You have to prove your implied thesis: that everything God permits is what He desires most for His children.
That is disproven, since Jesus instructs us that His Father permitted divorce under the law of Moses because of man's weakness.
Is the capacity to divorce a blessing that God desires and encourages?
No.
It is a concession He had made to man's sin-flawed nature.
Abraham took a concubine because he was impatient with God's promise of descendants.
Jacob took concubines because he was immorally deceived into marrying his first wife and the rest because of infertility.
David took multiple wives ebcause 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.
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. There was no need to look beyond Sarah for the son of the promise, but Abraham did anyway.
You say he did so because of some special blessing to be found in polygamy.
there is no Scriptural evidence for this.
What we do see here is what we see here continually throughout Scripture: God being exceedingly good, and ungrateful men not appreciating their blessings but reaching for more.
Persecution is not a curse
LOL! What a bizarre statement.
We seem to have problem here with the confusion of Opinion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion) and Fact (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fact). Many on this forum continually state their opinion as fact. I understand this proclivity as the Media today does this all the time. However, it does not become us, and it does not make for polite and rational discussions (however it can be fun to attack with logic, and I am having fun on this thread!)
Congratulations on the most condescendingly egomaniacal paragraph i've read on FR in some time.
>>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.