Polygamy and the Bible (Aberrant Theology Alert)

Wow!

It looks like it might be more a function of abilities...

...than anything else.

LoveDoc

Wow!

Poly Man Looking for More Love

It looks like it might be more a function of abilities ...

... than anything else.

Could be ...

Interesting reading.

Though, I cannot help but reflect that God's apparent ideal for mankind ... was what He setup in the Garden of Eden (i.e. one man ... one woman).

Polygamy only occurred ... after the fall.

It is clear that God allowed it (as God allows many other such things in our fallen world) ... though, of course, He never held it up as any kind of model to follow.

BTW ... further study in Genesis (4-6) shows that polygamous Lamech ... was not Noah's father.

There are (2) Lamech's whose lives are cited in those passages of Genesis ... one of the line of Cain (polygamous Lamech) ... and the other of the line of Seth (the father of Noah).

Polygamous Lamech's children are listed as sons Jubal, Jabal, Tubal... and a daughter Naamah. His life summary occurs in Genesis 4:16-24.

Noah's father Lamech's life summary occurs in Genesis 5:25-31.

Aha! The old 'Two Lamech's' ruse, huh? :)

I'll double check but, if true, I stand corrected.

I agree that polygamy is only mentioned as an acceptable practice after the fall.

And, after the resurrection, polygamy is further relegated in terms of acceptability. (Non-elders only.)

I also agree that for most people (fall or not) one man;one woman is both the ideal and optimal relationship in terms of efficacy and a whole lot of other considerations.

But, at the end of the day, one just hs to come to grips with the fact that the Scriptures tells us that GOD GAVE PEOPLE WIVES...that's plural... multiple wiveS.

And that, we still are living in a post-fall world. I agree with the minister who said 'What Jesus did FOR us in the Garden of Gethsemane was greater than what Adam did TO us in the Garden of Eden.
Nonetheless, we STILL have Adam's nature. Sadly, that's not been 'undone' by the process of becoming born again.

My conclusion:

I've rarely if ever seen polygamy portrayed in a way that does not creep me out. This includes the 'singles ad' I posted (which by the way, if you dig deep enough into the parent root of that site, you'll find the infamous Tom Green's family pictured as well.)

But it is not scripturally verboten (except as mentioned above.)

Nonetheless this was STILL a moot point in my view, as we are obliged to obey the rules of the land as they are God's agents (according to Romans.)

And a given society has every right in the world to OUTLAW polygamy if it wants.

But, after Lawrence v Texas, any laws prohibiting cohabiting with more than one woman are are unconstitutional.

Therefore it is no longer illegal in the USA. (Although there no doubt will be a whole lot of legal wrangling before Lawrence actually gets applied correctly to a cohabitation test case.)

Therefore, polygamy is a legitimate and legal option in the USA for those men who do not aspire to be elders.

LoveMan

Ps Sorry if I lumped you in with the 'Man-Haters' crowd. I'm willing to withdraw that designation as well. I just find it ironic that people would fight so hard against polygamy which the scripture CLEARLY does not condemn and yet say or do nothing about the myriad of churches that allow women to be elders (or divorced men for that matter.) Not to mention the softness which the church in general approaches matters of divorce these days.

I still suspect MOST of the objection to polygamy as women not wanting men to 'have their cake and eat it' irrespective of what the scripture actually says...

UPDATE: You're PROBABLY wrong with your 'Two Lamech's' ruse.

Both Lamech's (I italicize because I believe there was actually only one Lamech) had as ancestors people named Irad/Jared, Enoch and Methusaleh/Methujael.

Keep in mind, this was at the beginning of mankind. Not a whole lot of branches coming off of family trees at this point.

Plus, using YOUR proof text, it says that after Noah was born to 'Good' Lamech (good of course meaning NON-poly!) "Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters."

Some of those other sons and daughters could include the ones you ascribe to 'bad' Lamech - Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-Cain etc.

Sorry, but given the lineage similarities and the time in the history of mankind that this occurred, my explanation is A LOT MORE PLAUSIBLE than your:

Two Lamech's ruse.

LOL!

LoveMan

Here's more:

Lamech, the descendant of Cain, is the individual at the end of one of the genealogies of Adam, on the line descending from Cain.

For reasons of similarity between the two lines, critical scholarship regards this Lamech, and the Lamech at the end of the other line, who is father of Noah, as one and the same individual.

UPDATE: You're PROBABLY wrong with your 'Two Lamech's' ruse.

Both Lamech's (I italicize because I believe there was actually only one Lamech) had as ancestors people named Irad/Jared, Enoch and Methusaleh/Methujael.

I agree ... both Lamechs have similarly named persons in the lineage, ... but we wouldn't think that this was strange if we were looking at folk named John, James, Judas, ... etc.

And those similarly named individuals fall in a different order in the lineages.

Also ... there is a (non-canonical) book of Enoch ... which lends credence to the two Lamechs theory.

Keep in mind, this was at the beginning of mankind. Not a whole lot of branches coming off of family trees at this point.

There were ... at least ... two ... Cain's and Seth's.

And one of the Lamechs is cited as belonging in each of these two lines.

Well, since this is so tangential to the point.

And, since I've already won the debate, PROVING that Bible does not outright condemn polygamy, but allows each man (and society) the freedom to make it's own choices in this matter...

...I'll cede the debate as to how many Lamechs, Cains, Seths (or Adam & Eve's for that matter) there were back then...

...to others.

LoveDoc

Ps Someone's got to know, right?