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

So you think perhaps God meant David should put these women inside his cloak, in the same way one of your examples show? Was God telling David to carry them in his arms like children? There is simply no equivalence in context. These others are not about a wife being given to a man. As such they are irrelevant to this conversation. Then the LORD said, "Put your hand inside your cloak." So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was leprous, like snow. -NIV Did I conceive all these people? Did I give them birth? Why do you tell me to carry them in my arms, as a nurse carries an infant, to the land you promised on oath to their forefathers? -NIV So what about them? Do they have you confused about what God meant when he gave David these women? God Bless, Robert

These scriptures only tell us about the marriage between a man and a woman, as every marriage is in the Bible. You have yet to show that these same verses do not apply equally to say, David and Abigail, or Joseph and Rachel. What you have not faced is the fact that these marriages are not delineated from what you would call monogamous marriages, but for which the Bible has no special term. A wife is just a wife, a marriage is just a marriage, in the Bible, without regard to any other wives. Actually its your prejudice that does that. Sin comes from the fall, not marriage. Problems in a marriage are not caused by the institution but by the sinners themselves.

The truth is that the marital status of MOST of the NT men is unknown. Remember you gave someone a hard time for arguing from silence. That's exactly what your doing here. Silence is not evidence. God Bless, Robert

Thats a great theory but that is simply not what the scripture says. "I gave your master's ...wives into your arms." -NIV "I gave thee thy ...master's wives into thy bosom" -KJV The language of the Bible has a trancendent quality that allows us to understand the meanings of words and phrases. The Bible repeats itself, and reveals the deeper meaning of these phrases. God very specifically chooses the words of Sarai. She said: "I put my servant in your arms" -NIV "I have given my maid into thy bosom" -KJV You all know what she meant. Hagar was given as a wife into Abram's arms (or bosom). So it is clear what this phrase meant to the Israelites, who were steeped in the Torah. Within this list of blessing on David, the phrase carried its meaning to them as they read it, as it does to you now. God Bless, Robert "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: " 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.

I hate to shock you guys...but this can be true. It can even be true in monogamous marriages as well. When people marry for such hollow reasons their relationships fail. Perhaps that is why Christians are divorcing for the first time at a rate equal or greater than non-Christians. Samson was a monogamous man who married for such reasons. He saw a woman desired her and married her. His marriage to her is an example of this exactly. Paul wrote, it is better to marry than to burn with passion, but that doesn't mean that more is not required to make a successful marriage. God Bless, Robert

I am going to say this to your face. If you believe that polygamy was a part of what made these men live holy lives, you are a sick man. Nebula, I never said that. In fact earlier I asked which came first, holy lives or many wives? Remember I said in the case of the man after God's own heart it was certainly his holy life, that is to say, set apart unto God. The same can be said of Abraham, Moses, Gideon, and a host of others. I do not think that marital status can make you holy. Only that you can be holy regardless of your marital status. Your the one trying to make a connection. God Bless, Robert

Nebula, Your threats are unneccessary, as well as pointless. I have only replied to you in a respectful manner, as I am now. I have to say that I am extremely hurt by your hostile intentions. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. If you don't wish to see my opinion, you are free to ignore me. If you write an opinion, I have a right to respond. It is the nature of these forums. Additionally, I will end my posts anyway that I see fit. God Bless, Robert I am going to say this to your face. If you believe that polygamy was a part of what made these men live holy lives, you are a sick man. And don't "God bless" me anymore. If we were in the same room together, I'd slap your face for saying that with what you are pushing.

Jesus never "spoke of the immorality that needed a divorce". You are in grave error. The scripture says: I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, ... This is not a command to divorce. Men are not required to leave their wives if they cheat. In fact the only example of divorce suggests that men should not be so "hard hearted" about such things, but rather be forgiving and long suffering. As I pointed out before none of the men of God divorced their wives, but there is an example we can look too. Remember God said, I hate divorce.... but in Jeremiah we find this: I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. From this we know that there are times when divorce is justified, and perhaps even righteous, but it is never commanded or required in an absolute sense. God Bless, Robert

There have been over a hundred posts since my last visit. Not too shabby for a subject you guys have no interest in. I doubt very much I shall ever catch up with the questions, much less the rhetoric. Unfortunately you have not proven your case, at least, not to the same threshold of evidence that you hold polygamy too. People are very quick to claim what they think is true.... but none of you have produced the scriptures to back it up. Until you prove that they aren't those things then your position is merely an opinion. As I wrote before all the children of Israel were legitimate, and we know that because if they weren

Perhaps you haven't followed the thread. We have have been discussing the holy men of God specifically Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon and many others. That is to say they lived holy lives. They never divorced. They provided for their families. They did not use women as sex toys and discard them, as men do today with increasing frequency. They did not abandon their children. In short, they were obedient to God. God says that his word shall not return void. So any discussion of his word will have a positive effect on the participants. Don't you think so? This issue is entirely encased within the Bible. That