misread your question? Are you testing me? Did you really not know?)
"How is it a known problem? Links, Bible verses, etc."
Biblically, it violates the terms of the creation ordinance as read in 1 Cor 6:16, that the two shall be one flesh (how many fleshes are in a polygynous marriage, anyhow?). It sets aside the clear prohibition on polygamous elders as though it had been entirely special to the office of elder, without ANY argument at all.
I DO owe you and redlegben all a complete Biblical argument, I admit -- I simply don't have the time right now. I'm behind a deadline.
"Show me how the biblical practice of polygamy is worse than feminism in the church."
Worse than? I don't REALLY know that, not for sure. That's not the appropriate question, though. We don't teach things because they're "not shown to be worse than" something else.
"Is it only a problem because of the numbers of unattached men?"
Pragmatically, yes -- that's the huge practical problem. And, of course, the medium-term results of that problem -- war is a normal one, as is brigandry.
There's a POSSIBLE direct risk, but it might be avoided. It might also devalue female life, as we see in many polygamous cultures now -- especially if it were introduced in an ad-hoc basis without the benefit of years of cultural practices. I don't know HOW to avoid it, but perhaps someone might; so I don't think it's a hard objection.
"How would that be worse than the trend of unattached men we are experiencing now?"
A larger and less reversible trend would be worse.
First, you haven't claimed anything about the size of this alleged trend. All the numbers I've found show that it's a real problem, but they all make it look like a tiny problem, especially compared to most past polygamous societies.
Second, the unavailable women would not be uncommitted and/or swinging as they are now -- they'd be UNAVAILABLE, hard stop. Most alphas with a harem would be disgusted at the thought of giving up a wife, and with a reason -- "let one wife leave without consequences, and you lower yourself in all of their eyes."
Third, it's likely that the polygamy system would be self-increasing -- it's likely that as "real alpha" drives up the number of wives, so also the number of wives will drive up apparent social rank, and would therefore tend to become more attractive than it would otherwise be.
This all hints that a real polygamy would drain the number of available and marriageable women far beyond what a serial system can, and would certainly make that drain permanent.
-Wm
I think you are confusing what society does and what a Christian church should do. Christianity has survived many governments and will survive many more. Any particular pagan society (Muslim) that practices polygamy still isn't a Christian one. The stories in the Bible are plentiful of examples of God fearing people living in pagan societies. Hint: we are in one now. How we react as Christians will be important to our descendants. Quit trying to save the country you live in and start saving yourself and your descendants. That is the best you can hope for.
DeleteThere is a distinct issue with assuming men are polygamist by nature. Whilst men may WANT to spread their sperm far and wide, their actual opportunities to do so are very limited.
ReplyDeleteEven if men prefer polygamy, in the current SMP most men won't ever get the chance to practice it. Most men are in the 80% that women simply do not find attractive. I cannot stress that enough.
Now contrast the situation for women. Freed from reproductive concerns of pregnancy she is only concerned with securing the highest value male she can - for now - until she can trade for better. Serial monogamy becomes polygamy. If she falls pregnant, divorces her husband or chooses to become a single mommy, the welfare/warfare state gladly redistributes money to make it happen.
In addition, when under 30 the average woman can get sex much easier than the average man when she is only attracted to a small number of men. However, the average man has a much broader filter and would accept a much large range of women as sexually attractive. Polygamy would mean a potentially more difficult quest for men seeking a wife, even when men are generally much less discriminating of attractiveness than women.
If Chrissy Church girl has the option of becoming the second/third wife of smooth talking youth pastor or successful, charming businessman, why would she not choose that over a poverty stricken young man in the twenties, blindsided by the labour market into years of training for jobs that won't ever eventuate?
For lower value women that have blown their chances, churches play on this by encouraging normal men to man up, and many do, to their great cost and impact on the children when mommy deludedly detonates the marriage, thinking she can do better.
I am not sure which group you mean referring to "christian men arady participating." Do you mean the charismatic pastors and high value men that keep a mistress or soft harem for quiet weekdays?
Permitting and encouraging polygamy might have some interesting and unexpected side effects. Pick up artists converting to the faith and becoming alpha pastors with multiple hot wives, with the blessing of church leadership would be an interesting dynamic, to say the least.
Polygamy is not an answer, it is a solution that will bring its own consequences. Feminism destoyed normal mens authority over his wife and family. Polygamy is not going to restore that.
The only viable alternative the church has it to change how it views marriage. Get rid of no fault divorce. Shame the sluts and direct them to repent. Shame the no-fault divorcees and teach dominant/submissive relationships as the norm. Can't see it happening.
- an observer
"I am not sure which group you mean referring to "christian men arady participating." Do you mean the charismatic pastors and high value men that keep a mistress or soft harem for quiet weekdays?"
ReplyDelete-an observer
No, I'm referring to the average Christian man who is divorced and paying cash and prizes to the ex, authorized by the State, and jailed if he does not do so. He is then free to take on a new wife but must continue to financially support the first.
Christian churches have accepted this and not done a thing about separating biblical marriage from State sanctioning/liscensing. Christian churches are silent on what the Bible has to say about divorce and remarriage. Christian churches are silent about a woman who is divorced.
"Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11
"A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:39
By being silent, churches already condone and support unbiblical divorce and remarriage. And we're quibbling about something that 1.is not sin, and 2.has established rules spelled out in the Bible.
If Christian churches, in order to rein in and take back from the State what is truly marriage in the eyes of God, polygamy is a subject that needs to be broached. If they should use the Bible as the guide for marriage, teaching that wives who, though they have rendered their state license of marriage null and void, in the eyes of God they are still married. For a man to marry this divorced women is sin. This woman will already be provided for by state enforcement by her husband (or by the taxpayers). Teaching of polygamy - it is acceptable for a man to marry another within the confines of the law, but not a woman.
In this Pollyanna world we're theorizing where Christian churches will concern themselves with rooting out feminism, they will have to provide men the authority necessary to get their wives back in line. It will be a long process to root out all feminism from women. When they behave as they do now: "I'm not haaapy" and withhold sex, the authority for a man to speak with her about a second wife could be supported by the church.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all about the consequences of polygamy when combined with female hypergamy for men of low status. However, THAT is already happening. Men are already voluntarily opting out of marriage because of the consequences imposed by the State and the feminist teaching of the church.
The poverty stricken young man in his twenties has no authority in his marriage being taught by the church and can do nothing when his hypergamous wife trades him in. Most women would not choose to be a second wife to an alpha. They are far too ingrained in their own princesshood to contemplate being one of two or more wives of a man. They will still marry with monogamy in mind. The idea of polygamy will help to enforce D/s relationships and teaching.
The women who don't mind being part of a harem ALREADY are. The woman that gets into a relationship with a divorced man with children and an ex he has to financially support today IS accepting that she is the second wife and that the first wife has to be provided for.
My former stepfather, for example, has married and divorced three women, he may be on his fourth now. The women continue to get younger (larger age gap from him). One wonders if his first marriage would have ended in divorce (frivorce) if he could have just brought in the second wife, my mother, into a polygamous marriage. Would his first wife submit? Would she have chosen to honor her marriage vows in order to not have another woman openly and with church approval available for sex with her husband?
"No, I'm referring to the average Christian man who is divorced and paying cash and prizes to the ex, authorized by the State, and jailed if he does not do so. He is then free to take on a new wife but must continue to financially support the first."
DeleteThis is the most fascinating paragraph yet. That makes a lot of metaphorical sense to me. In fact, it seems to me that you're echoing Jesus' sermon to the Hillelites (including the ones among his disciples) -- but rather than accusing them of forcing their ex wives to commit adultery (perhaps in order to survive they must get remarried), you're pointing out that a woman initiating a fake (no-fault) divorce forces the husband to be polygamous (better to marry than to burn -- but he must remain pseudo-married to the first wife by providing court-ordered support until SHE decides to marry someone else, thereby finally freeing him).
But I wanted to note that I found your comparison compelling -- and I wouldn't have a problem hearing that preached. However, it's not to be taken as a precise literal claim -- an innocent man who's been put through an involuntary no-fault divorce is not AUTOMATICALLY guilty of literal polygamy, and an innocent woman in the converse situation is not LITERALLY forced to commit adultery. The sin is in the person who initiates the "no-fault" divorce -- Christ was preaching to the men he was speaking to, not berating the women they'd unjustly abandoned before.
-Wm
Typed a comment and lost it.
ReplyDeleteDivorce is socially acceptable polygamy. It ensure ongoing resources, but also victimhood status for the exwife, who is beyond reproach.
Oh, she might have withheld sex for years as a control tactic. Yes, he might have sinned sexually by seeking a new partner. Perhaps women are not ready to publicly admit a second wife is required to satisfy his sexual needs.
Would the first wife agree to a second? Not many, i suspect. Current state enforced law permits serial polygamy - frivorce - rather than an alternative. Ceding a sexual relationship to a new wife might be too humiliating for most of todays strong, independent women. It also cedes a lot of control. Admitting wife two would be admittance they no longer desire their husbands, whereas divorcing means he gets the blame, she escapes with cash and prizes and still controls him.
In other words, she would rather renounce her marriage vows and divorce than admit a second wife because the former is a better strategy to maintain control over him, echoes of the curse.
- an observer
Short version:
ReplyDelete1. Polygamy is off-limits if you wish to serve as a bishop, elder or deacon (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1).
2. It is nowhere condemned as sin.
3. ...But it often leads to strife (too many Scriptures to mention on this one!).
@wtanksley
The New Testament says polygamy is negative in more places than it says divorce is.
Eh?! What Bible have you been reading?! As far as divorce is concerned, the New Testament upholds what God says in the Old --- namely that He hates it (Malachi 2:16). Jesus equates it with adultery repeatedly (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, etc.), and Israel knew adultery was the most serious of crimes. Where are the comparable verses for polygamy? There aren't any. If you begin a sentence with "The New Testament says...", then you should provide a Scriptural reference for verification. We must be grounded in God's Word: that's one of the things which sets believers apart from the lost and from false believers who deny Sola Scriptura.
The statement you make above is simply untrue. The fact that no-one has called you on this is worrying and suggests that no-one else here really knows the Scriptures too well, either. It's vital to have our minds immersed in God's Word.
Personally, I suspect (without Biblical support) that polygamy was the original condition of mankind; when God created Adam and Eve, he also created and introduced formal monogamy.
Jesus tells us that God made Adam and Eve in the beginning (see, for example, Mark 10:6). That was "the original condition of mankind". Polygamy came after The Fall (it's first mentioned in Genesis 4 --- in Cain's line, interestingly enough). Your suspicions (and mine) are worthless. We must instead ask, "What does God's Word actually say?".
@RLB
I really think if women knew their husbands could acquire another wife things would improve drastically in marriages. Sex wouldn't be the issue in marriages the way it is today.
It would certainly help with one problem of this age (churched fems), but would probably lead to other problems down the line. Still, I think it would be an idea to underline the differences in the Law for men and women: implicit throughout the Bible is God's recognition that women have a far easier time of it in terms of sex drive and sexual temptation than men do. ...Which is why Scripturally, women bear more of the burden for keeping marriage undefiled (premarital virginity, marriage to only one man, etc..). They truly are the "gatekeepers", and should take this responsibility extremely seriously. Just teaching that would put the cat amongst the pigeons in the churches.
@wtanksley
He directed Moses to write law that made polygamy very difficult.
One of those laws is that men were not allowed to marry if it would reduce any of the provision they were giving to their existing wives.
That's a misreading of Scripture (the passage to which you refer here is Exodus 21:7-11). This is why it's important to cite Scripture: we may think we know something, but unless we actually check it, then we can go horribly wrong.
SD
ReplyDelete"Churches today have become very accepting of divorce and remarriage. This is polygamy. Especially if a man is financially supporting the first wife while he provides for the second."
This is not Biblical polygamy. The man may be supporting the errant wife but the wife is having sex with another man: in the days of Biblical polygamy she'd die for that. With Biblical polygamy (which is always polygyny and never polyandry --- the latter is merely adultery), there's a quid pro quo: no man in the Bible has to provide for an adulterous wife. God regards adulterous wives (and fiancées) as being so wicked and worthless that He actually commanded Israel to stone them to death, along with the wicked men they'd found to stuff them (Leviticus 20:10). Women in the church (even on the 'manosphere') don't take such sins anywhere near as seriously as God does. If they did, they'd make it plain that women who "ride the carousel" or who cheat on their fiancés or husbands are in God's eyes as bad as murderers and according to Him deserve a public, violent death (see Deuteronomy 22:20-24). Ever heard anyone say that in a church? Thought not...
@wtanksley
We know that Paul speaks on marriage and on unmarried sex in ways that have to condemn prostitution, hypergamy, AND polygamy all at the same time.
Eh?! Again, Scripture references, please!
@wtanksley
I recognize that this doesn't mean polygamy is a sin. In fact, I find it obvious that it's not
So we should say this! Men can marry more than one woman without sinning --- BUT it is a foolish idea, and God's ideal is one (preferably virgin) man taking one virgin woman and their staying faithful to one another for life. However, simply stating that polygyny is not a sin whereas polyandry is the gravest of sins will blow the minds of the women in the church. And blow their minds we must, as they're full of worldly sewage --- the fems have effectively defecated in the heads of church women. They need cleaning up and washing in the Word.
@SD
Today, women are putting off having children far too long, riding the carousal until they realize they're coming up against the wall, and jump off into marriage with a beta provider, or settle into a life with their cats. Those who regret these choices they made and their childless wombs are not yelling from the roof tops for younger women to not do the same. "you go girl" is not going away. And in essence the 80% of men are getting the sloppy seconds of the Alpha males play toys or are choosing to opt out of the marriage market due to the consequences of it.
The truth in a nutshell. Can you put that paragraph up on the side of your church, instead of the "Jesus loves you" sign? Or perhaps drive home to the girls in your Sunday school that if they follow the world into fornication, they will be ruined, unworthy of marriage, and that their lives will thereafter be a sad shell of what they could have been (and that even if they are blessed with a husband, that they will have defrauded him of his due).
"This is not Biblical polygamy."
ReplyDeleteYes, I know that nor did I state that it was. You and I are in agreement. My point was the church stays silent about it thereby condoning it. Especially when the church gives their blessing and witnesses the ceremony of a divorced man marrying another women.
When the church consents to a divorced woman marrying another man...
Again, by "the church" I am talking about the community of believers. When you, individually, as a Christian, condone/support/attend the wedding of as a witness the remarriage of a man - divorced by State decree - you are condoning a form of polygamy (which is not a sin).
When you, as a Christian condone/support/attend the wedding of as a witness the remarriage of a woman - divorced by State decree, you are condoning polyandry (which is sin).
O, would that all women understood this as you do. Or all men, for that matter...
DeletePreach it from the rooftops!
I almost agree. A sermon along these lines would be very much like Christ's own words about divorce, and the Church should be sounding more like Christ. Your teaching in this comment sounds good (and to be clear, I wouldn't mind hearing it preached), but your underlying assumptions are questionable to the highest extent.
DeleteThe problem is that sounding like Christ isn't enough. You have to understand what you're saying as well as Christ did as well. For example, if you SAY "rather than sin with your hand you should cut your hand off!" you SOUND like Christ -- but Christ never meant that anyone should cut their hand off, nor was He teaching that cutting your hand off would get you out of hell.
First, you're assuming that society CAN (pragmatically) combat divorce-based serial polyandry with polygyny.
Second, you're assuming that the Church is the most effective instrument to impose this social demand. (Redlegben added that the Church has an "authority over polygamous marriages.")
Third, you're assuming that preaching in favor of polygyny is a legitimate function of the Church.
Fourth, you're assuming that all remarriages are forms of polygyny/polyandry, which is not taught as such in the Bible; your logic is complex at best, so I won't spend time trying to account for the underlying assumptions (although I think some of them are important and questionable).
BTW: I owe Mench a post detailing why I think the Bible holds polygyny in about as much esteem as divorce (which means I'm going to have to show him that the Bible doesn't teach that God always hates divorce and in fact sometimes approves of it, just like polygyny, so I've got an uphill battle).
Polygamy is _dangerous_. In a society where it already exists it's useful to channel it, as Moses did; but where it doesn't exist we should avoid it.
DeleteI agree with your statement here. I'm saying, and I think you would agree, that it does exist in our society. Our government doesn't call it that, but that is what it is.
Secondly, I don't give a crap about what society does. I do believe the Church is not only the best, but the only, effective instrument to fix this issue. It needs to start with not playing around with being a tax collector for the state. The Church doesn't need to get involved with the definition of marriage debate. Since when did a government have control over what the Bible says? Screw them. You do not need a marriage license from a government organization to be considered married in front of God, your family, and Church. I can't emphasize that enough. The state does not matter. At all.
First, I don't think it's accurate to say that it actually exists. It's MORALLY similar, in that it's a violation of the creation ordinance; but it is not legally or practically the same thing. It's a violation of a completely different kind.
DeleteSecond, "society" is important. Don't simply dismiss it. We're talking about what society has actually done, for goodness sake.
Third, you're right that the church can't afford to be tax-conscious anymore -- it's going to have to simply be an expected cost. GREAT point.
But finally, it's completely false that the state doesn't matter. The government could, has, and likely will crush into a bloody, flaming, indistinguishable pulp any religious group that pushes polygamy in a non-progressivist manner. Count the cost -- especially considering that (to say the LEAST) it's not clear that the Church should be encouraging polygyny at all. (I'm not saying that martydom is bad -- I'm saying that there are better things to die for.)
If it were morally the same, it would be church approved. It isn't morally the same and therefore needs guidance by the church.
DeleteThe state can't matter if the church is to survive. It can be in secret if need be. It's not like the state legislates confirmations or baptisms. Just call marriage something else and tell the state to piss off. Keep renaming it until the state gives up trying to control religious activity. The church can act faster than the state, if the church chooses to be something that matters.
Romans is all about living in the land of chaos. It's good stuff.
@SD
ReplyDeleteInstead of saying "Nah-uh", please offer up what would be a viable way to change the feminism within the Church.
See the end of my previous comment: that would be a great start. These days this has to come from other women. For way too long the churches have ignored the call of women to teach other women how to behave, with the result that we have carnage in the church and now we need Titus 2:4-5 on steroids...
And church women are now too stubborn and rebellious to hear this from a man (plus the man would likely be tossed out of church by other men who would run scared of tossing out a woman). There are things a woman can get away with, which a man cannot (just as in Jesus' day --- the women could stand at the foot of the Cross without fear of arrest or death, since they were mere women, and were no threat to the Pharisees or to the Roman State).
Women with wisdom need to drive home to those without it that, with a handful of exceptions, women are not the main players in Scripture --- they were created to be helps meet for the men, in their service of God. Women have a calling, but it is different from that of men. Both men and women are called to holiness. Church women should not be dressing, cursing and slutting just like the world, they should strive to be meek (rather than obstinate, noisy and argumentative) and seek to be obedient to God. Obedience to God involves believing and following His Word. ...And God's Word calls women to submit their will to that of their father/husband and to accord the men in their lives the respect which is naturally due to them. Older women are commanded to teach the younger ones the way God wants women to live. So why don't they?
Moreover, it is crucial for women to point out that women have far less mitigation for sexual transgressions than do men (and if you think women will accept this teaching from a man, you're living in cloud-cuckooland!). Women have a puny sex-drive compared to men's testosterone-fuelled beast. God recognises this and lays the greater burden for maintaining sexual purity on women. If a woman fornicates or cheats on her husband, it is a much more egregious sin than it would be had a man committed the same physical act: she cannot claim the extenuation of a masculine libido. God knows these truths (since He made both man and woman) and He embeds them in His Law. Hence, virginity on marriage, whilst of course desirable in the male, is required in the female (unless she's a genuine widow). If a married woman has sex with any other man, then she's killed along with him, whereas if a married man has sex with a virgin, he's just acquired himself another wife.
It's the picture of marriage from the beginning: no contracts, ceremonies or rings. In having sex with a man, a virgin has indicated that she is his. For life. ...And for his part, the man must never abandon her: he must care for her and for the children she bears him. That's it. This is how God ordered His own society, before men and women decided that they knew better and could "improve" it.
Women who actually believe the Bible should really be ramming home to other women just how wicked female sexual sin is in God's eyes. ...And using Scripture to do so. It's not difficult; the verses are there in the Torah --- they show God's heart clearly. ...Indeed, it's the fems and liberals who have the hardest time getting the Scriptures to support their lies, yet --- owing to the apathy and Scriptural illiteracy of the church as a whole --- they've convinced the church (or rather their master Satan has) that female sexual sin is near-non-existent and trivial to God anyway, whereas men are beasts who need to be beaten and muzzled. It's a complete inversion of what God says.
DeleteSo, SD, will you pray for the boldness to do this? And help other women to do the same? Oh, I do hope so! We need more people to simply proclaim God's Word boldly amongst the flock. ...Because even when the churches are lost as to how they are supposed to be, Satan is not. He knows full well that the church is to be male-led, and therefore that neutering men within the church and repelling the men outside it is a highly effective method of sabotage. And that is exactly what he has done over the course of the last century or so.
Men within the church have been deceived into believing that for them to speak Biblical truth about female sexual sin would be construed as misogyny, and men outside the church do not want to join so feminised an institution (there are enough of the latter already). Before Christ came, a Gentile who wanted to become one of God's people would have to be circumcised. Today, in the feminised churches of the West, circumcision has been replaced by castration.
Lastly, this thread has generated a lot of comment: it seems that the 'manosphere' church is interested in these things (which is heartening). What about a further post on this, RLB/SD?
"whereas if a married man has sex with a virgin, he's just acquired himself another wife." ... "no contracts, ceremonies or rings" ... "In having sex with a man, a virgin has indicated that she is his."
DeleteThe passage you cite -- Ex 22:16 -- has an exception that tests your rule. In the next verse, her father is permitted to "utterly refuse" the marriage, and he still has to pay the brideprice. A related text in Deut 22:29, except for rape, shows the price, and also adds an apparent penalty, that he may not divorce her. (Note that since both passages are case-law, the omission of the permission of the father clause from Deuteronomy is not significant -- if a father has the right to deny a seducer, he also has the right to deny a rapist.)
My conclusion is that the ceremony IS important. It's not the only important thing, but it is important. In fact, although this isn't _stated_, I think it's reasonable to say that God's words of institution in the Garden actually _were_ a ceremony. The ceremony is not what does the uniting; but it IS what actually _gives_ the two people to one another.
"Can you put that paragraph up on the side of your church, instead of the "Jesus loves you" sign? Or perhaps drive home to the girls in your Sunday school that if they follow the world into fornication, they will be ruined, unworthy of marriage, and that their lives will thereafter be a sad shell of what they could have been (and that even if they are blessed with a husband, that they will have defrauded him of his due)"
ReplyDeleteI have certain influence on two girls - my daughters. And you better believe this is exactly what they know. The dirty paws of feminism will not infiltrate my home. Therefore they will have no affect on my daughters. My daughters actually laugh at the "do what makes you haaaapy crowd."
The women we know who are alone in middle age, divorced, and with cat are extremely defensive of how haaapy they are. How relieved they are to not have to concern themselves of their appearance, or what they eat. How they are the smart women and if being with a boy meant they could not be smart well then they have made THE right choice. (Almost verbatim from a cat lady relative, in all seriousness). Again, like I said, she knows better than to EVER complain about yet another lonely night void of companionship. She thinks she has companionship with her peers at work and her other cat lady friends and that it is enough to sustain her.
From a self absorbed utilitarian perspective this is still asinine. It is best to suffer a life with a husband and children for your own benefit when you are elderly. Who is possibly going to bear the burden of taking care of this obese woman riddled with health challenges? It for damn sure won't be me and my daughters who she repeatedly insults for "pretentiously taking care of our looks and admitting our stupidity by devoting our lives to a man." They really cut off their nose to spite their face.
@SD
ReplyDeleteI have certain influence on two girls - my daughters. And you better believe this is exactly what they know. The dirty paws of feminism will not infiltrate my home. Therefore they will have no affect on my daughters. My daughters actually laugh at the "do what makes you haaaapy crowd."
Praise God!
@SD
The women we know who are alone in middle age, divorced, and with cat are extremely defensive of how haaapy they are. How relieved they are to not have to concern themselves of their appearance, or what they eat. How they are the smart women and if being with a boy meant they could not be smart well then they have made THE right choice. (Almost verbatim from a cat lady relative, in all seriousness). Again, like I said, she knows better than to EVER complain about yet another lonely night void of companionship. She thinks she has companionship with her peers at work and her other cat lady friends and that it is enough to sustain her.
I think La Rochefoucauld captured it well.
Who is possibly going to bear the burden of taking care of this obese woman riddled with health challenges?
The State --- so they foolishly think...
And if you continue in growing faith and obedience to God, He will vindicate you publicly against the accusations of such women. All in good time.
May God bless you, your husband and your children.
"This is your blog, and you have the right to ban me. I would prefer that you not do that -- I would rather you ask that I no longer do something specific." - Wm
ReplyDeleteI never considered banning you, Wm. No longer entertaining your comments is not the same. What that means to me is that you may go on "scroll by" for me (RLB is different). Now, I appreciate the last couple of comments that you've made. The discussion is moving along in a respectful manner. There's no need to be overly pedantic nor overly assertive prior to building a rapport as a commenter.
RLB also has a much greater patience threshold than me. He is the one who will decide if anyone ever gets banned or not. :)
"Now, I appreciate the last couple of comments that you've made. The discussion is moving along in a respectful manner. There's no need to be overly pedantic nor overly assertive prior to building a rapport as a commenter."
DeleteReminder: I hope to see more of a response to my comments (which you claim were good), and less rehashing of your past allegations against me.
-Wm
Don't be a troll. SD let you skate. Get over yourself and leave or be useful. Your issues have been dealt with. I have zero tolerance for the seekers of dissension/deniers of scripture. If you have a desire to be a Catholic/Baptist type governing state issues, go ahead and have fun. I don't care about the popular opinion issues. We are recreating a society here shortly. SD's allegations still stand. You are being pedantic and are on thin ice. Have fun. If you persist, you will be banned. You mean nothing to me or the truth.
DeleteI've dealt with your type many times. Reform or exit. There is no in between. Last warning.
redlegben, what would you recommend doing in response to a post like yours? I seriously don't know what you're asking for. This is a sincere question, typed after many attempts to compose a reply.
DeleteSo what do you want me to do?
I'm not lying about wanting feedback on my interpretation of the scriptures that discuss marriage. I see nothing in my posts that would make anyone say I'm a scripture-denier, and "dissension" is caused by heretics and schismatics, not orthodox people discussing disputed points. And if I'm confused by your discussion of "state issues" and society, you might just consider that more discussion might help make what you're saying clearer.
I don't think anything I'm saying here should be offensive. Is it?
I almost agree. A sermon along these lines would be very much like Christ's own words about divorce, and the Church should be sounding more like Christ. Your teaching in this comment sounds good (and to be clear, I wouldn't mind hearing it preached)...an example of what SD found useful in conversation.
DeleteNot replying to Mensch and my challenges...an example of a troll. I'm serious about the thin ice. I've read and fully understand the playbook. If you are a troll, leave. If not go practice your presentation somewhere else and learn how to converse with scriptural based conversationalists.
My wife directed me to this post.
ReplyDeleteFor the past nine years I've studied marriage issues. I believe it is essential to go back and study how God regulates marriage to get a better understanding of divorce and polygyny. This requires study of His laws. These are the actual blueprints for societal interaction, righteousness, goodness, and restitution. I refer mostly to the clearly civil law given in the books of the law. Not going to entertain yet things such as tassels and relations during menstrual bleeding. Only the easy stuff (i.e. ox tears up neighbor's field and such).
Looking up Deut 22:22-29 and Exodus 22:16 and studying all there is to learn from those texts give us an inkling that our culture does not quite understand marriage as well as we think.
A post I wrote a couple years back and didn't follow up on because I got really busy. It's on marriage and betrothal. Not plugging my own blog as I've not posted on it in two years. Just keeps from cluttering up your comments.
http://necessarilyanonymous.blogspot.com/
Interesting discussion. I didn't see anyone mention it in the comments above, but I could have missed it, that polygyny (one man, multiple wives) is not called "sinful" in the Scripture, but polyandry (one woman, multiple husbands) is clearly defined as adultery and therefore sinful.
ReplyDeleteBesides the case of a levirite (not sure about the spelling) marriage where a man took his brother's widow to wife in order to raise up a son to his brother, in the case of forcible sex with a maiden/virgin, marriage is also a mandate and the man's current marital status is not mentioned as being a factor. In those cases, polygyny is not only permitted, but commanded, so it can't be a sin.
My take on the "one flesh" language of Scripture is that a man is joined to his wife and the two become one flesh, and another wife doesn't join them so that the three are now one flesh, but rather the husband who takes a second wife also becomes one with her. The wives are not married to each other. The man is one flesh with each of his wives.
As to the process for becoming married, ceremonies and such, in looking to Scripture I see very little is required. Since adultery (anyone, married or not, having sex with a woman who is betrothed or married to another) brings the death penalty, it seems like it would be fairly important that a man have a way of being informed as to the marital status of potential mates. A public "ceremony" should consist of at least some sort of public declaration. For example, Isaac took Rebekah into his tent with the witness of servants, family, etc. But even before that, she was identified as being set aside by the jewelry he placed on her. (Abrahams servant actually bestowed the gifts on Isaac's behalf.) In Scripture the only women we see adorned with jewelry are harlots and married/betrothed women. We even see where God adorned his bride, Israel, and then she used her adornments to go play the harlot. Disgusting.
Minimum requirements for a marriage... a woman should be given by one with authority to give her/refuse to give her, there should be a public proclamation that they are betrothed, and ultimately they consummate, hopefully resulting in the requisite "tokens" of her virginity if her father has protected her well.
Also, since nearly everything we know about the marriage of Christ and the Church, His bride, deals with the process rather than the end result, wouldn't it be wise for us to imitate the process as well? That is, a negotiated betrothal, resulting in a covenant to marry? The marriage is the fulfillment of the betrothal covenant. Marriage is never referred to as a covenant in the Bible. The betrothal is the covenant and the marriage is fulfillment of the covenant. Breaking the betrothal covenant would occur if the man failed to come for his bride or if the bride was unfaithful to the betrothed husband. There is no such thing as a "marriage covenant" therefore it cannot be broken. Vows are pointless in a marriage. The duties of marriage are what they are, regardless of anyone's promising to do them.
Those are my thoughts. My husband has also blogged on these topics (polygyny, what makes a marriage, etc.) at http://necessarilyanonymous.blogspot.com/
I've been thinking on this since I got into a little tussle with redlegben about it. I started trying to find evidence of polygamy among early Christians. I found websites that cite quotes from Church fathers that condemn polygamy. Of course, these quotes all precede the compilation of the scriptures, before anyone really knew what was "Biblical" and what wasn't. Actually, nothing was Biblical because the Bible as a canon didn't exist until later.
DeleteJustin Martyr writing in the 2nd century wouldn't have known the Apostles but could easily have known men who knew the Apostles and he seems very clear that polygamy isn't acceptable.
The evidence cited from the Bible to me seems more like a lack of explicit condemnation, which obviously isn't the same as approval. A lot of people quote the verse about elders having one wife, saying that implies other non-elders can have more than one wife. It could imply that, but it could just as easily not. Apparently, it can be accurately interpreted in a few different ways, one being the elder can't have been divorced and remarried. I would think Justin Martyr would have known of that scripture, but he still condemns polygamy.
As with every Bible debate, basically whatever someone wants to believe, he can believe. Whatever someone can "prove" from the Bible is "true," even if it conflicts with what others can apparently "prove" from the Bible. For that reason, Bible debates turn me off. I can beat some in debate, I can't beat others. Who cares? Those I couldn't beat, could be beaten by someone else. So even if I could use the Bible to prove to your satisfaction that polygamy was a sin, what would I have really proved? Luther was in favor of polygamy; Calvin was opposed. Each used the Bible to prove his position, and I'm supposed to decide who's right and who's wrong? Please. I'm sure if they were alive today they would want to persuade me. Maybe one would have enough wit and charisma to convince me, but that's all it would be, wit and charism. Protestantism is pointless. Anyone with enough charisma can found a brand new denomination. Imagine a supercharged, superintelligent, supercharismatic redlegben. He would have a polygamous Redlegan "biblically-based" denomination.
It seems this polygamy debate basically only comes from the Protestant founders who wrenched the Bible out of its proper context and used it to divide Christianity. So I guess I don't mean to wade into it again. It's a trackless swamp, no way out. I'll paraphrase G.K. Chesterton: To step into the world of the Catholic Church is like escaping a scuffle in a dark room into the broad daylight.
1. Justin Martyr (c.160) rebukes the Jews for allowing polygamy:
"Your imprudent and blind masters [i.e., Jewish teachers] even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob." [ANF, vol. 1, p. 266]
2. Irenaeus (c.180) condemns the Gnostics for, among other things, polygamy:
"Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives..." [ANF, vol. 1, p.353]
had to divide my long post. . .
Delete3. Tertullian (c.207) was also explicit:
"Chapter II.-Marriage Lawful, But Not Polygamy. We do not indeed forbid the union of man and woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for the replenishment of the earth and the furnishing of the world, and therefore permitted, yet Singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his one wife, one woman, one rib. (ANF: Tertullian, To His Wife)
4. Methodius (cf.290) was clear on the issue, arguing that it had stopped at the time of the Prophets:
"The contracting of marriage with several wives had been done away with from the times of the prophets. For we read, 'Do not go after your lusts, but refrain yourself from your appetites'...And in another place, 'Let your fountain be blessed and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.' This plainly forbids a plurality of wives." [ANF, vol. 6, p.312]
5 The Pseudo-Clementine Literature boasts about how St. Thomas taught the Parthians [i.e., an Iranian culture] to abandon polygamy:
"But I shall give a still stronger proof of the matters in hand. For, behold, scarcely seven years have yet passed since the advent of the righteous and true Prophet; and in the course of these, inert of all nations coming to Judaea, and moved both by the signs and miracles Which they saw, and by the grandeur of His doctrine, received His faith; and then going back to their own countries, they rejected the lawless rites of the Gentiles, and their incestuous marriages. In short, among the Parthians-as Thomas, who is preaching the Gospel amongst them, has written to us-not many now are addicted to polygamy; nor among the Medes do many throw their dead to dogs; nor are the Persians pleased with intercourse with their mothers, or incestuous marriages with their daughters; nor do the Susian women practise the adulteries that were allowed them; nor has Genesis been able to force those into crimes whom the teaching of religion restrained. (ANF 8: "Book IX: Chapter XXIX.-The Gospel More Powerful Than 'Genesis.'"]
6. The Council of Neocaesarea a.d. 315 (circa) refers to a 'purification period' for polygamists. By that time, sinners had to 'sit out' of Church activities until they had demonstrated reformation. If a sin showed up on this list of canons, it was considered a 'bad sin'--and polygamy shows up here:
"Ancient Epitome of Canon III. The time (for doing penance and purification) of polygamists is well known. A zeal for penance may shorten it." [ANF]
7. Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea, mentioned it a number of times in his letters, generally concerning the period for exclusion from church for polygamists, calling it 'limited fornication'(!):
"IV. In the case of trigamy and polygamy they laid down the same rule, in proportion, as in the case of digamy; namely one year for digamy (some authorities say two years); for trigamy men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the woman of Samaria, who had five husbands, "he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of trigamy we have accepted a seclusion of five years, not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift, and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance. [ANF: (Canonica Prima.)To Amphilochius, concerning the Canons. Letter CLXXXVIII written c.347.]
I'll read the rest later, but this, "As with every Bible debate, basically whatever someone wants to believe, he can believe. Whatever someone can "prove" from the Bible is "true," even if it conflicts with what others can apparently "prove" from the Bible," is plain wrong. There are many things that various Christian belief systems agree on. Without that type of agreement the revolt of the colonists never would have been possible.
DeleteThere is a difference between denominational beliefs and biblical differences. Polygamist men were constantly used in the OT to be the witnesses of God's Word. There is far more evidence supporting polygamy as natural than not. How do you account for the OT polygamists being the bearer of God's Word? Why wouldn't He choose monogamist men?
Much of what you have quoted is men telling people what to think without referencing the Bible. I don't care if they were around before me or not. Hitler tried to claim righteousness based on the Bible as well. It doesn't make him right because he was around before me. The CC has been an instrument used to control the masses at various times in history. Scholars were encouraged and promoted based on their ability to control the masses. Luther didn't play that game. There have been many great men to question the leadership based on biblical truth. Polygamy still has to be decided on biblical guidance as opposed to denominational instruction.
BTW, why were you so scared to reply on AG? Too many of the logical ilk for you to deal with? Let's go ahead and take the conversation back there and see how it goes. Or we can keep playing here and I will wait for the biblical reference to say polygamy is sin. Your choice. No biblical quote and you get deleted next time...just saying.
DeleteI can't believe I got suckered into thinking you weren't a troll. I'm still learning.
RLB, you gave great answers to some silly posts. Anything the Bible doesn't clearly teach doesn't pertain to Christian living. We don't need any other "inerrant" source -- if we did, we'd have to pick between all the OTHER inerrant sources.
DeleteBut with that said:
The problem with polygamy isn't that polygamy is a sin; it's that polygamy, like divorce, isn't part of God's creation plan (just try to apply Jesus' reading of the institution to polygamy!). Polygamy was "instituted" by men in order to deal with some of the results of sin and the curse, just like divorce was. God regulates slavery, polygamy, and divorce rather than forbidding them, not because they are (or aren't) sinful but because they're dangerous and abusable. God applies all three metaphorically to Himself to illustrate His character (Jer 3 is a great example of both polygamy and divorce being used at the same time).
God's law condemns men who abuse either (although He only cites some of the many types of abuse), and calls men "righteous" who try to use either rightly. God's law includes specific decrees that outright ban the practice -- but only apply to specific people (for example, a priest is barred from marrying a divorced woman or widow, and a man who seduced a virgin is prohibited from divorcing her if she marries him).
Divorce and remarriage is sin. Polygamy is not. I have already warned you about your short leash. Be careful. It's troll shooting season. Polygamy is not like divorce and remarriage, nor is it like divorce and fornication. Polygamist men are actually the preferred men of communicating with the OT era people.
DeleteI have yet to see you anywhere else testing your scriptural conversationalist abilities. You are 90% troll in my book. It won't take much more. Start quoting scripture. You jump too far. BTW, respond to the previous issues addressed in your argument by myself and Mensch before your moving of the discussion. I swear if you play the, "I don't know what you are referring to card," you are done. You know exactly where you have been called out. Answer or leave. I have already given you too many warnings. The man I was at 16 tempts me to allow you to fix yourself.
I have no problem with going back to AG. But I don't really think this debate will go anywhere. I was unable to find evidence that early Christians practiced polygamy with Church approval.
ReplyDeleteI quoted early Christian leaders who predate the Bible. How could they reference something that doesn't exist? I understand you want to limit the debate to the Bible, and you understand I assume why I'm unwilling consent to that.
I concede that polygyny doesn't necessarily violate natural law.
Since you're starting from the Protestant assumption that the Protestant Bible is the sole and final authority for all Christians, if you can first demonstrate from the Bible alone what the Bible actually consists of, what books are rightly included in the canon, and that it is the ultimate authority for Christians; and second demonstrate from the Bible alone why your personal opinion or mine or anyone's of what the Bible says in the aggregate holds any authority at all, then the debate could potentially move. Otherwise we're at an impasse. I'm unwilling to chase scriptural rabbit trails and you're unwilling to defend your premises.
You are correct about the impasse. I believe in the Word as written in the Bible. If you don't, there is nothing else to discuss. At least not in this format. In the future, please respect the fact that we discuss things here according to Biblical truth. If you are going to question the authority of the Bible, you have no place in the discussion here. Thanks for stopping by though.
Delete