tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post8216978521508623570..comments2023-05-14T06:20:54.641-05:00Comments on Sarah's Daughter: Polygamy & ChristianitySarahsDaughterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11070845597474113030noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-18270021412086122242013-03-29T02:26:52.553-05:002013-03-29T02:26:52.553-05:00You are correct about the impasse. I believe in th...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.redlegbenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06695513683497743566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-55779745030090094582013-03-28T15:30:14.608-05:002013-03-28T15:30:14.608-05:00I have no problem with going back to AG. But I don...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. <br />I 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. <br />I concede that polygyny doesn't necessarily violate natural law. <br />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.themannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-74324879348229117052013-03-12T02:05:48.612-05:002013-03-12T02:05:48.612-05:00Divorce and remarriage is sin. Polygamy is not. I ...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.<br /><br />I 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.redlegbenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06695513683497743566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-3228831445877616642013-03-11T10:38:15.421-05:002013-03-11T10:38:15.421-05:00RLB, you gave great answers to some silly posts. A...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.<br /><br />But with that said:<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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).wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-18263892678281888282013-03-11T03:38:23.190-05:002013-03-11T03:38:23.190-05:00BTW, why were you so scared to reply on AG? Too ma...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.<br /><br />I can't believe I got suckered into thinking you weren't a troll. I'm still learning.redlegbenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06695513683497743566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-62919666766166918982013-03-11T01:18:25.374-05:002013-03-11T01:18:25.374-05:00I'll read the rest later, but this, "As w...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.<br /><br />There 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?<br /><br />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.redlegbenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06695513683497743566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-5903971166135749802013-03-11T00:43:31.344-05:002013-03-11T00:43:31.344-05:00had to divide my long post. . .
3. Tertullian (c...had to divide my long post. . . <br /><br />3. Tertullian (c.207) was also explicit:<br /> "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)<br /> <br />4. Methodius (cf.290) was clear on the issue, arguing that it had stopped at the time of the Prophets:<br />"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]<br /> <br />5 The Pseudo-Clementine Literature boasts about how St. Thomas taught the Parthians [i.e., an Iranian culture] to abandon polygamy:<br />"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.'"]<br /> <br />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:<br />"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]<br /> <br />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'(!):<br />"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.]<br />themannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-46237659066234742112013-03-11T00:42:46.940-05:002013-03-11T00:42:46.940-05:00I've been thinking on this since I got into a ...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. <br /><br />Justin 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />1. Justin Martyr (c.160) rebukes the Jews for allowing polygamy:<br />"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]<br /> <br /> 2. Irenaeus (c.180) condemns the Gnostics for, among other things, polygamy:<br /> "Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives..." [ANF, vol. 1, p.353]<br /> <br /><br /> themannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-79395852067227040902013-02-28T19:29:18.719-06:002013-02-28T19:29:18.719-06:00Interesting discussion. I didn't see anyone me...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. <br /><br />Besides 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Those are my thoughts. My husband has also blogged on these topics (polygyny, what makes a marriage, etc.) at http://necessarilyanonymous.blogspot.com/tinlawhttp://www.thetacticaltoolbox.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-82246010674964123222013-02-28T19:16:03.855-06:002013-02-28T19:16:03.855-06:00My wife directed me to this post.
For the past ni...My wife directed me to this post.<br /><br />For 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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />http://necessarilyanonymous.blogspot.com/Toolboxhttp://www.thetacticaltoolbox.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-83742831580370183222013-02-10T01:42:53.342-06:002013-02-10T01:42:53.342-06:00I almost agree. A sermon along these lines would b...<b>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)</b>...an example of what SD found useful in conversation. <br /><br />Not 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.redlegbenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06695513683497743566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-20929609987351363232013-02-10T01:00:17.536-06:002013-02-10T01:00:17.536-06:00redlegben, what would you recommend doing in respo...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.<br /><br />So what do you want me to do?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I don't think anything I'm saying here should be offensive. Is it?wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-74675213825849618332013-02-07T03:44:14.397-06:002013-02-07T03:44:14.397-06:00Don't be a troll. SD let you skate. Get over y...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. <br /><br />I've dealt with your type many times. Reform or exit. There is no in between. Last warning.redlegbenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06695513683497743566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-4055806130993853042013-02-06T14:22:29.057-06:002013-02-06T14:22:29.057-06:00"Now, I appreciate the last couple of comment..."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."<br /><br />Reminder: 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.<br /><br />-Wm<br />wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-77217475284139156682013-02-01T07:03:40.366-06:002013-02-01T07:03:40.366-06:00"This is your blog, and you have the right to..."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<br /><br />I 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. <br /><br />RLB also has a much greater patience threshold than me. He is the one who will decide if anyone ever gets banned or not. :)SarahsDaughterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11070845597474113030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-61617662921300086942013-02-01T00:52:52.413-06:002013-02-01T00:52:52.413-06:00I think you are confusing what society does and wh...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.redlegbenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06695513683497743566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-81020780455606540182013-02-01T00:38:34.598-06:002013-02-01T00:38:34.598-06:00If it were morally the same, it would be church ap...If it were morally the same, it would be church approved. It isn't morally the same and therefore needs guidance by the church.<br /><br />The 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.<br /><br />Romans is all about living in the land of chaos. It's good stuff.redlegbenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06695513683497743566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-57365966365600501782013-01-31T17:04:55.876-06:002013-01-31T17:04:55.876-06:00One more, this time to answer a concrete question:...One more, this time to answer a concrete question: "Okay, give me some evidence. When and where has it happened several times before?"<br /><br />Examples 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?)<br /><br />"How is it a known problem? Links, Bible verses, etc."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"Show me how the biblical practice of polygamy is worse than feminism in the church."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"Is it only a problem because of the numbers of unattached men?"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"How would that be worse than the trend of unattached men we are experiencing now?"<br /><br />A larger and less reversible trend would be worse.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />-Wm<br />wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-68859475114296188742013-01-31T17:02:03.193-06:002013-01-31T17:02:03.193-06:00I'm sorry, I think I missed seeing the post wh...I'm sorry, I think I missed seeing the post where you suggested you might ban me.<br /><br />I 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.<br /><br />I agree with your definition of pedanticism, by the way. Does it count as irony that I agree with it?<br /><br />"You have made many statements in this thread without any backing other than 'Wm has said so.'"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />-Wm<br />wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-50217275558803056552013-01-31T15:46:16.549-06:002013-01-31T15:46:16.549-06:00"whereas if a married man has sex with a virg..."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."<br /><br />The 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.)<br /><br />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.wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-16313481571503928762013-01-31T15:26:08.631-06:002013-01-31T15:26:08.631-06:00First, I don't think it's accurate to say ...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.<br /><br />Second, "society" is important. Don't simply dismiss it. We're talking about what society has actually done, for goodness sake.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-60817239206448016892013-01-31T00:34:47.339-06:002013-01-31T00:34:47.339-06:00Polygamy is _dangerous_. In a society where it alr...<b>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.</b><br /><br />I 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.<br /><br />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.redlegbenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06695513683497743566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-60205310657698425812013-01-29T13:33:52.764-06:002013-01-29T13:33:52.764-06:00I almost agree. A sermon along these lines would b...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.<br /><br />The 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.<br /><br />First, you're assuming that society CAN (pragmatically) combat divorce-based serial polyandry with polygyny.<br /><br />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.")<br /><br />Third, you're assuming that preaching in favor of polygyny is a legitimate function of the Church.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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).<br />wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-32734595983688984652013-01-28T18:11:15.477-06:002013-01-28T18:11:15.477-06:00"No, I'm referring to the average Christi..."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."<br /><br />This 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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />-Wm<br />wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3115260514178140021.post-11432472691091210122013-01-28T17:39:56.140-06:002013-01-28T17:39:56.140-06:00"Single men, are paying for the women and chi..."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."<br /><br />This 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Hmm... Perhaps I'm wrong. Let's look at this, so you'll have a chance to correct me.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Time to take a break. What am I missing here?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />-Wm<br />wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.com