[Auntie Dem]

Oh, please do show where God approves and accepts polygamy. Your interpretation appears to be very private, LOL.

You can't be serious. Do you not agree that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon all had multiple wives?

Are you saying these prophets (save David and Solomon) were not righteous men? Please provide scriptures where God censured these prophets for multiple wives.

The so-called "moral" aversion to multiple wives is a relatively modern invention by apostate christianity, fueled by scriptural ignorance and tinted by puritanical tenets. Modern feminism has also had a hand in portraying the Patriarchal Order, the patriarchs themselves, and specifically polygamy as abusive. I would hardly think Freepers would give feminists any credit for geting anything right. LOL.

[djreece]

I did not dispute that several in the Old Testament times had multiple wives. I disputed your assertion that God accepted and approved it as part of His plan.

At times David and Solomon were righteous men; at times they were absolutely evil. By your standard, we would also have to say God approved and accepted adultery and murder and idolatry as these two did these acts as well as polygamy. Furthermore, IIRC Isaac and Moses did not have multiple wives.

The development of polygamy and its promotion by certain sects of Christians was and is an affront to God. The whole record of polygamy in the Bible shows that it was an evil corruption of God's plan for the family that led to jealousy and strife.

However, if you see being one of many wives as the key to your personal happiness, I invite you to head on down to San Francisco City Hall where everyone is busy "doing what is right in their own eyes."

[supercat]

The so-called "moral" aversion to multiple wives is a relatively modern invention by apostate christianity, fueled by scriptural ignorance and tinted by puritanical tenets.

More likely it's a recognition that if males and females exist in roughly equal numbers, allowing some men to have multiple wives will mean others won't get any.

Modern feminism has also had a hand in portraying the Patriarchal Order, the patriarchs themselves, and specifically polygamy as abusive. I would hardly think Freepers would give feminists any credit for geting anything right. LOL. It's interesting to note that in Old-Testament times, wives were considered assets while in later times they were considered liabilities. I suspect this is precisely because of the bans on polygyny; when polygyny was legal, it created a shortage of marriageable women, and thus men would have to compete for wives.

BTW, a couple of more general notes on the subject:

• Polygyny has been widely, albeit sparsely, accepted in various cultures throughout the world and throughout history; polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands) has never been so accepted. I think the biological reasons should be clear, but the assymetry is interesting. Note also the decidedly assymetric definition of adultery in the Bible, again considering the biological implications.
• Are there any vertibrate animal species in which males and females have roles which are identical except for reproduction? Feminists seem to think humans must be unique in that regard.