Note: If this post is allowed to be posted and remain, I'll remove it and move it and my others on this subject to the new thread when its started.
pfc hall has a "permanent house guest" as far as the law is concerned where he lives. And since his wife is not complaining about the subject to the authorities or a lawyer...there is nothing that anyone can do legally about his situation.
Also...since polygamy was widely practiced in the Bible (Old and New Testament) there is going to exist in such a thread an ample opportunity to ask him about daily life and matters of practicality. A sneak peek into some cultural anthropology is going to be had by those that wish to engage him in the thread.
And where the Bible is silent on many things in the New Testament such as Polygamy or Music or Abortion or gun ownership there usually is a theological reasoning to what positions many people hold on such topics. Why not listen and hear and then refute with scripture later?
and since the other forums can get quite distracting...and his situation isn't exactly homosexual in nature...nor polyamorous or any other perversion I did invite him to this marriage forum to begin a thread on it.
so give him a couple of days and we shall see what comes.
I appreciate these words.
>>>><<<<
My. This is way off topic, as I thought it would go.
But till another thread is started...:
But I did think it prudent for him to start his own thread as this subject is derailing others. and where it is not acceptable in many countries the practice is not illegal the world around and I have spoken with several missionaries who have run into this sort of thing.
True story:
Once upon a time several centuries ago, a
Westernized missionary to some South Pacific islands (what else was there), had been surprised one day to hear the Chief of the island villages inform the missionary he was ready to convert to this Jesus he had been teaching them about over the years. The missionary was thrilled of course. For not only would he see the chief come to Christ, but in all likelihood, many of the other villagers; seeing they would follow his lead.
Well there was one problem. One major problem. A major problem or obstacle, the missionary said the Chief would have to remove before he could become a Christian....as far as the missionary was concerned that is.
What was it? Well, the missionary told the Chief that he would have to get rid of (put away) all his wives but one. The chief you see had a substantial number of them, by which he naturally had many children from.
The Chief was stunned and protested, saying he loved them all and that he was their provider and so forth.
Well like so many today, the missionary was resolute in his insistence that he'd have to do so if he wanted to become a Christian...or look to the missionary to lead him to saving faith in Christ. He told the Chief the same kind of things one can here being spouted by many in today's Churches and by many on forums such as this. Including (to buttress his arguments) that to follow God requires at times things that cost us very much, but that gaining eternity through salvation is worth it. He that seeks to save his life shall loss it, and he that looses it for Christ sake shall gain it. So forth, so forth, etc etc.
Well, the Chief said he'd have to think this one through. For the missionary was asking a great deal from him.
After several days or more, the Chief appeared at the missionary's door (with one of his wives) and said he was ready to receive Christ and become a Christian. The missionary asked about the other wives.
The Chief informed him he had taken care of it and that the woman next to him was the wife he chose to keep out of them all.
The missionary asked where the other women (wives) were. The Chief told him to had killed them.
"KILLED them!!!?" "Why...why would you do that!!!?"
"You said I could not become a Christian, if I had more than one wife, that unless I got rid of all of them but one, you couldn't lead me to Christ. That God only allows us to have one wife. So I had to do what I had to."
The missionary beside himself, exclaimed, "But I did not say or mean for you to KILL them!!!?"
The missionary himself was beginning to feel the weight of his own personal responsibility for the seeming confusion the Chief was laboring under.
The Chief explained that in their culture, the woman was not able to provide for themselves; that if her husband died, she was buried with her husband while alive (or some such custom of theirs).
So what lesson(s) can be learned from this true, albeit probably altered story from Protestant history? One is that the Protestant/Reformation, was just that: not a returning to the very roots of true scriptural life found in the letters of the Apostles and the holy scriptures (the Law; the prophets; etc.); but rather a failed effort to reform the Cult of Rome via protestation.
The Reformed/Protestant movement still has yet to purge itself of errors that its Mother conjured up and perverted the scriptures by.
The belief that the practice of polygyny was done away with, under the new covenant cannot be soundly refuted - certainly not by "many infallible proofs" pointed out in any of the synoptic gospels, or the treatise (Acts), or the letters of the apostles.
What passages - or even one single
plain and
clear passage can anyone cite (say, CO or LS, etc.), that plainly states that God put a stop to the practice of polygyny at the ratification of the new covenant (Pentecost or later, or before)?
I am not myself advocating taking more than one wife, but neither am I able to honestly, certainly not justly reject, refute or judge it to be sin - a transgression against God's Law, nor iniquity. In order to do so, I would have to be able to find, then point out (cite) the portions of scripture wherein it itself clearly and plainly...clear and plain enough, defines this practice as sin, a transgression or iniquity.
It is not enough - not nearly enough, merely to cast about (make) emotionally charged accusations against something that you may not in the least like, but at the same time can by no means actually substantiate to be sinful. To do so, must be expressed in the plainness of speech which scripture undoubtedly would be careful to denounce as sin, iniquity and a transgression.
So. The notion/claim/teaching/dogma that it is sin - the sin of adultery, to have more than one wife at a time...that God forbids polygyny, is not subject to old wives tales, fables, corrupt handling of scripture or the like. To do justice to the integrity of God's Word and oneself taking into account the warnings and exhortations scripture gives to be diligent to show yourself approved before God as a laborer in the Word of God, and not end up being shamed for incorrectly dissecting “the Word of truth”.
It behooves all to understand that to do so, requires one to discipline (force) themselves to approach their examination of this subject (any subject) with an attitude of honest-objectivity. This essential ingredient though I am afraid, few are able to muster up within themselves in order to
“rightly divide” the scriptures.
Hence, we will continue to hear all kinds of silly attempts to apply one
"wrested" out of joint text, word, phrase or expression taken out from a text here and there, until 'the cows come home'.
Where are the passages?
DO you lean upon Matthew 19:9, 1-12; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:2?
OK then. Now point out exactly where it specifically is speaking about what you claim it does. If these passages do not, then you will have to point out where such a command that forbids it (polygyny)
CAN be found. In addition, your clear 'proof-texts' will have to show how the language contained in 'it' clearly indicates in no uncertain terms that the expression say in 1 Corinthians 7:2:
“let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” MEANS what you say it does: that it is forbidding polygyny: the practice of a man taking more than one wife at a time.'' It is not nearly enough 'proof' to say 'Well, that's clearly what it means! You know, that's the meaning of it when you understand the subtle 'nuances' of the passage.' Well, feel free to try that on some other individual (simpleton).
“...and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” [Rms.16:18, 17-19]
Again, though I have to acknowledge that
polygyny is
not, as far as I have been able to discern, a practice that was forbidden under the new covenant; it does not mean it is required either, or perhaps even a prudent practice in the majority of cases. I do not know though, having no depth of knowledge either way at this time.
Try this out:
Moses...suffered you to
take more than one wife. So under God's good, holy and just Law, he did
not forbid, but permitted the taking of more than one wife.
p.p
P.S.
Chosenone (or whoever): I'll try to answer your 'comments' when this topic is moved to its own thread.
