Lionroot

Not at all. That issue is already covered in scripture. I was addressing Buttero who wrote: I was instead asking about the churches that forbid to marry. BTW, feel free to find your own figures. I would love to see what you find. None, whatsoever. However they do have an obligation not to obstruct what God allows, especially when that obstruction forbids obedience. 1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1Ti 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 1Ti 5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan. So let me ask you: What obligation does the church have, if at all, in forbidding these women from marrying? Chapter and verse, please.

Follow-up .... In my last post I threw out some ballpark figures.... Here is what one author says: Using these figures, I would say we are talking about roughly 4.5 million women that will never marry a believing man, that isn't engaged in serial monogamy. The future looks even bleaker when you consider what he says about boys abandoning their faith by the age of 20.

There is in the Christian church. I have read from several sources that most churches maintain an average of about 30% male membership. If that is true then potentially only 60% of the membership will ever be married, assuming life long monogamy. (...and not serial monogamy which is practiced in the church at the same rate the as the godless population, and was discouraged by Christ(Matthew 5:32)) That leaves a full 40% out of the loop. That is some are under command to marry(1 Corinthians 7:9), but to only marry a believer(1 Corinthians 7:39, 2 Corinthians 6:14), but some forbid to marry(1Timothy 4:3), and thats a shame. So thats my take on the practical standpoint....

Is that really what you think marriage is all about? Sating sexual desire? No wonder your against it. Try on a Biblical perspective.

"where there is no law there is no transgression." Romans 4:15 "sin is not taken into account when there is no law." Romans 5:13

Prove it. Notice this is about avoiding fornication with mutual sexual submission. A standard that is a carry over from the Old Testament. The over arching principle is given later. "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."-1 Corinthians 11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man(singular) is Christ(singular), and the head of the woman(singular) is man(singular) , and the head of Christ is God If a man(singular) can only have one woman(singular), can Christ only have one man(singular)? How many in the "body"? Real problems for your theory.

It would be a moral wrong to do so. Not only that it would be a sin. The sin of Adultery.

Nothing at all, you cannot locate a single verse that has both terms in it.

Yes , Abigail had authority over Davids body.

Is this an opinion, or does God say that somewhere? I seem to remember Him saying, remove the evil from among you. objection: Opinion, and Irrelevant. Nice diversionary tactic though. Of course I can. As with all "answers" though, it must be understood within the full counsel of God. Scriptures generally agree. They are after all from the same God, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It would be equally immoral ...take a single wife for the purpose of having a single sex object. Right? Is that what you think a wife is? I'd love to hear it sometime. Could you rephrase this, I am not at all clear to what your refer?

The context belongs to it's culture. Again, I'm not arguing against a cultural mentality. Firehill, I am confused, was it cultural for God to give wives to men? After all this is the Lord talking, not a cultural representative.

Has anyone actually counted how many polygynist had such problems, versus how many had no such issues. Most polygynist do not have much information about such problems within a family. Do we put them on the side of problems or no problems if the text does not mention any problems? How many monogamous marriages in the Bible had no problems at all, versus ones with problems? Just some thoughts that might offer perspective. God Bless, Robert

This is a weak basis for a doctrine. I guess you could prove just about anything if you could see the pattern. This is a bit like reading tea leaves though. It probably explains why there is so much division in the church. That is why God is not wishy washy. He is bold. "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife". "You shall not commit adultery". "I hate divorce,...". Why then on this issue do you think God only offers "patterns" and hints? God Bless, Robert

Shiloh your arguing from silence again. 1) "David is not recorded"...thats silence. 2) He didn't have children with these women? How do you know that in any absolute sense? Silence is not evidence. So does it say he didn't or do you say he didn't? The scriptures say:After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him. It means he had many more children, and no mother is recorded. I suppose you will argue that these were from the new wives and concubines, but the language doesn't exclude births from his previous wives. 3) I cannot help but notice that this opinion, like the two before it, are stated as fact, without any Biblical support. Apparently only your opposition cannot argue from silence, but its just fine for you? Try again with some Biblical evidence this time. God Bless, Robert

While the phrase may be the same, the respective contexts are not. Which is why the NIV translates the alternative texts the way they do. Clearly God didn't require the other possibilities that the other context might suggest. David is not required to physically put them in his cloak or carry the women like children like the burden Moses felt was placed on him. There is no confusion about what God meant. Remember this verse in Samuel starts with the blessings God gave to David before his adultery. All of Gods gifts are good. The master's house, the house of Israel, and the house of Judah, and more (if that had been too little) are clearly good things for David. To suggest that He had burdened him in this list of Blessings goes against the context. These women are yet another blessing in a list of blessings. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. "I put my servant in your arms" -NIV "I have given my maid into thy bosom" -KJV It was a valiant effort to muddy the waters, but the text is clear enough for the honest to see it. The question now is are you more dedicated to truth or your traditions? God Bless, Robert