Polygamy in the Bible

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Rico

This is hilarious! You guys really do pick and choose what's convenient for you, don'tcha? When it's convenient to use OT to back your precious standards, you scream OT scriptures at the top of your lungs. When the OT contradicts your position, you demand NT scriptures and will only accept NT scriptures. The scriptures aren't there to be used at your convenience and ignored when it isn't convenient.

Well Rico.... you know my stance on the OT it should be studied deeply and applied through the leading of the Spirit as it has much application today.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bro...I think Evang.Benincasa makes a great point. Paul doesn't condemn polygamy... but he does admonish that church leaders have one wife...which was in accordance to Roman law. Had Rome not banned plural marriages Paul may not have needed to ensure that church leadership abide by the ordinances of Rome to maintain a good report to those who were outside the church.

Yes, BUT polygamy in itself was not banned. If anything it was more of a restraint due to conditions like today in the USA. Why would I teach to continue in it with the present laws and enviroment? I wouldn't but it does not mean I make it a sin or say it is wrong. Just not the proper situation to condone considering the circumstances.

Also personaly I don't think "one" as said before is ONE but "first" as the text makes more sense that way.

[DividedThigh]

fun is right, funny is the man who thinks he would want two of these modern, lol, women yelling at him, lol

Aquila, you are definitly making the point about Romans Laws against Polygamy..... Even while this was the law,, many of the Jews still practiced it.. because THEIR RELIGION allowed for it..... So I am wondering. who is the better example for us to follow? Pagan Rome or Gods original Bride, Yisrael?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Aquila, you are definitly making the point about Romans Laws against Polygamy..... Even while this was the law,, many of the Jews still practiced it.. because THEIR RELIGION allowed for it..... So I am wondering. who is the better example for us to follow? Pagan Rome or Gods original Bride, Yisrael?

Well, Paul's admonishions appear to direct church leaders to obey the Roman law. Paul instructed us to obey every ordinance of man. Therefore...if the law stipulates that a man can only be married to one woman...Paul appears to desire us to live by that standard.

One could argue that since Paul has no encoded it in Holy writ...that's now the church's official position.

Regardless as to where the church belongs on the issue today...my point is simply that polygamy isn't and never was a "sin".

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Yes, BUT polygamy in itself was not banned. If anything it was more of a restraint due to conditions like today in the USA. Why would I teach to continue in it with the present laws and enviroment? I wouldn't but it does not mean I make it a sin or say it is wrong. Just not the proper situation to condone considering the circumstances.

That's my point. Paul's admonishion and writings regarding monogamy have to be understood in light of Roman law's prohibition against polygamy.

Also personaly I don't think "one" as said before is ONE but "first" as the text makes more since that way.

I'm not sure about that point bro....but hey...love ya anyway.

[OP_Carl]

Reading through this thread, I have been amused at the clear division between the genders in reaction to the concept of polygamy. It is just as the biological imperative predicts:

The biological imperative is the notion that in general, people act in ways that further their chances for reproductive success. Females are inclined to choose males with dominant status and resources. This provides their offspring with the best genetic material of the available group. Secondarily they place emphasis on stability, i.e., the duration of time they might anticipate a given male will bring resources to bear in the upbringing of their young.

Males, to the extent that they have any opportunity to exercise selection among females, merely choose young, slim, and symmetrical, as these are universal signs of fertility and offer the best chance for a given male to have a genetic future.

The average female is concerned with acquiring the best possible genetic material from her mate, and then the greatest potential for resources to raise the young. Polygamy implies that the resources will be shared with another genetic line, the other female(s) and their young.

The biological imperative of the average male is to attempt to impregnate as many young, slim, symmetrical females as will let him. Polygamy offers him multiple chances to further his genetic stock.

The men in this thread discuss polygamy with mild detachment or amusement. Their primordial biological imperative sends them no negative impulses as they consider the topic. They may be culturally biased against it, but have no biological reason to be against it.

The women in this thread shudder and recoil from the thought. It makes them ill. It makes them apalled. It makes them disgusted, even angry. As they intellectually consider the topic, their biological imperative starts to kick in, sending signals from whatever part of us considers how we should go about the basic chore of propagating our genes. And they are repulsed at a very basic, and probably subconscious level, at the thought of needing to share a mate's resources with other reproducing females.

I'm not really sure if this makes any statement about the effectiveness of the Spirit in conquering the flesh, or not. I'm mostly just amused at how easily the reactions are predicted.

[Aquila]

Op Carl...that was facinating. Awesome contribution.

I've always wondered....if my wife were a clone of an original....would it be proper for her, as an Apostolic, to have "hand-me-down" genes?

[Nina]

If Marriage truly makes "one" out of two, Can it make "one" out of three or five or seven?

If polygamy is Scriptural, would a menage a trois be Scriptural if all three are "one?"

Originally Posted by Nina

If Marriage truly makes "one" out of two, Can it make "one" out of three or five or seven?

If polygamy is Scriptural, would a menage a trois be Scriptural if all three are "one?"

Only if they are in Covenant with one another... their vows or contract binds them as much as the consumation