Im so saddened by this......legalized polygamy

[RGR]

"So, why are you pushing polymamy / polygyny?"

My primary objective is to promote a better understanding of what marriage is. The most important immediate application of the principle is that it bars believing women from divorcing believing men. If adultery is not defined in terms of a husband having sex with someone other than his one wife, to whom he is restricted then it is not odd that the permission for divorce we find in scripture, which is repeated without modification by Christ, doesn't permit women to divorce men. This is of immediate and vital interest to the churches since we teach that women may divorce men for their "adulteries". I'm sorry, but this simply isn't so. Don't make the leap that I am advocating for adultery, denying that men can commit it or seeking to authorize or excuse my own, I am not.

So a believing man can divorce a believing woman? Find that one in Scripture WITHOUT twisting the Scripture to support your flawed views. And yes, a woman is allowed to divorce a man in the case that he is abusive or an adulterer. You seem to be supporting that a woman stay in an abusive relationship and get killed because it doesn't specifically call out that a woman can divorce a man. I find it interesting that Paul said that if the unbeliever departs to let them go; a believer is under no bondage then. He didn't say one iota about the woman having to beg the man back since she couldn't divorce. As for your not advocating adultery, we shall see on that one.

"Misspell. Does it make a difference?"

Yes, you look more credible for your point of view if you do not misspell an essential word in the discussion.

second, the form of Polygamy practiced in scripture is more properly termed Polygyny.

"Does it matter?"

Absolutely, the most common error in the Polygamy debate is to call it the Polygamy debate, it's not. Polygamy as defined includes unbiblical forms of marriage now refered to as "Polyamories" and "Polyandries". Neither form of marriage is even possible from a scriptural standpoint so I use the specific and accurate term "Polygyny" which means exactly "A man with more than one wife at the same time".

"Do you mean you haven't considered the consequences of this lifestyle you are arguing for?"

Technically I was a Polygynist for about 5 years. In that I define marriage and divorce from what I think is a Biblical perspective, I was seperated from one spouse for that time, and with yet another, I finally divorced my first wife when she moved in with another man and started calling him her husband.

Hmm, I thought you weren't advocating adultery but yet by your own admission, you committed adultery!

"Other than third world countries . . . what women where?"

So, third world women don't count? I grew up in the third world. Jesus loves the little children, ALL the children of the world.

"You are trying to sell us an argument here. Tell me, a woman, why I should favor the sharing of a man?"

I did, but you scoffed at it.

If I were a woman, I'd scoff at it too! You are sentencing a woman to a life of depression and emotional distress with this kind of junk.

"I do believe you have much to learn about women if that's what you think."

Odd, I am closest, of all my children, to my daughter. She declares that I am so empathetic to women that I really am one.

"Whenever I hear a man pushing polygamy, the first thing that goes through my head is 'sex drive'."

Obviously, unless I am lying to you, that doesn't apply in my case, does it?

Well, we've already caught you in one lie in this post, so would one more be a big stretch, so how do we know that you're not? All we've seen so far is someone here to push an agenda at all costs; someone who has made his way onto other forums before this one trying the same thing; someone who has his own forum set up for the express purpose of supporting unbiblical views.

"Honostly - have you considered the consequences of this lifestyle you are pushing/ promoting/ arguing in favor of?"

Yes, for over a decade, and nearly a decade before I started a public discussion of it. Jacob's family by the way is praised in specific fashion in Ruth, or did you miss that?

Hugh McBryde

[Ovedya]

My current wife is my only wife but was my second wife while I was still married to my first, a condition of her consenting to marry me was that I would take no more wives. I have only one wife now.

Okay, now that sounds contradictory to me. Did you or did you not divorce your first wife?

Secondly, is marriage established in the kingdom of the heavens and bound by God's laws, or is it established on the earth and bound only by man's laws?

[nebula]

"So, why are you pushing polymamy / polygyny?"

My primary objective is to promote a better understanding of what marriage is. The most important immediate application of the principle is that it bars believing women from divorcing believing men. If adultery is not defined in terms of a husband having sex with someone other than his one wife, to whom he is restricted then it is not odd that the permission for divorce we find in scripture, which is repeated without modification by Christ, doesn't permit women to divorce men. This is of immediate and vital interest to the churches since we teach that women may divorce men for their "adulteries". I'm sorry, but this simply isn't so. Don't make the leap that I am advocating for adultery, denying that men can commit it or seeking to authorize or excuse my own, I am not.

So, is your issue about polygyny or about divorce?

"Do you mean you haven't considered the consequences of this lifestyle you are arguing for?"

Technically I was a Polygynist for about 5 years. In that I define marriage and divorce from what I think is a Biblical perspective, I was seperated from one spouse for that time, and with yet another, I finally divorced my first wife when she moved in with another man and started calling him her husband.

So, you were with another woman while you were still married?

Is this the correct understanding of what you said here?

So, really, your need to jump onto a new Message Board with this debate is because of your past actions and how you dealt with it?

"Other than third world countries . . . what women where?"

So, third world women don't count? I grew up in the third world. Jesus loves the little children, ALL the children of the world.

In the third world, women don't have the kinds of rights we do here. Women are not known to be able to support themselves as well as we can here. Women are known for being treated as second class citizens

Just becuase women are forced into a polygynous situation doesn't mean they prefer it, does it?

"You are trying to sell us an argument here. Tell me, a woman, why I should favor the sharing of a man?"

I did, but you scoffed at it.

Well - yeah!

Time alone?

I have all the time alone I want as a single woman.

One of the reasons for wanting to get married is so that I will no longer be alone.

So tell me why sharing a man is a good thing for me?

"I do believe you have much to learn about women if that's what you think."

Odd, I am closest, of all my children, to my daughter. She declares that I am so empathetic to women that I really am one.

So tell me again why "time alone" is desirable for women as a reason to live in a polygynous relationship?

"Whenever I hear a man pushing polygamy, the first thing that goes through my head is 'sex drive'."

Obviously, unless I am lying to you, that doesn't apply in my case, does it?

And I wouldn't have known that unless it was challenged.

But based on what you said above, I am again wondering your motives.

"Honostly - have you considered the consequences of this lifestyle you are pushing/ promoting/ arguing in favor of?"

Yes, for over a decade, and nearly a decade before I started a public discussion of it.

Ten years after being with another woman while married/separated to another, you mean?

Jacob's family by the way is praised in specific fashion in Ruth, or did you miss that?

Rachel and Leah were always fighting over Jacob.

Joseph's half-brothers hated him enough due to his favored status that they nearly killed him, but then sold him to slavery.

Are you ignoring that?

[Guest Prakk]

"It's not contradictory at all. There is only one Bride of Christ at the end of all things. So the distinctions between those individuals are not there. The Bible does not say that there are brides of Christ. It does not say that Christ has married a myriad of individuals or churches. In the Bride of Christ there are no individuals, even though the aspect is there and is apparent by our reconing."

Read this, carefully, think about it's implications. If you reply quickly you'll never convince me you read it carefully, and thought about it, unless of course, you agree with me. Hehehehe...(humor there folks). 2nd Corinthians 11:2,

"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

The same author by the way, who wrote Ephesians.

"Likewise, Eve was called 'the mother of all the living,' and according to Genesis 1 she was created as a representative of the corporate man (God created man corporately, not individually). However, there was only one couple, just as it is at the end."

And again, you do not deal with the consequence of that original marriage, that is the creation of a condition where it was mandatory you marry your immediate sister or brother to fulfill the Godly mandate given before the fall, to be "fruitful and multiply".

"

My current wife is my only wife but was my second wife while I was still married to my first, a condition of her consenting to marry me was that I would take no more wives. I have only one wife now."

First wife, first wife rebels, second wife, First wife (who is seperate from me at the taking of my second wife) "Marries" another man, I divorce the first wife, I am sworn to the second to take no others. Having divorced the first for cause, I now have only one wife, and am sworn still, to take no others.

"Secondly, is marriage established in the kingdom of the heavens and bound by God's laws, or is it established on the earth and bound only by man's laws?"

Established by God, and man's laws apply only insofar as they comply with God.

"Hmm, I thought you weren't advocating adultery but yet by your own admission, you committed adultery!"

Hmm, and you and I Sir, are done.

Hugh McBryde

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Prakk,

Why are you done with Ovedya?

P.S. As of this writing you now have actually admitted to having Three wives. If I am reading you right?

Yet you are totally dedicated to this one and a hopeless romantic?

Peace,

Dave

Edited November 16, 2005 by Dr. Luke

[Guest Prakk]

"So, is your issue about polygyny or about divorce?"

Both. Both marriage and divorce are grossly misunderstood in this culture, we have an egalitarian and Roman model of marriage that is not taught by God.

"So, you were with another woman while you were still married?"

It surprises you that I put my money where my mouth is, as it were? Yes, for a period of 5 years I had two wives, I did not meet my second wife until after my first sought to divorce me. She did not seek a divorce because I was beating her or being unfaithful or any of the other reasons people tend to speculate on.

"So, really, your need to jump onto a new Message Board with this debate is because of your past actions and how you dealt with it?"

Nope, I had already come to these conclusions prior to my first wife's rebellion. If what you do is seek to personalize this so that you can dismiss an otherwise logial argument, be my guest, but it won't do anything other than invite the same speculation about you, in other words, your interests lie here or there, thus your beliefs follow your interests. I am not a believer in Polygyny because of my personal situation, but my personal situation does in part result from my beliefs. I acted on what I thought was true.

"In the third world, women don't have the kinds of rights we do here."

So we are better? One of those rights is the right to "abortion" by the way.

"Just because women are forced into a polygynous situation doesn't mean they prefer it, does it?"

No, of course not, and just because some are forced there is no proof that all are. I am not talking about women forced into marriage against their will, that is an entirely different topic.

"Rachel and Leah were always fighting over Jacob. Joseph's half-brothers hated him enough due to his favored status that they nearly killed him, but then sold him to slavery. Are you ignoring that?"

Rachel and Leah did not always fight, the co-operated in Jacob's plan to get out of Dodge when he wasn't getting along with their father, Monogamous Isaac's only two sons got into a near fatal fight, you know, Jacob and Esau, so no, I'm not ignoring that, it's meaningless.

Hugh McBryde

[RGR]

"Hmm, I thought you weren't advocating adultery but yet by your own admission, you committed adultery!"

Hmm, and you and I Sir, are done.

Hugh McBryde

So no explanation or even excuses? Can you not face the truth? You moved in with a woman while you were still married and that, Sir, is adultery. As Nebula put it your sex drive is in overdrive; you moved in with a second woman before your first wife ever moved in with another man and that, Sir, is an overactive sex drive!

[Gerioke]

Somebody's going to get a scathing PM any second.

[Ovedya]

And again, you do not deal with the consequence of that original marriage, that is the creation of a condition where it was mandatory you marry your immediate sister or brother to fulfill the Godly mandate given before the fall, to be "fruitful and multiply".

So would you advocate incest based upon the apparent implications of such in Genesis, even though the Scriptures do not directly state that either Cain or Abel married their sisters?

That issue is not even part of this discussion. We are talking about a specific aspect of marriage - that being one man, one wife - whether or not Cain or Abel married their sisters has nothing to do with it, unless you intend to argue for incestual relationships.

First wife, first wife rebels, second wife, First wife (who is seperate from me at the taking of my second wife) "Marries" another man, I divorce the first wife, I am sworn to the second to take no others. Having divorced the first for cause, I now have only one wife, and am sworn still, to take no others.

Without needing to get specific, for what cause did you divorce your first wife? What is the type of "rebellion" you're talking about here, because I've never read a verse in the Bible that permits divorce for "rebellion."

[Regarding marriage]Established by God, and man's laws apply only insofar as they comply with God.

So then, if a man gives his wife a legal document stating, "I divorce you for X reason." is God bound by that document also?

[nebula]

"So, is your issue about polygyny or about divorce?"

Both. Both marriage and divorce are grossly misunderstood in this culture, we have an egalitarian and Roman model of marriage that is not taught by God.

All right - I'll bite.

Define a Biblical marriage as God taught it.

"So, you were with another woman while you were still married?"

It surprises you that I put my money where my mouth is, as it were? Yes, for a period of 5 years I had two wives, I did not meet my second wife until after my first sought to divorce me. She did not seek a divorce because I was beating her or being unfaithful or any of the other reasons people tend to speculate on.

No, it doesn't suprise me. But your actions do speak volumes.

"So, really, your need to jump onto a new Message Board with this debate is because of your past actions and how you dealt with it?"

Nope, I had already come to these conclusions prior to my first wife's rebellion. If what you do is seek to personalize this so that you can dismiss an otherwise logial argument, be my guest, but it won't do anything other than invite the same speculation about you, in other words, your interests lie here or there, thus your beliefs follow your interests. I am not a believer in Polygyny because of my personal situation, but my personal situation does in part result from my beliefs. I acted on what I thought was true.

Oh my, this is worse than I thought.

Now I am wondering what church you belong to - or if you are the leader of your own church?

As for personalizing . . . well, you are personalizing your actions and beliefs, are you not?

Why did you jump onto this topic as you did clear out of the blue?

"In the third world, women don't have the kinds of rights we do here."

So we are better? One of those rights is the right to "abortion" by the way.

Strawman.

You have provided me with absolutely no reason to believe that polygyny is good for a woman.

"Just because women are forced into a polygynous situation doesn't mean they prefer it, does it?"

No, of course not, and just because some are forced there is no proof that all are. I am not talking about women forced into marriage against their will, that is an entirely different topic.

So, why did they, then - in your opinion.

"Rachel and Leah were always fighting over Jacob. Joseph's half-brothers hated him enough due to his favored status that they nearly killed him, but then sold him to slavery. Are you ignoring that?"

Rachel and Leah did not always fight

The only times they are mentioned talking together in Scripture is when they were fighting.

[sorry - for some reason the quote feature isn't working in these replies]

Edited November 16, 2005 by nebula