adultery is (whatever)
ok but we’re talking marriage, not adultery. There is no guilt associated with something (polygamy) that is not ever condemned.
adam was given only one woman
so what? never does that preclude many to one relationships. and why bring up just one example? why not bring up solomon, for example? and i thought the original thrust of your argument was that male and female somehow implied monogamy. you are straining and stretching.
with this same logic, Christ...
this is your inference, but it is not logically . inferred. let’s extract the essence of your logic, which is: “relationship R1 was 1 to 1. therefore all relationships R2, R3, ... R-infinity must be 1 to 1.” extrapolated without logical justification— yes. logically inferred— no.
so what if divorce was not condemned in the OT? I don’t know if it was or was not. I was not addressing divorce, only the polygamy type of marriage. You are the one who keeps bringing up straw person arguments concerning side issues. I am not here arguing against Christ condemning divorce, because you have not demonstrated that divorce is logically relevant to the topic of polygamy, at least in the sense that condemning one implies condemning the other.
Be logical first. Without logic, we abandon our reason to emotions. Then we start finding meanings that we want to find rather than meanings that are. History is full of wars that were fought over this type of stuff. I am not a fan of illogical religious wars. Alas, illogical religious wars continue.
Adultery is the major issue here, it is the sin that Christ specifically says they are guilty of. Look at its definition, which I posted to someone else in this thread.
It is clear that it is adultery because the marriage, in the first place, is not severed. Because it is not really severed, it is necessarily adultery when someone marries and has sex with someone else. IOW, they are guilty of intercourse with someone else's spouse.
so what? never does that preclude many to one relationships. and why bring up just one example? why not bring up solomon, for example? and i thought the original thrust of your argument was that male and female somehow implied monogamy. you are straining and stretching.
I might have worded it poorly, but my meaning was, "God made Adam and Eve," one man, one husband. This is the same logic that Christ also uses in explaining the indissolubly of marriage (except in cases of fornication). Would you say that Christ's logic is incorrect here?
so what if divorce was not condemned in the OT?
It means that saying that polygamy was not condemned proves nothing, since neither was divorce.