Polygyny

[Tlalynet]

Ok, I got some free time and feel like doing debate prep. Odds are that at some point in my life I will actually need to stand up for Polygyny, so whos got some Biblical\Rational arguments against it?


For clairities sake I came by by beleif in the validity of polygyny honestly, that is to say I found out my wife liked girls. I set out to find where the Bible prohibited this but found that I had to add to scripture if I wanted it to be wrong and I just cant do that and maintain a good concience. OT refers only to dudes with dudes and NT has an AND statment attached to words against chicks with chicks. That is, If neglecting their natural use, chicks are with chicks. For natural use as far as I can figure it is either, Childbearing, or being a companion and support to a hubby. If its the first that raises further questions about les couples that have kids that might make a good debate, if its the second then it raises the question about how two married chicks could be together without causing problems between their hubbies. Only legit solution IMO is polygyny, so thus the study of les evolved into a study of polygyny.
A couple years study of polygamy, polygyny ect yeidlded both my position that it is biblically acceptable and in certin cases expidient, and naturally its been applied to my life. Im not presently polygynus but should the opportunity arise I must take it for her sake.

[Little Shepherd]

Even in the Bible, when men had multiple wives they didn't sleep with each other. They had separate marriage beds, and often separate living quarters. You don't have to add anything to the Bible -- the prohibition against sleeping with one wife in the marriage bed of another is right there. So you can only sleep with one wife at a time.

Also, the condemnation against homosexuality is universal, and applies to both men and women. Romans makes that very clear. You assume that the word "and" there changes the meaning in such a way that you can find a loophole -- it doesn't. So even if you have two wives, they cannot sleep with each other.

You're attempting to defend the indefensible here. The sooner you realize this, the better. Your wife should have enough self control not to act on her wrong desires, and you should be more resolved in your commitment to Christ and not so willing to do wrong in order to indulge her wrong desires.

[Tlalynet]

Yeah we had the start of this in the Homosexuality thread.

"the prohibition against sleeping with one wife in the marriage bed of another is right there."
Where? If you are going to make a point you should bring in a refrence to actually discuss.

Romans has two clauses, if there are two clauses to a proof then both must be fulfilled, else you belive that he who confesses Christ has no need to belive in him to be saved. Even then its not particularily clear, wasnt it years ago used to say that a woman should be a homemaker and not work ouside the home?

The OT was very clearly unclear on the issue, so much so that a prohibion to lesbianism was added latter as part of Rabbatical tradition (Which I do not abide by, obviously).

"Even in the Bible... They had separate marriage beds, and often separate living quarters."
I could go for a difinitive refrence on this one too. Granted this is the coustom of Mormons but bear in mind I wont accept Mormon modifications to the bible as refrences.

Tsk, pretty bold for someone talking out of their hat. You should really have some refrences so we have some context to discuss. As it sits your coming off very much in the same way as those who absalutely condemn alcahol, especially with saying "You're attempting to defend the indefensible here." after launching an attack of oppinion. I have freinds who drink, if it caused them harm they would give it up, even with them i've had people say I shouldnt put up with it and "indulge (their) wrong desires. " Certinly drinking is wrong in some circumstances, but moderation is not a 'loophole' to allow drinking, its the context in which it must be done.

Any way about it she had given it up, we undertook the study to get a clearer view of why she had to.

Tsk, I expected better than a twice agreed two statment of oppinion...

[Teallaura]

Um, where are your citations? Same charge can rightfully be leveled at you since you have not cited Scripture even once. Where are the specific citations of the verses/passages you claim support your position?

Trot 'em out, boy.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I hate to tell you this, but Romans 1, the word function, only has one meaning.


FUNCTION!

LilShep is right on in what he has said. It is an unnatural desire and we should not give in to unnatural desires.

[Tlalynet]

Unless you belive that everything we do has to be santioned in scriputre burden of proof is on the person saying you should not do something. If that wasnt so using a computer could be condemnable becaue the bible never said you could. The person saying computer usuage is allowed could not open his argument from scriputre nor would he be required to.
Certinly you realize burden of proof lies on the person condemning not the defence...

Pheonix,
So, your saying the people in the sex rev era who used the romans passage to say women who stay at home where wrong? Yeah, I know, I know alcahol is ok too. Alright I'll give that what is translated here as use or function is a direct refrence to sex. That said the word translated from exchange to exchange or change means exchange, and a nessisary part of exchange is loss of the original, else it would be an addition or purchase.

Really now, you are all good at discussion and know where burden of proof lies.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Pheonix,
So, your saying the people in the sex rev era who used the romans passage to say women who stay at home where wrong? Yeah, I know, I know alcahol is ok too. Alright I'll give that what is translated here as use or function is a direct refrence to sex. That said the word translated from exchange to exchange or change means exchange, and a nessisary part of exchange is loss of the original, else it would be an addition or purchase.

Really now, you are all good at discussion and know where burden of proof lies.

Oh wow. Unless I agree with every misinterpretation of the passage, I cannot agree with the proper interpretation? Guess what! It does mean the loss of the original! What is the original design of a woman? To desire a man! Women are made to be attracted to men and men to women. Thank you for agreeing with my point!

[Tlalynet]

Rom 1 tends to wind down into a semantic game if keep on it, unless someone has something conclusive as to why change does not mean change when you dont like what it implies and we get a good discussion out of that I'll just concede Rom 1:26 to you within the confines of this discussion so I can work on a more intersting front line concerning the bigger context of the chapter.

[Trout]

Any bad behavior that anyone wants to engage in can be prooftext from scripture and validated by a teacher somewhere.

Homosexuality isn't condoned in scripture.

Polygamy doesn't seem to be what God intended, creating only 1 wife for Adam.

After reading a few of your posts it appears to me that you want only to listen to yourself talk.

Well . . . have at it.

[Tlalynet]

"Oh wow. Unless I agree with every misinterpretation of the passage, I cannot agree with the proper interpretation? Guess what! It does mean the loss of the original! What is the original design of a woman? To desire a man! Women are made to be attracted to men and men to women. Thank you for agreeing with my point! "

Yes Pheonix, thank you for agreeing with my larger point, specifically "It does mean the loss of the original! ". The line of reasoning isnt fulfilled unless the original is lost.
Its the best work against the secondary question but unless someone willing to fully take up the second position arises it doesent matter much, I put it out because I havent really heard out a fully les prespective and I'd want to hear it if anyone has it.

[Shadow Phoenix]

"Oh wow. Unless I agree with every misinterpretation of the passage, I cannot agree with the proper interpretation? Guess what! It does mean the loss of the original! What is the original design of a woman? To desire a man! Women are made to be attracted to men and men to women. Thank you for agreeing with my point! "

Yes Pheonix, thank you for agreeing with my larger point, specifically "It does mean the loss of the original! ". The line of reasoning isnt fulfilled unless the original is lost.
Its the best work against the secondary question but unless someone willing to fully take up the second position arises it doesent matter much, I put it out because I havent really heard out a fully les prespective and I'd want to hear it if anyone has it.

The secondary question is irrelevant here. This is not about a woman's place in the home but in creation and that is with the desires for another man. Even if she chooses to not fulfill those as a nun won't, that is still to be her natural bent. It is not against nature for a nun to find a man attractive. It is for her to find a woman attractive.

[Tlalynet]

"Polygamy doesn't seem to be what God intended, creating only 1 wife for Adam"
Thats borderline stupid... Flight doesent seem to be what God inteanded creating Adam without an airoplane...

"Homosexuality isn't condoned in scripture. "
Come on now, like I said computer useage isnt condoned either. We dont need scripture to condone everything. A man sleeping with another man IS directly prohibited by scripture, thus we have rules against it, now we are discussing the other case.

"Any bad behavior that anyone wants to engage in can be prooftext from scripture and validated by a teacher somewhere."
Yes, but Christians also have a bad tennancy to say things that are ok are wrong, hence all the talk about alcahol.

[Trout]

"Polygamy doesn't seem to be what God intended, creating only 1 wife for Adam"
Thats borderline stupid... Flight doesent seem to be what God inteanded creating Adam without an airoplane...

"Homosexuality isn't condoned in scripture. "
Come on now, like I said computer useage isnt condoned either. We dont need scripture to condone everything. A man sleeping with another man IS directly prohibited by scripture, thus we have rules against it, now we are discussing the other case.

"Any bad behavior that anyone wants to engage in can be prooftext from scripture and validated by a teacher somewhere."
Yes, but Christians also have a bad tennancy to say things that are ok are wrong, hence all the talk about alcahol.

You're lying to yourself.

It's the power of sin. You want to engage in wrong behavior more so than you want to please God and live according to His plan.

You're not alone, everyone has that snake to kill.

But it's pretty ridiculous to try to make a case from scripture favoring homosexuality. But such is the blindness of sin.

[Tlalynet]

Bah, just three weeks ago I was listeing to an evangelist who, after numerus blaitent errors proclaims "Some of you wont be able to wrap your mind around this, some of you just arn't in tune with christ, but I have seen this truth: We have the GENES OF GOD!"
When I confronted him and presented my disagreement he too said it was sin and pride that motivated me to disagree with his pigs slop...

So far youve indirectly used the premise that we should all be like Adam, all our actions must be condoned by scripture and what, your dogma is right? Isnt that the same as the evolutuionist who says his beleif is true and proven but cant actually back it up? You got a unique revelation or something where proof doesent apply to you?

I have my share of sin to deal with certinly, but this is not it.

[Trout]

Bah, just three weeks ago I was listeing to an evangelist who, after numerus blaitent errors proclaims "Some of you wont be able to wrap your mind around this, some of you just arn't in tune with christ, but I have seen this truth: We have the GENES OF GOD!"
When I confronted him and presented my disagreement he too said it was sin and pride that motivated me to disagree with his pigs slop...

I don't find your statements any more truthful than the evangelist's statements. Both you and he are in error.

The truth is, you choose to hold as true the things that allow your wrong behavior and discard the others.


So far youve indirectly used the premise that we should all be like Adam, all our actions must be condoned by scripture and what, your dogma is right? Isnt that the same as the evolutuionist who says his beleif is true and proven but cant actually back it up? You got a unique revelation or something where proof doesent apply to you?

I have my share of sin to deal with certinly, but this is not it.

I don't know the caliber of evolutionists you've encountered, but many employ the same behavior as yourself. They choose to believe the data that helps their case and they marginalize the data that doesn't.

Look, you can do whatever you want and justify it somehow in scripture, but that doesn't mean what you're doing isn't sin. It just means that you're good at justifying wrong behavior.

[Tlalynet]

Do you have anything beyond your statments of oppinion here. How now are you different than those that assert dogmatically that no amount of alcahol is acceptable?
As much as you like to throw accusations of selectiveness right now you can be equelly accused of it, you want it to be wrong so anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

[Trout]

Do you have anything beyond your statments of oppinion here. How now are you different than those that assert dogmatically that no amount of alcahol is acceptable?

How now are you different than those who think it's OK to murder abortion doctors?

Both you and they justify wrong behavior Biblically.

[Tlalynet]

Well, there is a direct prohibition to murder for one thing, if someone wanted to discuss assasinations or killings of any sort it would be a discussion of its own and on its own grounds. Now then your turn. (Really it was your turn first)
How now are you different than those that assert dogmatically that no amount of alcahol is acceptable?

[Tlalynet]

And of course, do you have any evidince for your position, cause right now your just blowing steam...

[Em7add11]

(Really it was your turn first)

Technically, it was your turn first.

You made the initial assertion (by starting this thread) and then sort of rambled on for a paragraph but didn't really flesh out your argument.

You started into a couple of points:
OT refers only to dudes with dudes and NT has an AND statment attached to words against chicks with chicks.

A couple years study of polygamy, polygyny ect yeidlded both my position that it is biblically acceptable and in certin cases expidient[...]

But neither of those assertions is even followed up with a hint of how you came to those conclusions other than by a "couple years study".

So what you perceive as a lack of quality rebuttals is more of a call for you to actually present your case in the first place. You can't rebut an argument that hasn't been made. People here are very willing to have an in-depth discussion or debate about whether something is Biblical or even just generally a Good Ideatm. The problem is that you've only defined your 'What' but not your 'Why' behind it.

[Tlalynet]

"(Really, it was your turn first)"
This refered dirctly to Trout who asked a question without answering the one presented to him.

Yeah, the paragraph was just talking about background for information, the thread topic is "whos got some Biblical\Rational arguments against it (Polygyny)?"
There is no direct prohibition so nothing to flesh out untill you get into other froms of argument against it. The rebuttles are alright but many lack a substance other than oppinion. Hashing over Romans is pretty good, and overall the quesiton of 'is it ok for my wife to be with my girlfriend' isnt the principle topic anyway, but it brings up good discussion so I want to go with it.

Just please dont call Trout's banter quality rebuttles, the others I will give but not his...

[Trout]

Well, there is a direct prohibition to murder for one thing,

Which abortion is . . . murder.

So I guess you support the murder of abortion doctors as well as homosexuality and adultery.


if someone wanted to discuss assasinations or killings of any sort it would be a discussion of its own and on its own grounds.

I've seen people make a case from scripture that it's OK to kill homosexuals.

What makes you any different from them?


Now then your turn. (Really it was your turn first)
How now are you different than those that assert dogmatically that no amount of alcahol is acceptable?

Why would I want to venture into a Biblical discussion with you when it's obvious that the Bible is your wax nose, molded to suit any sinful situation you may want to engage in?

If you'd like to present positive evidence as to why homosexuality and adultery are OK with God, please do so. Otherwise recognize that you are no different than someone who kills abortion doctors.

[Teallaura]

Unless you belive that everything we do has to be santioned in scriputre burden of proof is on the person saying you should not do something. If that wasnt so using a computer could be condemnable becaue the bible never said you could. The person saying computer usuage is allowed could not open his argument from scriputre nor would he be required to.
Certinly you realize burden of proof lies on the person condemning not the defence...

Pheonix,
So, your saying the people in the sex rev era who used the romans passage to say women who stay at home where wrong? Yeah, I know, I know alcahol is ok too. Alright I'll give that what is translated here as use or function is a direct refrence to sex. That said the word translated from exchange to exchange or change means exchange, and a nessisary part of exchange is loss of the original, else it would be an addition or purchase.

Really now, you are all good at discussion and know where burden of proof lies.

Logical fallacy: shifting the burden. The thesis is yours and so is the burden of proof. The burden always lies with the proponent - that's you.

You presented the thesis under discussion without citations of any sort. If you wish to demand citations from everyone else it is incumbent on you to provide them for your own thesis - that would be true even if you weren't the proponent and didn't have the burden of proof - which you do.

Stop weaseling - trot out your citations and not just your hodge-podge of interpretations of uncited passages. Come on, get to it.

[Tlalynet]

How then is the burden on me? Because I asked who had a good argument against it? That action is acceptable is default nature. If I must find a passage that says the bible allows polygyny then people must find passages to justify any action not mentioned, like computer useage, breathing, driving, none of those actions can be allowed biblically if you must find where the bible allows them. Without evidince against Polygyny there is no case to discuss nor need for citations on my part, hence the thesis ""whos got some Biblical\Rational arguments against it (Polygyny)?"

You want to get out of that fact just show me this, make a thesis saying computer use is accepted by the bible and trot out your citations for that.

[Tlalynet]

Bully trout, but the abuse does not negate the use. Even if people use scripture to falsly condone unjust actins it doesent mean scripture isnt a sutible source for justifying actions.
Still you havent said anything more than "I disagree because i think its wrong."
I have said you are like no alchahol proponents becasue they too condemn something without working on proof (Or useing erronious proof)
Got anything usefull to say or is polygyny wrong based on your almighty whim?

[Tlalynet]

For clairities sake, if it isnt obvious, Im arguing by absence of prohibition. Calling for citations isnt valid against this stance, once someone says there is a prohibition a citaion is valid as it is nessisary. Obviously there are wrong things not specifically outlined in the Bible thus I included Rational arguments against it in the thesis.

[Tlalynet]

Phoenix, didnt see your post earlier and ran out of time,
The secondary question i was refering to was the one presentied in the original statement, is lesbianism allowed. I dont know any lesbians personsally so am not properly equipted to further defend their position, though it would be intresting to see it.
To reterate, both you and I have agreed that exchangeing something means loss of original, with no such loss no exchange is made, so the line of thinking in Romans is not fulfilled.

[Trout]

Bully trout, but the abuse does not negate the use. Even if people use scripture to falsly condone unjust actins it doesent mean scripture isnt a sutible source for justifying actions.

Really, I'd never thought of that. :duh:

Now let's see if I can guess what's in your head:

You think that killing the abortion doctor is wrong, but your polygyny is right.


Still you havent said anything more than "I disagree because i think its wrong."

I've also said that bringing scripture into a discussion with you would be fruitless. Scripture is your plaything, you're making it say and not say according to the sin you want to pursue.


I have said you are like no alchahol proponents becasue they too condemn something without working on proof (Or useing erronious proof)
Got anything usefull to say or is polygyny wrong based on your almighty whim?

Yes, it's adultery.

Care to show us from your ever evolving Bible just why adultery isn't sin?

Do you have anything useful to say or are you happy living in your sin?

[RumTumTugger]

tlalynet, use the quote feature why don't you. we have one so that folks know which is your statement and which is the one you are replying to.

I"ll let Trout, Nick and Little Shepard take care of your wanting to justify your wife's and your sin.

[Tlalynet]

Yeah, I could use the quote feature, but Ive avoided it becasuse ive seen it used many times to quote massive sectinons of text that are not neccisarily related, Your right that it is helpfull when used properly though.

Now, Trout,
I honestly dont have an oppinion as too the murder of abortion doctors, I havent met anyone who favors it nor revied thier point of view. I expect in most contexts it would be wrong but as I have not studied the mater I dont want to jump to a concultion without hearing circumstanses ect. There is sublty to anything, I suppose there would be a strong case where the doctor killer someone who was being forced to have an abortion by his party. Even your example subject isnt so cut and dried.

Adultery proper would be sleeping with a woman married to another man, adultery modern is having sex with someone whom you are not married too. You know, words do have meanings here, they arnt just buzzwords for your free use for accusation. I could say Bah! You Glutton! But as the term glutton doesent apply here it makes no sense.

If you must proceed with this you should at least concede that
1. The we should be like adam argument is bunk.
2. You're trying to manipulate the word Adultery to suit your own meaning.
3. You havent presented any other tangible arguments.

[Trout]

Now, Trout,
I honestly dont have an oppinion as too the murder of abortion doctors, I havent met anyone who favors it nor revied thier point of view. I expect in most contexts it would be wrong but as I have not studied the mater I dont want to jump to a concultion without hearing circumstanses ect. There is sublty to anything, I suppose there would be a strong case where the doctor killer someone who was being forced to have an abortion by his party. Even your example subject isnt so cut and dried.

That's exactly what I'd expect someone to say who's trying to justify sinful behavior. "It's just not that cut and dried."

Black is white, right is wrong and adultery isn't sin. You are truly deceived,


Adultery proper would be sleeping with a woman married to another man, adultery modern is having sex with someone whom you are not married too.

And both sit well within the definition of adultery.

Not only have you contoured scripture to fit your sinful lifestyle into it, now you've made an assault on the dictionary.


You know, words do have meanings here, they arnt just buzzwords for your free use for accusation. I could say Bah! You Glutton! But as the term glutton doesent apply here it makes no sense.

And that's exactly the same amount of sense your arguments make favoring your adulterous lifestyle.


If you must proceed with this you should at least concede that
1. The we should be like adam argument is bunk.

Wrong.

Why didn't God make more than one wife for Adam?

Why does the Bible say that the two will become one flesh? Speaking of one man and one woman?


2. You're trying to manipulate the word Adultery to suit your own meaning.

No, in fact you're the one doing so.

Adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and one who is not his or her spouse.

Seems like a good definition to me.


3. You havent presented any other tangible arguments.

I don't need any others, the few that I've offered have proven you wrong.

It's obvious to me and everyone else participating in this thread that you are in sin.

Please make a case as to why the behavior you're engaged in is not sin.

[Tlalynet]

Oy, yeah Rum Tum, it WOULD be nice to hear out little sheperds arguments and see if its anything more than an erronious reverse application of present day Mormonism, If it did have some substance it would be exactly what I was looking for, an argument that had not been presented to me before. But He's said it twice now, once well over a month ago, and has dissapered from posting without so much as a 'give me some time to look things up'. It is still premature but I am beging to doubt wheater he's got anything more than his statement on this.

I don't particularily care to win people to agree with me on the should two girls married to each other be alowed intamacy question, its intresting to discuss but a hard win on either side and so far as I know a prejudice in this area isnt very harmfull.
Perjudice agaisnt polygyny on the other hand has casues specific problems to do with understanding of the bible and fulfillment of the great commssion. Such prejudice caused the poor Bernardino Ochino to be expelled from Zürich in his old age simply because he said to have a proper view of the OT fathers you cannot say God naturally dispises polygamy and had a good number of reasons for it, many of which should be obvious such as God does not keep secret grudges. The poor guy didnt have any intention or desire to actually himself enter into what he described. It isnt just a thing of the reformation error either, The author of http://www.btinternet.com/~familyman/pchristian.htm also adopted the view that polygyny is fine merely on the grounds that reason and the bible dicate it is fine, he was also excomunicated for his views (Though both he and Ochio found Chrisitans in agreement as well) His arguments are also very good and comprehensive, the statistical based ones where new to me even though I had completed my study long before finding the site. Finally, most importantly, is the wanton breakup of families that has been at times attempted by well meaning missionaries. Prejudice is always a black mark on Christianity.

All that of course is why it is important to discuss open mindedly (Just like any other topic, wether the final answer is that the thing is right or wrong), the arugment of absense still stands and is henceforth unchalleneged.

[Tlalynet]

Ok, in case this is not clear
EVERYONE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EXACTLY LIKE ADAM!
Got it, youve pushed that from borderline stupid to full blown. Do you stop to think of the implications of your argument? As previously said you could use that to make the assertation that computer usage is evil becasue God didnt make Adam with a computer.

Secondarily, becasue you seem to not get it, in polygyny both women are a spouse.

Think before you talk, Never was it said black was white, though you seem to be endlessly attacking a straw man, Got anything not half baked?

[Trout]

Ok, in case this is not clear
EVERYONE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EXACTLY LIKE ADAM!

I'll take that as a you can't answer the question kind of statement.

It certainly would have helped you case if you could have answered it.

So you lose that one.


Got it, youve pushed that from borderline stupid to full blown. Do you stop to think of the implications of your argument?

I haven't presented an argument. I've made a couple of statements.

You should learn the difference.

Speaking of which, now would be a good time for you to let us see some of your arguments favoring adultery.


As previously said you could use that to make the assertation that computer usage is evil becasue God didnt make Adam with a computer.

And in that area I guess we'd be free to make a Biblical judgment about computer use. But since God made Adam with one wife, it seems that He established the proper pattern.

You lose.


Secondarily, becasue you seem to not get it, in polygyny both women are a spouse.

No, the first woman is the spouse.

If you're married to more than one woman then not only are you living in sin due to adultery, but you're also in sin due to the fact that you're in an illegal relationship and aren't subject to the laws of the land.


Think before you talk, Never was it said black was white, though you seem to be endlessly attacking a straw man, Got anything not half baked?

I don't know why you're so hostile, I've simply maintained that you're in sin.

Now why don't you roll out your argument for us.

[Tlalynet]

Ok, for clairity "Adam didnt do it so we shouldnt" Is not a valid axiom for reasons already presented. For "Why didn't God make more than one wife for Adam?" to be a valid query Adam has to be a valid proof of action. Re-iterating an invalid quesion does not make it more valid, If you want this argument to hold you must prove all facets of Adams existence as a rule we must follow.
If you actually belive changing it to a not statment makes that much difference I'll rephrase the counterstatement, Just becasue God made Adam in a place with four rivers doesent mean we have to live near four rivers. Even with reason agasint you even you admit "it seems" to you God set out that as a course of action. Even you know its not valid to say that he did.

For the second argument you presented the only twig it stands on now is your statement "No, the first woman is the spouse. " Which is what? Your whim?

I dislike your style for sure but saying its stupid to say something is wrong based on prejedice or dogma is something I do normally. Im calling your points half-baked because they are very base, the general assertaion your first argument is based on is "If God wanted it that way why didnt he create it that way" Which is worthy of ridicule on quite a few levels. The other one is "Your going for Adultery" I say, "No actually Adultery is this." You say "AhHA! So you use the normal definiton not mine! A guilty person would do that!"

[Tlalynet]

If anyone needs clairity about what an arugment from absence is or its validity I'll put out an illistration.
"Hey, what are you doing?"
"This guys guilty were takin him in."
"He's not guilty, you dont have any evidince against him!"
"I'd like to see some proof of that."

[Tlalynet]

On hostility:
I am, and always have been, vehlimently agaisnt raw prejudice. My great-great grandmother might have said its in my blood as a decendent of the Lincon family. It also may be that the very best of my teacheres when I lived in the United States where people who suffered under the dehuminizing prejudice that was still strong when they where young and up untill the second world war, and which still exists in niches in that country and throught the world. It is why the sad case of Ochio is so important to me, it was something I found very early in historical study and it made my consideration of polygyny much more serious as it would repulse me to be like someone who would throw an honest old man in the cold.
I believe Trouts stance operates on prejudice, I try to show this based on his quick condemnation and poor reasoning. This beleif may well be in error but merely holding that belif tugs at my feirce antiprejudice nature.

[RCNicholas]

Ok, for clairity "Adam didnt do it so we shouldnt" Is not a valid axiom for reasons already presented. For "Why didn't God make more than one wife for Adam?" to be a valid query Adam has to be a valid proof of action. So it's your position that Genesis 2:24 (notice the singularity of man and wife) is not the intentionally designed model for marriage and procreation?

Re-iterating an invalid quesion does not make it more valid, If you want this argument to hold you must prove all facets of Adams existence as a rule we must follow. No, just once facet of his existence...his marriage to one wife. God told him to be fruitful and multiply. That's a direct command. He gave Adam one woman to accomplish that command with. That is the rule we are to follow, as is reiterated through the Bible. The fact that men in the Old Testament took more than one wife at times does not mean that God condoned it or commanded it. When the Flood occurred, God saved Noah, and his one wife, and Noah's three sons, and their three wives. Notice again the pattern. In the New Testament a bishop is to be the husband of one wife (if married at all). The Biblical model set forward by God is always a one man-one woman scenario. When God gives you that, He shouldn't HAVE to say, "Stop adding more wives." You should get the hint the first time.

If you actually belive changing it to a not statment makes that much difference I'll rephrase the counterstatement, Just becasue God made Adam in a place with four rivers doesent mean we have to live near four rivers. This is a complete non sequitur. We're talking specifically about marriage and the way that God designed for His command to procreate to be carried out.

[Tlalynet]

RCN
I can see you think this is a contradicion to polygyny, but I dont see where the person who wrote Gen 2:24 thought it was, Moses after all had both an Ethiopian and Midianite wife. Anyway 1 Cor cites this as the same thing that happens with a whore, so yeah, it sets out you get married, move away from home, and have sex. I suppose it could be formed to work as a point in the topic I was arguing with Pheonix though. At any rate Gen 2:24 is a different argument than "Why didnt God make more than one wife for Adam?" So I dont understand the quote. Much better work though, Trout was geting under my nerves.

"No, we should just follow this one facet of Adam existance, not all." Is a step Trout never took either.
The whole line of reasoing concerning it not being God's intention collapes as God DID at times give men more than one wife. 2 Sam 12 7-8 itself has God specifically awarding wives to David after already had a wife, or rather, quite a few. I know, I know, Gods a sinner in your books, at least if you keep reading how you have.
The fact that Noah had one wife is a statement of history, It isnt valid to say "God saved Noah and Noah did this so we have to do this." Its horrible bias too isnt it? You say the God set a biblical model for behaviour through his people," True, then you say "Im gonna count these two of Gods people and ignore the rest that dont suit my cause."
God didnt set the life and family of Noah in motion any less than he set the life and family of Esau and Lamech and Elkiniah and David and Ashur and on and on and on...

Trout had not yet said "We should follow how adam was made here but no where else." which is just as well, because without Gen 2:24 it doesent make sense either. Heck why not, Ill give you God set a precedent for marridge in creating Adam, then we can infer "God told Adam to marry every woman availible to him." just as easily as your point.

[Trout]

Ok, for clairity "Adam didnt do it so we shouldnt" Is not a valid axiom for reasons already presented. For "Why didn't God make more than one wife for Adam?" to be a valid query Adam has to be a valid proof of action. Re-iterating an invalid quesion does not make it more valid, If you want this argument to hold you must prove all facets of Adams existence as a rule we must follow.

Again, that fails to answer the very direct and simple question posed:

Why didn't God give Adam more than one wife?

Your bombastic attempts at ridicule only serve to betray the notion that you don't have an answer.


If you actually belive changing it to a not statment makes that much difference I'll rephrase the counterstatement, Just becasue God made Adam in a place with four rivers doesent mean we have to live near four rivers. Even with reason agasint you even you admit "it seems" to you God set out that as a course of action. Even you know its not valid to say that he did.

And your point might be valid if God had given us all four rivers and told us to be one flesh with them and multiply.

That doesn't address the question. You have lost.


For the second argument you presented the only twig it stands on now is your statement "No, the first woman is the spouse. " Which is what? Your whim?

You have a real problem recognizing an argument, that much is clear.

I have made a couple of statements about your sinful lifestyle which you have failed to counter other than with, "You're stupid".


I dislike your style for sure but saying its stupid to say something is wrong based on prejedice or dogma is something I do normally. Im calling your points half-baked because they are very base, the general assertaion your first argument is based on is "If God wanted it that way why didnt he create it that way" Which is worthy of ridicule on quite a few levels.

You may be able to ridicule it, but you've failed to counter it.

And you're also being evasive about sharing your arguments favoring your sinful lifestyle with us.

Please, let's hear what you got.


The other one is "Your going for Adultery" I say, "No actually Adultery is this." You say "AhHA! So you use the normal definiton not mine! A guilty person would do that!"

:rofl: I'm glad that you admit that your definition of adultery isn't "normal".

Look, when you have to redefine words and bend Bible passages to suit your lifestyle, chances are your just trying to justify bad behavior.

[Trout]

On hostility:
I am, and always have been, vehlimently agaisnt raw prejudice.

You're prejudiced against me.


My great-great grandmother might have said its in my blood as a decendent of the Lincon family. It also may be that the very best of my teacheres when I lived in the United States where people who suffered under the dehuminizing prejudice that was still strong when they where young and up untill the second world war, and which still exists in niches in that country and throught the world. It is why the sad case of Ochio is so important to me, it was something I found very early in historical study and it made my consideration of polygyny much more serious as it would repulse me to be like someone who would throw an honest old man in the cold.
I believe Trouts stance operates on prejudice, I try to show this based on his quick condemnation and poor reasoning. This beleif may well be in error but merely holding that belif tugs at my feirce antiprejudice nature.

You've failed to show how your behavior isn't sin. You've only demonstrated your sin-blindness.

BTW, my best friend in the world through a large portion of my young life, is and was a polygamist. So your judgment as well as your argument has been exposed as wrong.

[Tlalynet]

Good for you trout, cite post 36
Ok,
"Why didn't God give Adam more than one wife?" Why does it mater to this converstation? Ive done more than enough outlining how it doesent.
The thread calls for lines of reasoing, not dogmatic statements. Unless your statements are part of a line of reasoning they dont belong here. I am aware you disagree, your thick if you think your disagreement maters here.
Read the line again
You say "AhHA! So you (Meaning me, as it is speaking from your prespective) use the normal definiton not mine (Meaning whatever definitnon you use)!

If your going to use someones words against them at least read those words...

To reiterate, Statements of oppinion are off topic here unless they pretain directly to a line of reason. If youve got no argument, go away.

[Trout]

Good for you trout, cite post 36
Ok,
"Why didn't God give Adam more than one wife?" Why does it mater to this converstation? Ive done more than enough outlining how it doesent.

Both RC and myself have called you to the carpet on this and you have claimed victory after being soundly defeated.

But that's how it is when someone wants to justify sinful behavior.


The thread calls for lines of reasoing, not dogmatic statements.

You have failed to outline your reasons other than adultery really doesn't mean adultery.

You've been given ample opportunity to give your arguments and you haven't done so. If this thread calls for reasoning by your own "logic" you don't belong in it. :rofl:


Unless your statements are part of a line of reasoning they dont belong here. I am aware you disagree, your thick if you think your disagreement maters here.
Read the line again
You say "AhHA! So you (Meaning me, as it is speaking from your prespective) use the normal definiton not mine (Meaning whatever definitnon you use)!

You're totally correct, your definition isn't "normal".

Don't chastise me for agreeing with you.


To reiterate, Statements of oppinion are off topic here unless they pretain directly to a line of reason. If youve got no argument, go away.

I don't blame you for wanting me to go away, but I have every right to be here little fella. So man up and give us your arguments or go tell them to your wives. Obviously they seem to have been persuaded by your idiocy.

[Chaotic Void]

**DISCLAIMER: I am not pro-Poly, I just don't see where it says that Poly is wrong in the Bible

ummm.... What about Concubines? We still have those today. They are called Surrogate Parents/Egg Donors, etc. [Just minus the Sex, Usually.]

I think Poly was usually used as a means of Survival rather than a means of pleasure. Any objections?

[Tlalynet]

I want you to go away becasue you keep rehashing things long disproven.

If you read this quote
"
You say "AhHA! So you (Meaning me, as it is speaking from your prespective) use the normal definiton not mine (Meaning whatever definitnon you use)! "
In normal english stucture you would get that I am usuing the traditional definition of adultery, as has been said three times already, that definition is, most plainly, having sex with someone other than ones wife. Polygyny, by definition, is having more than one wife. Polygyny, by definition does not violate adultery. If you say Polygyny is a violation of adultery than Mosses at the time of giving the law should have been killed under it.

Have you kept pace yet or are you still right in your own mind? Plain enough for you or am I going to have to write it twice more?

There is no specific reason why Adam should be a precident for our actions in any way, such speculation rendered ad absurdum is that we cannot use computers becasue Adam didnt. Unless you have new information as to why Adam should be a precident to our action the point is very long dead. RC invoked Gen 2:24 as an attempt at adding that reason, and point is in discussion. You have not presented a reason other than your whim.

Since obviously you cant go back and read post 26 ill just copy it here and explain it.
If anyone needs clairity about what an arugment from absence is or its validity I'll put out an illistration.
"Hey, what are you doing?" (Me)
"This guys guilty were takin him in." (Opposition, refering to condemantion of polygyny)
"He's not guilty, you dont have any evidince against him!"
"I'd like to see some proof of that." (You, asking for something absurd)

To double explain the point, take the axiom. Things are naturally allowed, Prohibition of action requires proof."

Now, obviously im frustrated with you because despite explaining things too you many times you say "Aha! I dont understand so I win!"
Concede or present new evidence. And you are very much off topic if you just want to make statments. That is what you said you where doing as some form of silly defence.

[Tlalynet]

CV
Could be that it was, why do you say that?
On Concubinage, Im not sure how it fits here but if you dont think it deserves its own thread take it up here. I would think there would be some moral considerations with sperm\egg donars, im not sure they fit in the term Concubine, how do you mean it?

[Tlalynet]

(Bah! CV is back, hes actually very good at anti poly... Why dont you present you most powerfull rational argument? You know I cant beat it!)

[Chaotic Void]

CV
Could be that it was, why do you say that?
On Concubinage, Im not sure how it fits here but if you dont think it deserves its own thread take it up here. I would think there would be some moral considerations with sperm\egg donars, im not sure they fit in the term Concubine, how do you mean it?

well.... Considering the Technology/Medicine of the Time, It wasn't as easy to get pregnant as it is nowadays, let along keep kids alive.

Concubines were taken if a wife was unable to bear children. Surrogate parents are people who have children for couples who cannot have children [I hear they are paid and/or given visitation rights].

[Chaotic Void]

(Bah! CV is back, hes actually very good at anti poly... Why dont you present you most powerfull rational argument? You know I cant beat it!)

You got it!

In the Bible, Its usually the Leaders or the Rich that have Multiple wives. Y'all know why? they were the only ones who were able to AFFORD to have 2+ Wives! [why do you think Solomon Kept the Taxes up..... his wives were cleaning him out]

Lets not forget the In-laws.... Solomon had over 700 wives, so thats over 700 Mother-In-Laws.

[Tlalynet]

Wow, I didnt expect you to tie those points in together, much less so well.
OT rules of sanitation are very detailed and advanced in a way that was unseen untill the birth of modern medicine. The point as it concernes to infertility is good but I dont think it was any harder for normal couples to get pregnant. I dont think there is a record of infant mortality rates, its reasonable to say it would be higher even all that considered but there isnt any proof.
Dead on that concubines, wherever the reason for taking them was recorded, where taken for the sake of fertility in most cases. Surrogacy is done for the same reason.
Yeah, intersting tie, what do you think the implication of it is?

Some pretty lowly prophits had more than one wife, Its not mentioned a whole lot and I doubt polygyny was the norm at any point (could have been)
Still women are usually expensive, right now thats offset by womens lib puting women to work though.
Ugh! In-Laws (melodramatic sigh) my POV comes crashing down!
Really In-Laws can be a good thing but on the sum I think your right and its not a recomended course of action. I wouldnt care for it as much myself it wasnt for circumstances. My wife is really better at noticing good looking women than I am.
But there is quite a strech between not recomended and absalutely wrong, hence I only care when people belvie that it is absalutely all time wrong and never an option, that view is destructive. If its not your fancy and you wouldnt do it or recomend someone else doing it were already close to the same page. All the the proponents of Polygyny Ive refered tp have not been polygyists themselves but people interesting in what is actually right and wrong.

[Chaotic Void]

Wow, I didnt expect you to tie those points in together, much less so well.
OT rules of sanitation are very detailed and advanced in a way that was unseen untill the birth of modern medicine. The point as it concernes to infertility is good but I dont think it was any harder for normal couples to get pregnant. I dont think there is a record of infant mortality rates, its reasonable to say it would be higher even all that considered but there isnt any proof.
Dead on that concubines, wherever the reason for taking them was recorded, where taken for the sake of fertility in most cases. Surrogacy is done for the same reason.
Yeah, intersting tie, what do you think the implication of it is?

Rachel had a tough time having kids, and Sarai/Sarah was thought to be barren also.

People think Poly and Concubinism are bad [the two are usually equated and considered Adultery], but isn't it hypocritical for Christians to condemn Concubinism but approve of Surrogate Parenthood?

On a side note, it reeks of Greed to request Monetary payment to bear a child, so I somewhat dissapprove of Monetary payment.

[Tlalynet]

Yeah, Ill give there was infertility then just like now, I never said there wasnt, and in cases where God did not directly intervine those people would really never have kids, no other option.
I think an argument can be made against your point about surrogate parenthood but I have no idea how much you have up your sleeve, it would be a good go. I should try to argue against it if no one else does. Of course I cant say concubinage is a natural evil either or be a hypocryte so I'll leave it as an indirectly allied statement and let someone else have at it first.

Ugh, that raises a lot of stuff dealing with whats the important point, the sex or the baby, or rather what are the values of both... Yeah I can give a quick counterstatement to what you said but it isnt very strong, you could probably beat it anyway so ill leave it to someone else.

[RCNicholas]

RCN
I can see you think this is a contradicion to polygyny, but I dont see where the person who wrote Gen 2:24 thought it wasReally? In spite of the fact that the writer only mentions one man and one woman? You'll have to explain how this is so.

Moses after all had both an Ethiopian and Midianite wife. Refer to my last post...just because the Bible records that men had more than one wife does not mean that God commanded it.

Anyway 1 Cor cites this as the same thing that happens with a whore, so yeah, it sets out you get married, move away from home, and have sex. I suppose it could be formed to work as a point in the topic I was arguing with Pheonix though. At any rate Gen 2:24 is a different argument than "Why didnt God make more than one wife for Adam?" So I dont understand the quote They both intertwine, really. God didn't make more than one wife for Adam because, as Genesis 2:24 illustrates, God's plan from the beginning was for one man to be with one woman.

"No, we should just follow this one facet of Adam existance, not all." Is a step Trout never took either.
The whole line of reasoing concerning it not being God's intention collapes as God DID at times give men more than one wife. 2 Sam 12 7-8 itself has God specifically awarding wives to David after already had a wife, or rather, quite a few. I know, I know, Gods a sinner in your books, at least if you keep reading how you have. It's funny that you quote that particular passage to attempt to support polgyny, when the whole point of the passage was that David stole another man's wife immorally and that God was going to take away all his wives (see verses 10-11). As for verse 8, it says that God gave David's "master's house and [David's] master's wives into [David's] keeping." Does the fact that David inherited the wives of Saul mean he slept with all of them? Does the fact that God allowed this to happen (to show David that he could have had anything and still would have sinned against God) mean that it was His original plan? It's a pretty big jump to say that.

The fact that Noah had one wife is a statement of history, It isnt valid to say "God saved Noah and Noah did this so we have to do thisLike the Adamic example, it shows a pattern and a precedent. God gave Adam, the first man, one wife. When He destroyed the world, He gave Noah and his sons, the only men left on earth, one wife each.

Its horrible bias too isnt it? You say the God set a biblical model for behaviour through his people," True, then you say "Im gonna count these two of Gods people and ignore the rest that dont suit my cause." What is "the rest" that you're talking about? You've cited one example, the whole context of which makes it obvious that the whole thing would have been simpler if David had just kept to one wife in the first place. You'll have to cite at least a few more Biblical examples before you start claiming that all the evidence is on your side. I've cited several places explicitly that show it isn't.

God didnt set the life and family of Noah in motion any less than he set the life and family of Esau and Lamech and Elkiniah and David and Ashur and on and on and on...
Except that Esau and Lamech and Elkinah and David and Ashur weren't foundations upon which the entire human population was built. Adam and Noah both were. Thus, again, the point of such examples is precedent.

Trout had not yet said "We should follow how adam was made here but no where else." which is just as well, because without Gen 2:24 it doesent make sense either. Heck why not, Ill give you God set a precedent for marridge in creating Adam, then we can infer "God told Adam to marry every woman availible to him." just as easily as your point.First of all, you'll have to explain how you reach that inference. Secondly, assuming it's true, it does nothing to further your point. The only woman available to Adam was Eve, by God's specific design.

[Tlalynet]

Put the two lines together, Mosses, who wrote this line, had two wives, and he seems to know nothing of the prohibition your talking about.
In case it wasnt clear, this passage is describing a certin aspect of Sex, that is the childmaking one. 1 Cor uses the same line to refer to a relationship with a prostitute.

I never condoned adultery, that was alwasy wrong and never in question. Nonetheless "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom"
Plain and clear, God says, I gave you these things. God didnt give him Bathseba yet at that point, David took her, thats where the problem arose, nothin to do with all the wives he had.
The statment that God is specifically said that he gave David those wives to be his own wives hasnt actually been brought into question has it?
Were talking about polygamy here, the fact is David had them as wives, even if he didnt sleep with them (Yeah, sure) it doesent change what happened.

"What is "the rest" that you're talking about? You've cited one example,"
Read the whole line, Esau and Lamech and Elkiniah and David and Ashur, I got a database do I really need to cite every time polygamy was mentioned?

As before stated, President is not a valid proof, precident is missing for almost everything you can do, the fact that something historically happened does in no way mean we need to copy it. Precedent is where we get bunk theology like the curse of Ham and by extention racism theology.

And again, its no better than saying celibicy is really not Gods intention because the option was not given to Adam.

Precedent is not Proof.

Heck, ill even one up you, the same word concenring unitiy rendered one in Gen is the same as the word in numbers where the spies returned a cluster of grapes, not two grapes per onness by any means.

[RCNicholas]

Put the two lines together, Mosses, who wrote this line, had two wivesWhat Biblical evidence do you have of this?

and he seems to know nothing of the prohibition your talking aboutNot a prohibition; a plan. A design that God created for marriage.

In case it wasnt clear, this passage is describing a certin aspect of Sex, that is the childmaking one. Which is only appropriate Biblically in the context of marriage, so yes.

1 Cor uses the same line to refer to a relationship with a prostitute.Yes, specifically the abuse of that plan. "Becoming one flesh" is sex. That's not in dispute.

I never condoned adultery, that was alwasy wrong and never in question. Nonetheless "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom"
Plain and clear, God says, I gave you these things. God didnt give him Bathseba yet at that point, David took her, thats where the problem arose, nothin to do with all the wives he had.
The statment that God is specifically said that he gave David those wives to be his own wives hasnt actually been brought into question has it?Like I said, I think it's a stretch to support polygyny for today, and God did it to make a point. Right there in the context we see that God promises to take away all David's wives. Notice something interesting in the Bible...more wives usually means more trouble. :wink: Thus the one man-one woman design made from the beginning.

Were talking about polygamy here, the fact is David had them as wives, even if he didnt sleep with them (Yeah, sure) it doesent change what happened.I'm not denying it happened. I'm denying that it's normative or God's original intent for marriage.

Read the whole line, Esau and Lamech and Elkiniah and David and Ashur, I got a database do I really need to cite every time polygamy was mentioned? No, you need to mention when it was commanded (even condoned) by God. The Old Testament is history. It reocunts all sorts of odd events, sinful and righteous. Yes, polygamy happened. That doesn't mean it was God's original plan.

As before stated, President is not a valid proof, precident is missing for almost everything you can doMarriage and sex seem pretty central, and we do have lots of Biblical precedent and commands about that.

the fact that something historically happened does in no way mean we need to copy it. Then why the constant references to Old Testament polygamy as proof that "since it happened, it must be ok"? That's what I've been saying all along. God's explicit plan was monogamous, as has been shown; polygamy happened, yes, that doesn't mean it was right.

Precedent is where we get bunk theology like the curse of Ham and by extention racism theology. Non sequitur, no comment.

And again, its no better than saying celibicy is really not Gods intention because the option was not given to Adam. It wasn't given to Adam because God told him to be fruitful and multiply. Celibacy is explicitly allowed, and even suggested, elsewhere in Scripture, for an explicit purpose. Polygamy has no such explicit commandment, and serves no constructive purpose in God's plan for marriage.



Heck, ill even one up you, the same word concenring unitiy rendered one in Gen is the same as the word in numbers where the spies returned a cluster of grapes, not two grapes per onness by any means.Yes, but Genesis says the TWO became one flesh. The TWO. Not the three, four, or however many. One man, one woman. Very straightforward.

[Chaotic Void]

Yes, but Genesis says the TWO became one flesh. The TWO. Not the three, four, or however many. One man, one woman. Very straightforward.

Ummm.... I'm Anti-Polyg and I can Shoot a Hole in that. One could easily Argue that the Husband/Wife who had united before can be Considered One, and it could still be considered two becoming One Flesh if the Husband Married again. It's Sorta Like Chain Tag.

[RCNicholas]

Ummm.... I'm Anti-Polyg and I can Shoot a Hole in that. One could easily Argue that the Husband/Wife who had united before can be Considered One, and it could still be considered two becoming One Flesh if the Husband Married again. It's Sorta Like Chain Tag.But odd that God didn't set it up that way if the formula was so obviously conducive to that. :wink:

[Tlalynet]

Moses
Ex 2:16 with a Midianite
Num 12:1 with an Ethiopian

"more wives usually means more trouble."
Yeah, I had to conced that to Chaotic too, Fair point.

It was condoned directly by God giving David extra wives. Indirectly by the dynamics of the old law, strict you break it you keep it for life policy with virginity, and regaurdless to previous marriges.

I just quoted more Godly polygamists to say even if you hold historical example as valid precident you need to include these man as well as monogamists. Other than that there isnt much use in mentioning them.

Commands are one thing, but precident is another, Precident does not equel proof. An example of how basing theology on precident causes problems is the theology of the curse of Ham.

The fact of its uncondemned useage throught the OT goes to show that polygyny was not condmened.

Actually KJV, NIV, NAS, Amplified, NKJV, and TNIV all use the phrase, they become one, not two become one. Only the NLT says two become one, and I think they are reverse citing the NT. Strongs index cites a quantity generic root word, might not be so but most tranlaters seem to be under that oppinion as well. Any way TWO isnt normally there in the first place.


Once understand precident does not mean proof the line "It was not Gods ideal." Moves into the relm of oppinion, back the oppinion all you want it doesent turn into proof. While we are in oppinion though, where do you get the idea of such a wishy washy God? God seems pretty consistently tell us when somethings wrong, as Paul wrote "sin is not imputed when there is no law" Without moral law backing you have to drift in oppinion.

[Tlalynet]

BAH! YOU STOLE MY MSN SIG CHAOTIC! Oh well, its a good one. I love the literel of that...

Anyway, it occurs to me that I never delt with the whole one wife for deacons ect thing... That goes both ways, the Clergy would well have been advised to marry though they where for over a milenia forbiden by the church though commanded by the Apostle. Either way Im no deacon and positions of authority dont especially appeal to me.

[RCNicholas]

Moses
Ex 2:16 with a Midianite
Num 12:1 with an Ethiopianhttp://www.suraha.com/item/LQ-ZnQjGCKXm-e-E9pR5kA

There's a brief audio clip explaining the apparent duality.

It was condoned directly by God giving David extra wives.I was asking for other examples, since you seemed to think that the whole Bible was practically on your side.

Indirectly by the dynamics of the old law, strict you break it you keep it for life policy with virginity, and regaurdless to previous marriges. You'll have to point me to the specific passages you're talking about there.

I just quoted more Godly polygamists to say even if you hold historical example as valid precident you need to include these man as well as monogamists. Other than that there isnt much use in mentioning them.Except that God did command monogamy in Scripture. He never commanded polygamy. I explained the difference between your examples and mine. Yours are simply noted individuals in the human timeline as recorded in the Bible. The two I've been using were the foundations of all human history.

Commands are one thing, but precident is another, Precident does not equel proof.It certainly equals evidence, if not absolute proof.

The fact of its uncondemned useage throught the OT goes to show that polygyny was not condmened. It was something God allowed to happen, yes. However, I've shown that it wasn't the original plan for marriage.

Actually KJV, NIV, NAS, Amplified, NKJV, and TNIV all use the phrase, they become one, not two become one. Only the NLT says two become one, and I think they are reverse citing the NT. Strongs index cites a quantity generic root word, might not be so but most tranlaters seem to be under that oppinion as well. Any way TWO isnt normally there in the first place.Given, that's what I get for not looking right at the verse when I'm commenting on it! :teeth: However, I think it's still pretty obvious there in the verse that it's a one man, one woman deal. Man and wife are both singular.


Once understand precident does not mean proof the line "It was not Gods ideal." I think it does, and you haven't responded to my reasoning there. From the very beginning God's design was monogamous, when He flooded the world He re-established it monogamously. The other passage that comes immediately to mind is in the New Testament a bishop is to be the husband of one wife. Also, in the several New Testament places where marriage is discussed, it's always in the context of a singular wife for a singular man.

Moves into the relm of oppinion, back the oppinion all you want it doesent turn into proof. While we are in oppinion though, where do you get the idea of such a wishy washy God? God seems pretty consistently tell us when somethings wrong, as Paul wrote "sin is not imputed when there is no law" Without moral law backing you have to drift in oppinion So you're saying that because polygamy was not comdemned explicitly in the Mosaic Law, it's ok? That's a stretch.

[Chaotic Void]

Dumb Question, but what are we to do with New Believers who have multiple wives...?

[RCNicholas]

Dumb Question, but what are we to do with New Believers who have multiple wives...?
In the Catholic Church I'm pretty sure an annulment would be granted to all the wives but the first.

[Chaotic Void]

In the Catholic Church I'm pretty sure an annulment would be granted to all the wives but the first.

as for the other denominations?

And what if he had Children with all the wives? Is he supposed to Forsake or Disown all the Children but the ones conceived with the first?

[RCNicholas]

as for the other denominations?I'd have to let Protestants speak for themselves.

And what if he had Children with all the wives? Is he supposed to Forsake or Disown all the Children but the ones conceived with the first?Not at all. The marriages can be annulled while the parents still maintain parental rights and responsibilities.

[Tlalynet]

I am aware some commentaries have said either he does not have them at the same time or they where the same person, if you want to argue one of those please do rather than posting and audio commentary.

"I was asking for other examples, " Because... that isnt good enough for you? It doesent actually have to be said once much less more than once.

Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

This acts irrelivent of marrige.

"Except that God did command monogamy"
No, he commanded marrige, the whole concept of gamy did not arise untill much later.

"Man and wife are both singular. " Which, at best shows orgies are not allowed, at least shows that there where only two people there when it was commanded.


Now the rest hinges on precident, which, per your oppinion, is valid for proof. But if Precedent is valid for proof it must be an axiom and universally applied. Then Nudity is a precident, then haveing the occupation of a farmer is a precedent, renaming animals with every new person could be a precident, the ability to communicate wtih animals, ect ect. Then it opens thereverse precident, if they didnt do it we shouldnt and tahts a whole nother can of worms. Then it opens another whole line of thinking that either everything pretaining to Adam was said or it wasnt and the possibility of later wives is open via the same route everyone else got wives later on.

Beyond that there is no reason to belive that precident maters other than your asseration that it does. As well as there is no reason to follow the line of reason that it was Gods original intention other than your assertaion and the assertaion that precident is valid.

The fact of the mater is that God was very good about teling Isriel what he liked and didnt like, You're trying to say he didnt like it but was too bashfull to tell anyone?

[RCNicholas]

I am aware some commentaries have said either he does not have them at the same time or they where the same person, if you want to argue one of those please do rather than posting and audio commentary.I believe that Midian is inside the boundaries of the ancient understanding of Ethiopia. Thus, saying that the wife is Midianite and an Ethopian is not a contradiction. It's like saying she's French and European.

"I was asking for other examples, " Because... that isnt good enough for you? It was a rather weak example, as I explained, and since you earlier referenced "the rest" and said you had a whole list, I was interested in your other example where you think God commanded/condoned polgamy.

Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

This acts irrelivent of marrige. Irrelevant of marriage? It says quite specifically that if they have had sex they're supposed to get married. How is that irrelevant of marriage? I'm assuming your argument will be, "What if a married man has sex with a virgin?" That, of course, would be adultery, which was punishable by death, and therefore this does not in any way support polygamy.


No, he commanded marrige, the whole concept of gamy did not arise untill much later. LOL...no, the one man-one woman thing was pretty obvious from the start. Thus just one Adam, and one Eve.

"Man and wife are both singular. " Which, at best shows orgies are not allowed, at least shows that there where only two people there when it was commanded. Precisely...monogamy is the way to go. If polygamy was even supposed to be an option God would have given Adam more than Eve. But He didn't.


Now the rest hinges on precident, which, per your oppinion, is valid for proof. But if Precedent is valid for proof it must be an axiom and universally applied. Then Nudity is a precident, then haveing the occupation of a farmer is a precedent, renaming animals with every new person could be a precident, the ability to communicate wtih animals, ect ect. Then it opens thereverse precident, if they didnt do it we shouldnt and tahts a whole nother can of worms.You're going back to your old argument here, which doesn't make any sense this time around either. We're talking about one specific aspect of Adam's life that he was commanded about and which was very specifically planned, and the pattern of which was reiterated time and time again in the rest of the Bible.

Then it opens another whole line of thinking that either everything pretaining to Adam was said or it wasnt and the possibility of later wives is open via the same route everyone else got wives later on. I don't follow your reasoning here.

Beyond that there is no reason to belive that precident maters other than your asseration that it does.You haven't actually taken on any of my commentary, so I can't do anything more than I've already said. The examples of Adam and Noah and Noah's sons, all monogamous, are unique and foundational to the human race. You also have said nothing about my New Testament examples.

As well as there is no reason to follow the line of reason that it was Gods original intention other than your assertaion and the assertaion that precident is validIf it wasn't God's original intention then why would He set it up that way in the Garden? Why did He offer a specific, obviously monogamous formula that mankind was to follow?

The fact of the mater is that God was very good about teling Isriel what he liked and didnt like, You're trying to say he didnt like it but was too bashfull to tell anyone?You're trying to tell me that the Law covers absolutely everything in life that there is to cover? If it's said in other places in Scripture, why does it need to be said in the Mosaic Law? You're arguing from silence.

[Trout]

There is no specific reason why Adam should be a precident for our actions in any way, such speculation rendered ad absurdum is that we cannot use computers becasue Adam didnt.

I have refuted your ridiculous "Adam didn't have a computer thesis" let me do it one more time:

Adam didn't have a computer, therefore we are free to make a Biblical decision about computer use following the principles laid out in scripture dictating the computer's proper use.

Adam was give - by God - ONE wife, thereby establishing a pattern for His creation. No speculation required. One man, one wife.

You have yet to demonstrate why the one wife pattern is Adam's case allows for additional wives.

You have lost miserably.

[Chaotic Void]

I have refuted your ridiculous "Adam didn't have a computer thesis" let me do it one more time:

Adam didn't have a computer, therefore we are free to make a Biblical decision about computer use following the principles laid out in scripture dictating the computer's proper use.

Adam was give - by God - ONE wife, thereby establishing a pattern for His creation. No speculation required. One man, one wife.

You have yet to demonstrate why the one wife pattern is Adam's case allows for additional wives.

You have lost miserably.

Uhh..... iTrout? If we base our marriage/family life off of Adam/Eve, then that means our Kids are supposed to Marry, We're Perfect, and We're supposed to be Naked. last I checked, God Forbade Incest, We're not Perfect [the inbreeding must have done it], and We're not Nudists.

[RCNicholas]

Uhh..... iTrout? If we base our marriage/family life off of Adam/Eve, then that means our Kids are supposed to Marry, We're Perfect, and We're supposed to be Naked. last I checked, God Forbade Incest, We're not Perfect [the inbreeding must have done it], and We're not Nudists.Actually the Nudity thing is incorrect...the Bible explicitly says that God gave them clothing to cover themselves with. But that's a topic for another thread (one I've already spent enough time in, lol...)

[Teallaura]

How then is the burden on me? Because I asked who had a good argument against it? That action is acceptable is default nature. If I must find a passage that says the bible allows polygyny then people must find passages to justify any action not mentioned, like computer useage, breathing, driving, none of those actions can be allowed biblically if you must find where the bible allows them. Without evidince against Polygyny there is no case to discuss nor need for citations on my part, hence the thesis ""whos got some Biblical\Rational arguments against it (Polygyny)?"

You want to get out of that fact just show me this, make a thesis saying computer use is accepted by the bible and trot out your citations for that.
The burden is yours as proponent - and more especially so since you want arguments against it. Not providing your citations as well as failing to clearly delineate your argument makes fulfilling your request impossible for anyone to do.

Which was, of course, the point. You haven't fooled anybody.

[Chaotic Void]

Actually the Nudity thing is incorrect...the Bible explicitly says that God gave them clothing to cover themselves with. But that's a topic for another thread (one I've already spent enough time in, lol...)

ok, scratch the Nudity then.

lol.... I kinda whomped Tlaloc with my Arguments.

[Tlalynet]

Teal,
WHAT BLOODY PART OF ARGUMENT OF ABSENCE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND!?

My postion,
There is no evidence against it.
Your position,
So show me the evidince!
I shake my head...

If you really bloody well need a refrence then read Gen 1:1 - Rev 22:21. It ALL has to be read to to check the point, it ALL should have been read by most here. Further to that Ive presented historical refrences that there is prejudice against it with Ochio. Just beacause in your school they told you the person saying something has to present evidince doesent mean there are no cases to the contrary. Think about the discussion and arguments themselves before saying they need citation.

I have never heard of someone saying the Ethiopian Empire ever extended past the Red Sea, nor that Midian was ever a vassal or province of Ethiopia. I never listened to the audio thing so perhaps it shows that somehow. So far as Ive seen even when Ethiopia expanded its territiory it expanded south.
In the Davidian example it clearly shows God commanidng Polygmany, The exapmles of prophets and men of God with multiple wives show where it is condoned. Thats been on the table for a long time.

More clearly said, the punishment is irrelivent of previous marrige. While the NT word refrences our modern definiton the OT word operates differently.
According to the Hebrew Lexicon, "adultery, usually of man, always with the wife of another, of women". According to Strons Index, "women who break wedlock". John Gill, in his exposition of the Bible, although he does not support polygamy, has to concede of the word that "strictly speaking [it] is only that sin which is committed with another man's wife".
And that is why it works how I explained it.

As for use of Precendent to make a rule, Either you must use it universally, which opens the door to many bad doctrines, or you must say "I want it here and nowhere else." which is bunk.

If its valid to say "God made it this way so this is how he wanted it." You must (And you and trout both do) also make valid the statement "God Didnt make it this way so this is how he didnt want it."
Obviously to say "God made Adam with one wife and thats the rule" Says "God Didnt make Adam with more than one wife so more than one wife isnt allowed."
So, working on the same axiom as your argument it can be said "God didnt make adam with a computer so computers are not allowed." Becasue, of cousrse God SPECIFICALLY did not make Adam with a computer.

If you use demand precident as proof you must also accept its full meaning, if you want to pick the one meaning that helps you and leave the rest then you dont have much buisness in a reasonable argument.

While I dont mind explaining some things about reason and proof mid debate, this is very basic stuff that Ive had to re-itereate many times. You and Trout are both saying "Hey, we dont undesrtand why our point is wrong so it must be right!!! YAYYY WE WON!" Come on now...


Now, did I actually miss something or did you just not read my response to your timothy ref. The Ref is for deacons, I am not a deacon, most people are not deacons, why not throw in the pentitukes prohibition on kings making a wife collection while your at it...

Concerning CVS point
Bloody, yeah, lets force divorce and tear a family apart to suit our dogmas! I mean, God has said specifically that he doesent like divorce, but our tradition says he doesent like polygamy, so lets go with our tradition no mater if it tears though the sinews of family as it goes...

This kind of thinking is one of the things I want to fight agasint...

Sorry, it dont keep well tempred when I have to do reason vs dogmas...

[Little Shepherd]

My point wasn't even that polygamy is wrong. I believe that, yes, but I'm more concerned with your stated motives for polygamy -- that you want a female companion for your current wife to play with. I read over the Romans passage to see if it could mean what you allege, and it can not. It is clear that women sleeping with other women is abhorrent to God. Even if you could make a case for polygamy, your new wife would be for you alone. You would not be free to share her with your other wife(or wives). You would need to keep your marriage beds separate.

Someone else also brought up that polygamy in many places is against the law. If you insist on engaging in such a practice in spite of this, then you would in fact be sinning due to your unwillingness to submit to law. Yes, I know there are certain exceptions, such as when obeying a law would cause you to sin. This is not one of those cases. Obeying the law and remaining faithful to your one and only wife would not cause you to sin, so you have no grounds on which to disobey the law.

Also, I don't get why you bring up computers. Computer usage is completely irrelevant, and the question you pose is easily addressed. Computers are a tool. How do you figure out the proper use for any tool? What about hammers, nails, plows, cars, cranes, telephones, etc.? You look at the moral codes we do have and extrapolate your response from that. It is obvious that using a computer to communicate with someone or fill out paperwork is okay, while using the computer to look at pornography is not. That you ask the question is sad. That you think your asking this question somehow makes a profound point in your favor is even sadder.

[RumTumTugger]

Yeah, I could use the quote feature, but Ive avoided it becasuse ive seen it used many times to quote massive sectinons of text that are not neccisarily related, Your right that it is helpfull when used properly though.

So show us the proper way to use the quote feature and tags why don't you? Otherwise it might look as if you are trying to hide the fact that you don't want to debate this issue at all, and you just want us to validate your choice to live in sin.

Oy, yeah Rum Tum, it WOULD be nice to hear out little sheperds arguments and see if its anything more than an erronious reverse application of present day Mormonism, If it did have some substance it would be exactly what I was looking for, an argument that had not been presented to me before. But He's said it twice now, once well over a month ago, and has dissapered from posting without so much as a 'give me some time to look things up'. It is still premature but I am beging to doubt wheater he's got anything more than his statement on this.

I'll let Little Shepard answer you about your not accepting his arguments and why RL can take precedence over replying in a timely manner. Or for that matter not wanting to get into it with someone who has purposely closed his mind and heart to the truth because he wants to go his way and not Gods.

The others are doing a fine job of showing how morally bankrupt your assertions are. no need for me to go into it.

MIchele.

[Teallaura]

Teal,
WHAT BLOODY PART OF ARGUMENT OF ABSENCE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND!?

My postion,
There is no evidence against it.
Your position,
So show me the evidince!
I shake my head...

If you really bloody well need a refrence then read Gen 1:1 - Rev 22:21. It ALL has to be read to to check the point, it ALL should have been read by most here. Further to that Ive presented historical refrences that there is prejudice against it with Ochio. Just beacause in your school they told you the person saying something has to present evidince doesent mean there are no cases to the contrary. Think about the discussion and arguments themselves before saying they need citation.
You're the moron that kept saying he didn't have the burden of proof - pity you were wrong about that.

I never said anything about absense of evidence - that's a new one from you since I'd last been here. You're the proponent - if you truly lack evidence then you were defeated before you started. Not my fault you were dumb enough to start a debate with no way to back up your own position.

This is the most pathetic defense I've ever seen. Basically it's 'I'm right whether or not I can show evidence or prove my position - so there!'. Purely stupid.

[Tlalynet]

Teal, the term absence of evidice (Or rather, absence of prohibition) Is first used in post 26.
The rule that any action is by default allowed was stated early on and still stands. There is no need to present an argument that drinking tea is alright or driving is alright or fixing a roof is alright, If someone says an action is wrong they must prove why. This is why opening proofs must be made by the opposition. Before such argument is made absense of prohibition is suffitient justification.

Do you understand this yet?

Once an argument is made then counterproofs are called in and then I have presented evidince both scriptural and rational.

Now, look at what you are asking.
Me,
There is nothing against it.
You
Then show us this nothing! Ha, you cant can you! How dare you ask us to show our something while we still dont see your nothing!

Your... Resquest... Is... Not.... Sane.

[Tlalynet]

Sheperd,
The only place I've seen said assertations is in Mormon specific docrtine. I dont care about Mormon books, do you have anything else to support this.

Quite right, a voliation of the law would be sin on its own. For this reason NT does not have examples of this issue, monogamy was mandated by Roman law.

The whole line concerning computer usage goes to show what has already been laid down, any action is naturally just, prohibition and limiting of action requires proof.

[Tlalynet]

Rum,
The principle argument concerning polygamy is based around a precived precident that the patriarch, the good kings, and the prophets (The people aknowledged to have a direct line of contact with God) clearly knew nothing about as shown by their actions. Even if the ridiculas propositian was valid it says "This is Gods prefrence." which constistues advice (Already conceded to CV), not a rule of action. The point is doublely confounded. It would be irrisponsible of me to concede this point.
Becasue advice was long ago conceded to CV the only point left to debate is wether it is a rule of action or not. Ill say it again, the only point left is weather or not polygamy is naturally sin. To say that it is NOT natural sin is extremely safe ground becasue to say that it is you must also say that
1. It is an abaslute law with many exceptions.
2. The prophets where sinners and didnt know about it.

Further to the not the ideal argument and the not for clergy arguemnt there are no arguemnts being made. Shep has made an assertion concering marridge beds thrice now but I can only guess where this assertion comes from and so cannot further discuss it.

I dont really care about conforming to doctrines of oppinion. For now everything against me relies on either the assertation that 'every action must be sanctioned by the bible.' Thus calls for me to show where God condoned polygamy. Despite disagreeing with the need to show I did it anway and showed where God directly gave many women to one man. My opponent then goes on to say this refrence is weak, even though for it actually to be weak you would have to call in to question Nathans prohpetic ability.
I am dealing with an audiance so brutaly bias that GOD DOING IT is not enough. Then you suppose to call me morally bankrupt...

[Storico]

I'll toss something out there: as Christians, why should we try and look for loopholes everywhere? Why try to get away with borderline behaviour, with what we THINK is "okay" to do if we only find the right loophole, or the right passage we can take just slightly out of context to make it say what we want it to? Is there another option? Sure. Doing our best to live holy lives. Wanting to please God. Recognizing that we've ALL got dragons to fight, but that doesn't mean we make best friends with the dragon to end the fight.

No matter what it is we struggle with, the struggle itself isn't the issue. Whether or not we look for a way to justify what we struggle with is the issue. That's how I see it, and I say that as someone who understands how your wife feels, tlalynet. I understand you're probably also feeling unsteady about what you've come to know about her, and you've been thinking about it a lot. All the same.... Looking for loopholes and ways to justify what we do isn't nearly as freeing or as wonderful as just concentrating on the task at hand... getting to know and trust God, so we can be who He wants us to be.

[themuzicman]

The largest reason men should oppose polygamy: Two mother-in-laws....

[Storico]

Believe me, Michael, us ladies probably also think that having one mother-in-law is JUST great. I'm certainly not looking for two, myself. :teeth:

[Tlalynet]

Storico,
Absalutely right we shouldnt look for loopholes, we should neither be like the pharisiees that added law upon law of their own creation. To be honest to God I had to start from scratch, belive nothing concerning polygamy (though in my heart was against it), read the whole bible, read histories concerning the subject, and weigh the existing arguments.

I am an existentialist, I have NEVER accepted precedint as a rule of action for anything. I belive people where made to be unique and have their own character and thus while advice can be attained by the study of history, historical study itself does not dicatate what we should now do.

The #1 arugment against polygamy, not just here but in general, is this precident.

If you belive polygamy is natually acceptable then there are no problems with the bible concerning Godly men practicing it undicaplined and instances of God himself directly condoneing it.
If you belive it is naturally unnaceptable you have to start thowing out scriputre here and there and you have to paint a picture of a fickcle God who didnt really like this but didnt say anything, you have to use precident, you have to use terms like 'a convention of the time' or 'nessisary economy.' and wrap yourself in all manner of bad reasoning because you have to say somethings wrong here but not there for reasons unkowen or just flat out say the patriarch commited horrible sin for which they never repented.

Plain reading of scriputre clearly shows that it happened, it was normal, and it was uncondemed.

Its important because once established that Condemnation of polygyny is a facet of dogma not of truth all hostile actions taken based on that dogma are made corrupt.

The task set for me was to study God's word and allow the reaults of the study to change my actions. Thats how it was, thats how it should be.

[Tlalynet]

Themusicman,
I concede your point, well played.
CV already said that though.

[Little Shepherd]

Sheperd,
The only place I've seen said assertations is in Mormon specific docrtine. I dont care about Mormon books, do you have anything else to support this.Which part is Mormon-specific in your opinion? The part about homosexuality being abhorrent to God is pretty much universally accepted amongst knowledgeable Christians. This alone invalidates your primary reason for wanting to engage in polygyny in the first place. You don't have to be Mormon to understand that. Your first wife would not be allowed to have her lesbian fun with your other wife(or wives). End of story.Quite right, a voliation of the law would be sin on its own. For this reason NT does not have examples of this issue, monogamy was mandated by Roman law.That may or may not be right. I haven't looked into Roman laws concerning the subject since they are irrelevant. Polygamy is illegal according to US law now, and if memory serves you said you are from New Zealand and New Zealand law also currently prohibits polygamy. This would invalidate your engaging in polygamy for any reason.

[Tlalynet]

Sheperd
I do not know of the part concerning the marridge bed other than in Mormon traditian. I have asked you to flesh out this argument ever since you made it in the homosexuality thread.

You have said 'looking into it myself I do not see how the book of Romans supports your point.' Ok, I explained that earlier. True the argument hinges on taking scripture at its face meaning and consideration of all clauses in the verse, if I havent picked and chosen enough for you sorry. Even Pheonix said exchange here means giving up of the original.
Youve said your interpitation disagrees, I dont care. If you present a reason why you diagree then well go on that, if, in your oppinion, it means something else I don't care.

Your right, the line concerning the NT and Roman law was just to prevent someone useing the 'its not mentioned in the NT' argumet and doesent directly contribute to what we where talking about.

Im from Canada, actually, but I travel some too. Not a bad guess though. Your right, violation of law would prohibit engadgeing in Polygamy for any reason, and right too that in Canada there are certain anti polygamy laws. Ill give you that for sure. I still belive it is important that Christians realize these laws are not universal and polygamy is not in iteself a sin.

[Crow]

Dear hearts and gentle people,

Back to back posting is prohibited unless you are clearly responding to a point made in a different post than the one to which you directed your last response. The way we differentiate between legitimate back to back posting and the wicked practice of spamming/flooding is by quoting the post we are responding to, or a portion thereof. Therefore, people can see that which we are responding to and are not left scratching their pates in befuddlement.

It matters not if this is our preferred method. It matters not if it vexes us to do so. It matters not that we must waste precious seconds of our earthly lives deleting parts of the quoted material which we are not responding to. What matters is that this is what this site requires, and from this post forth it is expected of all, and the angels will weep for those among us who refuse to use the quote feature when making back to back posts, as the warnings and infractions given will be legion, for they will be many.

If the preceding applies to you, take heed. If not, carry on.

Crow

[Teallaura]

Teal, the term absence of evidice (Or rather, absence of prohibition) Is first used in post 26.
The rule that any action is by default allowed was stated early on and still stands. There is no need to present an argument that drinking tea is alright or driving is alright or fixing a roof is alright, If someone says an action is wrong they must prove why. This is why opening proofs must be made by the opposition. Before such argument is made absense of prohibition is suffitient justification.

Do you understand this yet?

Once an argument is made then counterproofs are called in and then I have presented evidince both scriptural and rational.

Now, look at what you are asking.
Me,
There is nothing against it.
You
Then show us this nothing! Ha, you cant can you! How dare you ask us to show our something while we still dont see your nothing!

Your... Resquest... Is... Not.... Sane.You - are - an - idiot.

You are the proponent - you have the burden. That does not change just 'cause you're stupid enough to advocate something you are incapable of supporting. No one is obligated to provide the argumentation for you. You messed up yourself when you started this stupidity.

You have the burden. You did not meet it. Your argument failed on page two and has only gone downhill from there.

Your inability to prove your own argument only makes you look even more moronic. Give it up - you lost a long time ago - you just aren't willing to see it.

:ahem:

[Teallaura]

The largest reason men should oppose polygamy: Two mother-in-laws....
:rofl:

[Chaotic Void]

You - are - an - idiot.

You are the proponent - you have the burden. That does not change just 'cause you're stupid enough to advocate something you are incapable of supporting. No one is obligated to provide the argumentation for you. You messed up yourself when you started this stupidity.

You have the burden. You did not meet it. Your argument failed on page two and has only gone downhill from there.

Your inability to prove your own argument only makes you look even more moronic. Give it up - you lost a long time ago - you just aren't willing to see it.

:ahem:

.... :LMAO:

Teal.... Calling him an Idiot doesn't make your position look any better. [even if he did start it, does it justify you insulting him?]

He used the Reverse Onus in the First post, switching the Burden of Proof onto you.
whos got some Biblical\Rational arguments against it?

I'd like to point out [yes, in his favor] Numerous people in the Bible had multiple Wives. Solomon, David and Gideon [nothing bad ever happened to Gideon nor was his heart turned, so those arguments can't be used. There were no known problems with David until Bathsheba in which case Adultery was the cause as she was married to Uriah whom David got Whacked after finding out she was pregnant. In Solomon's case, it was the Foreign Wives that caused the Trouble] for instance.

*Important Parts of the verses Bolded

2Sa 5:13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

1Ki 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

Jdg 8:30 And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

[An interesting Verse I found:
1Ki 11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.

Nowhere does it say in the Bible that David Commited a Sin by Marrying More than one Wife, with the Exception of Bathsheba but Adultery was the meat and Potatoes [as I stated before, she was already married to Uriah] of the Sin. The only Sin mentioned in the Bible he commited was Adultery with Bathsheba.]

[Tlalynet]

Crow,
If the quote is of such importance sure, Ill post in one form. Ive alredy had the quote feature used to take one coheisive statement into two incohesive ones in this very thread. Moreover quotes can be edited, as the original is left on the site I prefer people just look up the previous statement.

Teal,
Evidince has been presented as arguments have been presented against it. There is a lot of evidince put forth derived from the debate. If the school you attend mandates certin burdens in the way it presents it debates then that is what the school you attend does. In this case we are operation based on rules of free action. If someone wishes the action of another restricted it is their burden to prove said restriction is reasonable. Reapeatedly reaserting your oppinion that I need to prove valid an action before there is any question of invalididty is silly.
Moreover the nature of argument of absence means there are no natural citations, as explained numerous times. Because the topic is that of action and as many times previously stated action is unresticted untill a reason for restriction exists argument of absence is a very strong argument. If you do not agree with this then you have to establish that the nature of action is restricted untill otherwise justified, and thus the morality of comuter useage becomes a valid queary.
Now, back your assertation or shove off. The fact that repeated explination of the nature of action and why if anyone wishes to impose a rule on another they must present the reason for it doesent sink in with you is frustrating.
To say it yet another way, Untill someone presents a reason why something could be wrong it is not nessisary to say why it is right.
Can you even explain how I am supposed to present evidince against arguments before the arguments are presented?

Once someone presents an argument my counterarguments come out.

Finally, the thread thesis clearly requires anyone wishing to condemn the action present their arguments first, "Does anyone have any Biblical\Rational arguments against Polygamy?" In engageing in this thread as opposition you agree to the terms of the thesis.

Side Note,
Busy, wont post for several days. Sheps posts about his concernes about my personal decitions will have to wait untill I get back, and Pheonixes too if he's still in on it. CV can adequetly take my place concerning Polygamy. All that is left concerning that is a need for consession that Poly is sanctioned, all fine and well if its not recomended thats been delt with. CV, if your going to work for me keep in mind all that is needed is for people to concede that there are many cases in which it is not sinfull and a few God directly mandated. Thx

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Crow,
If the quote is of such importance sure, Ill post in one form. Ive alredy had the quote feature used to take one coheisive statement into two incohesive ones in this very thread. Moreover quotes can be edited, as the original is left on the site I prefer people just look up the previous statement.

Let's be clear about one thing, tlalynet - this is not a dispute between you and Crow, this is TWeb policy about back to back posting. A number of your posts in this thread have no been merged together, because they appeared consecutively and they did not cite any previous posts to make it clear what they were responding to.

Whether you "prefer" one thing over another is not very important. If you write back to back posts like this, be ready for them to be edited and merged, unless you take just a few moments to co-operate on this. Thanks. Be aware also that if you disagree with such mod actions, take it up with the mod in private. We don't want to see you disputing moderation in threads. I hope that makes it all clear. Thanks.

[Chaotic Void]

um..... isn't anyone going to provide a Rational argument...?

[sprky777]

many problems in this debate can be clarified by the use of language.

The people of the OT, NT and origins of KJV (I hope KJV scribes,) understood the meaning and contextual usage of current vocabulary. What a word meant then isn't necessarily what it means now so culture, context and application must be taken into consideration.

Consider these verses:
Exodus 20:17
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Romans 7:7
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
so what is covet? is it wrong to want a house? is it wrong to want beasts of burden? is it wrong to want a wife? No, in the context of the law, it is wrong to desire specifically the property or possessions of another person. Jealousy, envy, unjust desire, lust.
I can admire my neighbors house and car, the quality of his well kept yard and do so justly with respect.

Now, considering a wife;
A single man can admire a single female and recognize that she is attractive in appearance, well mannered and perhaps from the quality of her speech determine that she is also intelligent. He does not sin in thought or action if he desires her to be his wife.

Here we see many different words representing females. Generally, maid, girl, virgin all refered to unmarried females.
Gen 24:16
And the damsel [was] very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
Ezekiel 44:22
Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.
Exd 22:16
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
Now, as to adultery;
Exodus 20:14
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Proverbs 6:32
But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
Ezekiel 16:32
But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!
Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Romans 7:3
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Ok, in these proceeding examples of adultery we see they all consist of a man (status unknown) involving himself with a married woman, never a maiden or virgin.

In Gods Word, the definition of adultery is 'a woman having a man that is not her husband'. Scripture is consistant in this.

So a man, single or married, seeing an unbetrothed virgin and desiring her to be a wife, then taking her as a wife, does not commit any sin as described in scripture.
As per
Exodus 21:10
If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
He must equally provide for his new wife as he does for his first.