Posted on 12/13/2006 10:36:35 AM PST by Bushwacker777
bump for later
>>I have.
You have what? Oh ok I’ll go see which of my posts you are replying to. (hint when replying to a questions, include the question)
The questions I believe you are replying to is “OK, then logically disprove it.”
Syllogism Go look it up (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Syllogism)
The Syllogism works like this
Major term: God approves of Abraham (God says so, several places and over time).
Minor term: Abraham was polygamous, before during and after God says this
Conclusion: God approves of Polygamy.
I never said “If God allows it, it is approved”, that is your own construct.
>>You have to prove your implied thesis: that everything God permits is what He desires most for His children.
That is NOT what I said, if I had said what you think I said, then I would be wrong this is precisely why you need to look up what people say, not what they are said to have said.
My logical construct stands, unless you disagree with it’s specific points (the Major and the Minor terms)
>>That is disproven, since Jesus instructs us that His Father permitted divorce under the law of Moses because of man's weakness.
Let me say this in really small words.
Divorce is not polygamy.
>>Abraham took a concubine because he was impatient with God's promise of descendants.
You have proof of this? Please source this currently unsubstantiated statement or stop making it.
>>Jacob took concubines because he was immorally deceived into marrying his first wife and the rest because of infertility.
So we can make excuses to God as to why we committed our sins? (This is a ludicrous argument, either it’s a sin or not) I can see it now, but God, my wife was really ugly, and my secretary was really cute… (Anybody think God is going to buy that line?)
>>David took multiple wives because Saul had multiple wives, and given the nature of Saul's ascendancy in Israel, repudiation of any of Saul's wives would be a repudiation of the alliances forged through those marriages that kept Israel a unified nation.
And this government was set up by? Prophets at the request of the people.
Any one want to guess what God’s response would be if a group of people wanted God to make fornication with the same sex legal? (Remember Sodom and Gomorra?)
BTW, there is no Scriptural evidence that Bathsheba was a Hittite. She had a Hebrew name and so did her father. And of course, David's own great-grandmother was a non-Israelite Moabite married to an Israelite - and that Moabite-marrying Israelite was indeed blessed by being made the forefather of the King of Israel and of the Messiah.
>>>>Got Scripture?
It has been cited. Isaac the heir was born to Sarah as God promised.
And this has no bearing as to what people were thinking, and to the status of Wives and Concubines
There was no need to look beyond Sarah for the son of the promise, but Abraham did anyway.
And God did not say he was sinning and even blessed him after this “Sin “ in your eyes and commended him for his righteousness, he was given the title “the Friend of God” for Pete’s sake!
>>You say he did so because of some special blessing to be found in polygamy.
I never said that.
>>there is no Scriptural evidence for this.
That would be why I did not say that.
Persecution is not a curse
LOL! What a bizarre statement.
How many places do the “Righteous get persecuted? How often does that bring therm back to God when they are straying?
Congratulations on the most condescendingly egomaniacal paragraph I’ve read on FR in some time.
Why thank you, I worked hard on it. Now I suppose I will have to beat my own record as the records we set are the only ones worth exceeding.
>>It's clear that polygamy - like divorce - was a concession made to man's
>>weakness in the preMessianic period, not a sin but not a laudable practice either.
Please cite the scripture where this is stated.
>>Not only does Jesus describe marriage as being between a man and a woman, but
>>he sets aside divorce as a no-longer-acceptable concession to man's weakness.
Yes, the marriage covenant was taken one man and one woman at a time even when one man is marrying more than one woman in total. (I guess also when one woman is marrying more than one man, but that’s a little out of scope for this discussion.)
>>The New Testament, whenever it discusses marriage, assumes monogamy as the underlying standard.
The underlying standard, yes, the only righteous one? That is an assumption that cannot be proved with the current scriptures, and gets even less likely as one goes back to the original language.
>>Christians have never practiced polygamy and never accepted it as permissible.
This is not true.
>>For a Christian to permit it or engage in it would be a complete repudiation of the highest historical standards of Christian behavior as practiced from the apostolic age down to this.
Let’s have some fun with this, shall we?
So, why are nuns referred to as Brides of Christ?
How many wives does Jesus get to have? (or get stuck with depending on your point of view)
Why are priests celibate? (I know a great joke about the missing “R”, but not now)
Why was it OK for a mountain man to marry a white woman, and several Indian squas?
Why was monogamy only adopted after the bulk of Christians were no longer of the tribes of Israel?
Why is there no scripture that clearly states “Polygamy Bad” as there are with so many other things?
Why did many of the patriarchs of the Old Testament have more than one wife?
Why was it accepted?
These patriarchs were obedient in so many things to assume that they were law breakers in this one is inconsistent.
Is it the Bible that is saying this, or are is the Bible being interpreted?
Please understand that I am doing this mostly for fun, but also because I believe your position is illogical and not in agreement with the Bible as written.
I believe the case for Monogamy being “the norm” that is expected can be made from the Bible, I believe that polygamy is also an acceptable variant of marriage to God. I believe God is more concerned about how we treat our wives (or wife) and Children than how many of them there are. I believe God also cares more that we stay within the bounds of Matrimony than how many wives we commit to. But this is just my opinion; see I know the difference between my opinion and fact.
I believe that man who lives in harmony, respect and love with more than one wife is closer to heaven than a man who lives with only one and beats and curses her.
I intend to live in peace, harmony and love with my one wife, and that is good enough for me.
Let me guess. The stuff added in is the stuff that doesn't fit your beliefs.
It may be Jewish but it isn't Christian.
Are you LDS?
>>Ah, I have figured you out.
Please explain me to my wife as she never has "figured me out".
>>You are either a Mormon like the guy the post is about or you tend to think of women as property.
I have never hidden the fact that I am a Mormon. However this gentleman (and I am being kind) is not. Mormons do not practice polygamy, you would be excommunicated faster than you could say “oops”.
As for the “women as property”, nope never owned any. (grin) My wife however might shock you. She thinks that (and I am NOT saying this, she did) women should never have gotten the vote. She thinks that modern Liberalism would never have existed if the fairer sex was not voting. This could spawn a whole series of threads as polls are re-evaluated, etc.
>> In fact a lot of the men in the OT tended to treat women as property.
There are many cultural differences of how women are and were treated, I spent some time in Taiwan (a mission) and was shocked at how the women were treated there.
I did note that the enforcers of female subjugation were other women, the men just accepted it, and took advantage of it.
>> BTW, you tend to put so much stock in the OT, and discount the NT and the teachings of Jesus. Whatever trips your trigger.
The New Testament has to be examined in the context of the old as that was the culture Jesus and all the disciples grew up in. I also assume that God in the Old Testament is still God in the new, and I heard somewhere that he was unchanging, so…
I don’t mind having my trigger tripped, as long as I don’t go off half cocked.
>>>>Sometimes it is hard to distinguish what is Paul's words and what was added in later.
>>Let me guess. The stuff added in is the stuff that doesn't fit your beliefs.
LOL, aint it the truth!
>>Are you LDS?
Yes, what demonination do you adhere to?
Methodist. You are one of the few LDS folks I have met who will discuss polygamy.
>>Methodist.
My parents were Methodists before they joined, I have lots of relatives over there, Good upstanding group too. (I also have some Calvinists; they are all fun to talk to about religion)
>>You are one of the few LDS folks I have met who will discuss polygamy.
Why thank you. I believe if you are a true believer, nothing about your religion scares you. (Having grown up in the buckle of the Bible belt, Iowa, I got a lot of persecution by school mates, so I have heard almost everything) I am never afraid of an honest discussion, or an honest question. I have fun with the "When did you stop beating your wife" questions (like before we met, Grin) and love to learn about all religion.
Thank you for being so polite, it’s a rare commodity these days and according to the laws of economics should be more highly valued than it is.
I hope you don't mean the Methodists. The UMC as a whole is apostate. There are some refuges here and there.
The LDS has to wrestle with the original church teachings vs the revised church teachings vs the modern church teachings. Polygamy may have been an early belief but it works only as a last resort. It got the numbers up anyway. But the smartest thing they ever did was throw polygamy under the bus. It's a nightmare for a society where the number of women and men are equal. What ya'll do in the Celestial Kingdom is your own affair.
So how do you defend your beliefs that polygamy was ok, even though Jesus taught against it?
Is it because Joe Smith practiced it, so it had to be ok with God?
What about the fact that he sent men off and then married their wives? Isn't that like what David did with Bathsheba?
>>>>Good upstanding group too
>>I hope you don't mean the Methodists. The UMC as a whole is apostate.
>>There are some refuges here and there.
I meant my Extended family, they are the bulk of the Methodists I know.
>>The LDS has to wrestle with the original church teachings vs the revised
>>church teachings vs the modern church teachings.
I have no problem with it, Jesus came and fulfilled the law of Moses (so I can have a ham sandwich) God tells you when to and when to stop doing something. It’s that simple.
Polygamy may have been an early belief but it works only as a last resort.
There are a lot fo reasons for polygamy, and a lot of reasons against. I personally am happy I don’t have to make that decision.
>>So how do you defend your beliefs that polygamy was ok, even though Jesus taught against it?
I don’t defend my beliefs, I don’t have to, but I do answer questions (grin see what I said about having fun?)
Q: even though Jesus taught against it? (polygamy)
A He never did teach against polygamy. Your opinion is no more binding on me than my beliefs are on you.
Is it because Joe Smith practiced it, so it had to be ok with God?
First, his name is Joseph Smith, please have the courtesy to spell things completely, familiar terms are for those who are familiar with the person they are being used for.
Have you ever said a prayer?
Did you get an answer?
If you went on an internet forum and someone told you your answer (to your prayer, from God) was a lie, while acting in an ignorant and bigoted manner, how much credence would you give them?
I am being kind to you, and you don’t even know it. (sad really)
>>What about the fact that he sent men off and then married their wives?
Fact: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fact) Something has to be true to be a fact, this is not a fact.
I have researched this accusation extensively and it cannot be proven because of the number of documents that have been forged and passed off as historically accurate by enemies of the church. (do some research on Mark Hoffman http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mark+hoffman I recommend wikipedia as it has a fairly accurate history, Mark the best known because he started blowing things up)
There are even accounts by women of the period who never met Joseph Smith about how they were his wife in some way.
Were their problems with Polygamy? Certainly. Were they because Men did not live up to the commandments they were given? Certainly? Were people trying to do anything lewd and lascivious? I sure there people were and are, but I believe my church leaders are separate from that particular group.
Isn't that like what David did with Bathsheba?
A: Who died? Murder is an unpardonable sin, bigamy, adultery, theft, even sodomy are all forgivable. (not that I am admitting your accusation, I reject it, but your comparison is not apt.)
>> You don't give up, do you?
I also don’t give out, and I don’t give in.
>> AAAHHH!
I have that effect on a lot of people, Grin.
>> I have seen it spelled either way, Joe or Joseph; I didn't know it was offensive. Sorry.
I have seen a lot of people try to make fun, they always spell it Joe. IF no offense was meant, none taken, it is Joseph though.
>> To me polygamy is just a way of men getting all the sex they want, with a variety of women
Are you a woman then? Your page says “Nothing to see here.“ and it is accurate. I know some women who have grown up in polygamous families, they can’t see it any other way, and the guy typically doesn’t seem to get “More” if you know what I mean. When one wife gets mad, they all get mad. How would it be to be kicked out of four beds at once? Then, they all tend to get “In synch” so that is still a problem, Plus four(4) honey do lists? I’m very happy with just one wife, thank you.
>> Men are born with the desire to do such things.
From a logical perspective, without physical intimacy why would any man want to get married?
>> Its one of their vices.
Actually, since I agree the desire for physical intimacy is a constant with guys, God must have designed it that way.
I mean this seriously, men think in straight lines you tell us a problem, we tell you our solution.
Women think in curves and arcs. They want to tell you their problem, in excruciating detail, they want you to agree that it’s terrible and bring up other episodes to wallow in emotionally, but don’t you dare try to solve the problem!
Then there’s the does X make me look Y questions. Look, we guys are fashion and style challenged, that’s why we take you with us to buy a suit, remember? So asking our opinion on clothing sounds to us (after the first couple of times) like “Hey, you, Wanna fight?”
Guys are simple, not stupid, not feeling less, just simple. Women are complicated. There is only one reason we would commit (initially) to putting up with all that “Stuff” and if that goes away, well there goes the human race.
>> Women tend to not be created in the same manner.
Thank the lord! You are also tempting me to tell several jokes, I will do my best to refrain.
>> They have vices too mind you.
Agreed.
BTW, I am a male chauvinist pig. My wife likes me that way, and woe be to anyone who tries to make her step down from the pillar I have so loving placed her on. Her every wish is my command, and I worship the ground she walks on while opening doors and holding coats, carrying anything that looks heavy and slaying any dragon foolish enough to get in her way. So, before anyone tries to tell me how abominable I am behaving toward my wife, my wife and I like this relationship, just consider it a “lifestyle choice”, and don’t waste your breath.
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.