Posted on 06/09/2017 9:25:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Thanks, Capt. Obvious!
And a man can take care of several wives whereas one wife can't take care of several husbands," the CBN chairman said.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! That simply doesn't follow!
Except for the issue of uncertain paternity, and perhaps high female mortality due to child birth, the most-efficient system (from the point of view of economic security) would be, say, two men and one wife.
Even in technologically primitive societies - like the Bronze Age civilizations of the Old Testament or the Iron Age civilizations of the New Testament - one wife should be perfectly capable of maintaining a household and raising the children of two men - who, according to Robertson, are usually off at war, anyway. And two men could better provide for the material needs of a wife and children than just one man.
Regards,
this does not yield a consistent model of g*d’s intention as expressed in differences between the old and new testaments. for example, pork is interpreted as OK to eat in the new testament but it is not kosher in the old.
Peter canonized Paul’s writings as the Word of God and Pat Robertson knows better.
Christianity’s often been flexible on the subject. For example German’s tribes who accepted Christianity were allowed to keep their multiple wives but no future extra person marriages allowed. It’s one of those things that happens from time to time that’s not ideal so it’s suppressed without breaking up existing structures.
Casimir was certainly a great man of history and does deserve much higher acclaim than he presently gets. His reign was a credit to the system of Monarchy especially considering so many monarchs in history were outright denizens.
A thoroughly humanitarian, decent, wise, compassionate and ethical person of great scholarly learning and military feats. He was also tall and said to be handsome his whole life and basically had a 100% approval rating. He must have somehow pleased God before he was born.
Christ has one bride.
That’s the model, Patty boy.
Paul and Peter were contemporaries. Even if Peter deemed some of Paul’s writings to be important, logically, we don’t know exactly which writings Peter was referring to. We don’t even know if Peter died after Paul or before Paul.
The only formal canonization of anything was during the Council of Trent (1545-1563).
If Jesus had something important to say about polygamy or anything else, why would he not it himself?
Actually, there are no biblical examples of a woman having more than 1 husband, as the article defined polygamy. So the article is ,on the surface, a blatant attempt to start problems. I’ll leave it at that.
I don’t know if Pat’s right or not, but 1 Timothy is referring only to bishops.
This smells like the “Jesus never condemned homosexuality (so it must be okay)” talking point the homosexuals make when there are plenty of other OT and NT places in the Bible condemning homosexuality.
Church elders are expected to be “the husband of one wife” but that’s not a blanket denouncement of polygamy, only for those who aspire to higher office within the church. I suspect, just like the homosexual claim, that the issue wasn’t a big item on the agenda at the time.
And, yes, dear old Pat is reaching senility.
You know, Jesus never said anything against hacking into email servers, so it must be okay...
The Bible doesn’t prohibit building a rendering plant in a middle class neighborhood either.
“Abraham had one but used a concubine/maid at her behest”.
“That didn’t end well”
There’s a lesson in there somewhere...
I come from a long line of Freemasons, my experience is a bit different.
The altruistic work and monies provided to children’s hospitals and burn centers is without question, a noble undertaking. And given the amount of effort and time required to support these worthy causes is notable, and at times detrimental to the needs of the family.
Growing up in a Masonic household and around family, friends, and relatives who were all masonic was much different than the implication that they were/are all devout, practicing Christians is not entirely accurate. Just as the implication that those seated in the pews of churches across the broad spectrum of denominations are all devout, practicing Christians.
Both are false assumptions.
OK - says Bishops/teachers of the Good news should be married to one person 9and not single unless one wants to listen to Paul’s personal preferences), but what does it say about the average Joe?
Adam and EVE, not “Eves”
” and God created them male and female, for this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE, and the two shall be one flesh”
Hint- It is in the first book of the OT. You can find it.
I doubt you will find any reference to any policy/command or hint from God for man to round up a harem....
He knew what the outcome of that perversion of His creation would end like.
“Huh, what is Robertson’s problem? 1 Timothy is very clear.”
I agree with you that polygamy and polyandry are not Christian practices, but 1 Timothy is not as perfect a proof text as you might think.
1) The verse in question is about bishops. That’s not about other believers.
2) And we know there were bishops with no wives at all. Thus, the verse limits bishops to one wife, doesn’t mandate they have any, and still says nothing about everyone else.
3) People interested in polygamy are interested in it because of their own sexual desires and not because of anything scripture says anyway.
Robertson must be infected with the McCain syndrome
Yeah....me too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.