Multiple Wives

September 19, 2006

As such, God would not have been asking anyone to sin by having more than one wife.

Yes, but He would have been destroying his own picture of redemption which He designed marriage to represent. Furthermore, you placed the merit of polygamy upon God asking Isaiah to sin by presumably walking around in the nude, and living in moral in decency for three years. You are the one who used sin to justify polygamy. Like I said, your position depends upon God violating his own character.

I don't know all the customs of the time of Isaiah and may be wrong in this matter, but in my way of thinking, you are not committing sin in doing something God commands you to do because by the word of his mouth, it is not sin but obedience. It would be a suspension of a law for a sign.

Sorry, but god does not compromise His holiness. If your argument has to use that to keep its support, it only demonstrates the weakness of your position. Thank God I don't have to stoop to that level to make my case.

September 19, 2006

Alright Shiloh, I will make you this deal. I don't believe you proved your position. While I still believe the same way I did starting out, I recognize I have not made a single convert to my way of thinking in this thread. If you can find me one person that was in this debate that you have persuaded through your "proof" I will admit you won the debate. It won't change my mind, but I will concede that point. On the other hand, if you cannot show one person that you persuaded already in this thread that openly argued against you, but will simply agree the point cannot be proven, I will bow out of this thread. You said I was prideful. I am willing to concede I cannot prove my position. Are you willing to do the same? The ball is in your court.

Whether or not one person's mind is changed is not how anything like that is determined. You had stoop to a level that actually challenges God's ability to be consistent with His Word, and if God could compromise there, He could compromise on something that is even more important. That is where your position completely bottoms out. I don't care who won. I am just glad I did not have to stoop to your level of impugning God's character and challenging His holiness. Regardless of who "wins." I keep the high ground.

Naziyr · September 19, 2006

I think everyone involved gave their full 2 cents a loooong time ago. It seems now it's argument for argument sake .

...just an observation.

Shalom

sheya joie · September 19, 2006

Ok, I don't understand. I looked up the reference in Isaiah:

Isa 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.

Isa 20:3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;

Isa 20:4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.

and while I can see naked not meaning completely naked, that part about having the 'buttocks uncovered' - man, that sure sounds nekkid!

MrsSealedEternal · September 19, 2006

Perhaps this may seem like a ridiculous question...but here it goes...

Could it of possibly meant or implied that Isaiah was not to wear undergarments?

The thought about the priestly undergarments that were to be worn lest their nakedness be exposed was brought to mind...

September 19, 2006

Alright Shiloh, I will make you this deal. I don't believe you proved your position. While I still believe the same way I did starting out, I recognize I have not made a single convert to my way of thinking in this thread. If you can find me one person that was in this debate that you have persuaded through your "proof" I will admit you won the debate. It won't change my mind, but I will concede that point. On the other hand, if you cannot show one person that you persuaded already in this thread that openly argued against you, but will simply agree the point cannot be proven, I will bow out of this thread. You said I was prideful. I am willing to concede I cannot prove my position. Are you willing to do the same? The ball is in your court.

Whether or not one person's mind is changed is not how anything like that is determined. You had stoop to a level that actually challenges God's ability to be consistent with His Word, and if God could compromise there, He could compromise on something that is even more important. That is where your position completely bottoms out. I don't care who won. I am just glad I did not have to stoop to your level of impugning God's character and challenging His holiness. Regardless of who "wins." I keep the high ground.

Man, talk about arrogance.

No, it is just a level of honesty you don't want to face up to. You impugned the Lord's character, I didnt.

w00tatChrist · September 29, 2006

multiple wives

firehill · September 29, 2006

September 30, 2006

What you have done Shiloh is to claim to know the mind of God. You remind me of Job's friends, so full of yourself that you come across as one who was there when God actually made the charge to his profit. My admission I cannot prove my position is true is just being honest, because the fact is neither side can be proven, short of having God speak to you directly and tell you. What you have done is claimed that if God told Isaiah to walk around nude for a sign, he "stooped to the level of causing someone to sin." In other words, if you are wrong, then you have accused God himself. My position is that I believe that he did tell Isaiah to walk around nude as a sign, and since the only reason anything is sinful is because it is a violation of a law God gave to man, God has the ability to suspend a law for his own purposes. I have also made it clear it is just an opinion, because unlike you, I don't claim to have complete knowledge of what God will do in all circumstances.

As far as Jacob goes, God entrusted him with Fathering the 12 patriarchs. I just don't believe when it comes to something as important as that, God would allow women to be the mother of these children against his will, therefore I believe it was his will that Jacob have 2 wives and 2 concubines and that they give birth as he saw fit to the 12 heads of the tribes in Israel. You believe what you will, but you cannot prove me wrong. You can claim God wouldn't do such a thing, but then once again you run the risk of being wrong and having to answer one day to him for making accusations against him. Job's friends thought they knew it all like you do, but were soundly rebuked. Unlike Job's friends, you don't have Job around to pray for you for your idle words. I made it clear what I have stated are but my opinions, but you are taking things farther than that. You claim others agree with your ascertions. There were 3 men in agreement that Job was guilty of sin and had such profound knowledge of God they knew they were right. I am not claiming a comparison to Job. I know of nobody personally that could even be compared to him in the life he lived, but I am claiming you are of the same spirit as his friends.

Your absurdity knows no depths does it?? What pile of garbage.

The truth is that I do not know the mind of God in every situation and have never even insinuated anything close to that. What I have said is that I can know the Father's character through His Word and He says that He never changes. Therefore for you to say that God will compromise His Will, even to the point of causing someone to violate His moral code, shows me the degree of shallowness with which you approach the Scriptures.

As I have said, my interpretation is based upon a careful examination of the texts, and does not require me to pretend that God contradicts or compromises his values in order to accomplish His Will. God does not have to change in my approach to Scripture. In my approach God can still be God. Your approach does allow God to be Himself, nor be true to Himself. Your notion that God suspend His commandments is not only absurd but shows how little you think things through. For God to suspend a moral commandment would require Him to suspend His own character, and compromise His holiness; something He does not EVER do.

The very fact that your position cannot proven is evidence in itself that it is weak, and without any kind of biblical foundation.

LadyGunivere · October 1, 2006

How bout you two just settle it like you want too? Go out back and just beat it out of each other then come back in say your apologies and go on about you day?