bad arguments against polygyny

[marc]

Again, a non-answer. Thank you.

[Memphis Dwight]

revmitchell, I don't want any more motherinlaws.  One is enough.  

[Memphis Dwight]

Marc doesn't believe that the man is the head of the family and is given the responsibility of protecting his family.  If he did believe this, he wouldn't be looking for the govt to be a surrogate daddy.

But what is more alarming is that here is this man that would love nothing more than to find fault with my quoting of the bible and would love to have me investigated and possibly thrown into jail. 

I asked him if my grandpa was a child molester for marrying my grandmother at 15, and he would not answer.  He comes back with threats about involving the law but all I've done is quote the bible.  But he doesn't know how much I would love to be a martyr for the faith.  I would count it a privilege. 

[marc]

That would seem less of an empty statement if you would directly answer the question I have been asking for weeks.

If you are really that committed to your belief, state directly whether you believe it's okay to marry underage girls in spite of what the law says. I'm not interested in your grandfather, so stop dodging and prove your commitment to what you believe. 

[Memphis Dwight]

I tell you what.  Lets define our terms and I'll answer your question.  Deal? 

[fish153]

No, I DON'T THINK SO, FISH!  You're not getting off the fish hook that easy.  

Quote:

In the Book of Numbers Yahweh God commanded Moses to "take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel", (Numbers 1:2). First Yahweh commanded Moses to number all the men who were able to go to war from 20 years old and above. That number came to 603,550 men. Later, Moses was commanded to number all the first born of Israel from a month old and above (Numbers 3:40). That number came to 22,273.

Since there can only be one first born per family then the number of families will be very close to the same number as the first born. Ignoring any exceptions which will make our calculation conservative we can find out how many fighting men were born to each family in Israel.

Fighting Men divided by families is equal to men per family.

603,550 ÷ 22,273 = 27.1

So you can now see that each family was responsible for just over 27 fighting men. This of course does not count any of the women. We could guess that each family had 27 women, however if the ratio of men to women was like it is now then that number is low. That means that each Israelite family would have had about 54 children. So if, as so many insist upon, each family only had one wife then she was having children well into her 60's and beyond if she had one each year.

A better answer to what was going on was that it was very normal in Israel for men to have more than one wife. This is during the time that Yahweh God gave the children of Israel His Law. There is not one mention of Yahweh God prohibiting polygyny. In fact He regulated it which gave it His approval.

By the way, if we go by today's numbers for children per wife in a polygynous family then each wife in Israel had around 4 children. We can then figure out an average number of wives per family.

Number of children per family divided by 4 equals the number of wives per family.

54 ÷ 4 = 13.5

Memphis---

OK---if you want to base your doctrine on your own mathematical figures be my guest.  I would rather rest upon the Word of God and be the "husband of one wife" as the Bible states.

[chosenone]

Amen fish. Be faithful to the wife of your youth.

[Memphis Dwight]

I'll base my doctrines upon the bible.  The passage which you take out of context is about not forbidding marriage.  And even though the English translation does not equate to what you are intimating, the Greek goes even further in destroying the doctrine of the monogamites.  

"Own" does not mean Only One.  Furthermore, the when speaking of the husband it says in the greek  heautou (OWN) gynē (WIFE), and of the wife it says idios (OWN) anēr (HUSBAND),

Why would Paul use one greek word for OWN when referring to the husband yet another when referring to the wife?  Because one means exclusive , and the other means belonging to.  


The difference could be understood like this.  This toothbrush is my own.  IOW, it belongs to me only.  

But let every man return to his own country.  Not exclusive.  Many men will belong to one country.  

[marc]

I tell you what.  Lets define our terms and I'll answer your question.  Deal?  

I don't deal with predators. My question was direct.

There's only one reason you would refuse to answer.

[fish153]

I'll base my doctrines upon the bible.  The passage which you take out of context is about not forbidding marriage.  And even though the English translation does not equate to what you are intimating, the Greek goes even further in destroying the doctrine of the monogamites.  

"Own" does not mean Only One.  Furthermore, the when speaking of the husband it says in the greek  heautou (OWN) gynē (WIFE), and of the wife it says idios (OWN) anēr (HUSBAND),

Why would Paul use one greek word for OWN when referring to the husband yet another when referring to the wife?  Because one means exclusive , and the other means belonging to.  


The difference could be understood like this.  This toothbrush is my own.  IOW, it belongs to me only.  

But let every man return to his own country.  Not exclusive.  Many men will belong to one country.  

Man,  you have to jump through a lot of hoops to make your doctrine work. This is very entertaining.   

[revmitchell]

I'll base my doctrines upon the bible.  The passage which you take out of context is about not forbidding marriage.  And even though the English translation does not equate to what you are intimating, the Greek goes even further in destroying the doctrine of the monogamites.  

"Own" does not mean Only One.  Furthermore, the when speaking of the husband it says in the greek  heautou (OWN) gynē (WIFE), and of the wife it says idios (OWN) anēr (HUSBAND),

Why would Paul use one greek word for OWN when referring to the husband yet another when referring to the wife?  Because one means exclusive , and the other means belonging to.  


The difference could be understood like this.  This toothbrush is my own.  IOW, it belongs to me only.  

But let every man return to his own country.  Not exclusive.  Many men will belong to one country.  

You cannot support your illegal and illicit view of polygamy using scripture. And it is surprising such a view would be allowed on a Christian board.

[Scarecrow]

"You cannot support your illegal and illicit view of polygamy using scripture. And it is surprising such a view would be allowed on a Christian board."

Actually it is quite easy to support polygyny from scripture. Did God accuse Abraham or David of adultery (much less the others also listed in the scriptures), or any sin for that matter when taking more than one wife? My God does not change, if it was not sinful then, it is not sinful now. If it is illegal now it is only because the men in power have made it illegal to represent their false doctrine. What is the purpose of a law? Is it not to protect the individual or the state? How is it then that an adult man marrying two consenting adult women is harming anyone or the state? Obviously these laws were passed by ignorant "Christian" men in order to promote their errant doctrine. These laws will be overturned, and very soon too (2011 will be the year of marriage freedom I believe).

David was accused of adultery only with Bathsheba, the wife of another man. Why wasn't David accused of adultery and punished (as in the case of Bathsheba) when he took other wives? I will tell you why, because it is not sinful in any way for a man to take more than one wife. Read Leviticus chapter 18, it defines sexual sins. You will find 7 instances where a man is instructed to not take the wife of another man, yet you will not find one instance where a man taking more than one wife is indicated to be sinful much less even prohibited.

It is those who deny the biblical truths that are in error. Monogamy and polygyny are both biblical forms of marriage. The same word "wife" also means "wives" the word is used interchangeably in the New and Old Testaments. But unless a person is willing to approach the subject with an open mind to the Word of God it is impossible for them to see beyond the doctrine that they have been taught, and they read what they have been taught into the scriptures like good little sheeple.

Should you wish to actually approach this topic from a scholarly perspective, start by researching the biblical definition of adultery. What you will find is that adultery only happens when a married woman sleeps with someone other than her husband, never when a man takes more than one wife. Once you realize that the church has been lying to you about adultery and teaching you a false doctrine you will then begin to realize that the monogamy doctrine taught by the church is based on their false adultery doctrine, soon you will realize that the problems that we have today in the church are not from bad people, but rather bad doctrine. If the church was teaching correctly on marriage, divorce, adultery, fornication, and many other related topics we would be an example to society, not a mockery of it. In February 2010 a new study found that teen sexual activity, premarital sex, and marital infidelity were all higher within the "Christian" community than in the heathen community...and you wonder why they laugh at you when you say you are a "Christian"? They have every right to, because you along with millions and millions of others have been duped into believing what the "Church" wants you to believe, not the actual Word of God.

[Cobalt1959]

"You cannot support your illegal and illicit view of polygamy using scripture. And it is surprising such a view would be allowed on a Christian board."

Actually it is quite easy to support polygyny from scripture. Did God accuse Abraham or David of adultery (much less the others also listed in the scriptures), or any sin for that matter when taking more than one wife? My God does not change, if it was not sinful then, it is not sinful now. If it is illegal now it is only because the men in power have made it illegal to represent their false doctrine. What is the purpose of a law? Is it not to protect the individual or the state? How is it then that an adult man marrying two consenting adult women is harming anyone or the state? Obviously these laws were passed by ignorant "Christian" men in order to promote their errant doctrine. These laws will be overturned, and very soon too (2011 will be the year of marriage freedom I believe).

David was accused of adultery only with Bathsheba, the wife of another man. Why wasn't David accused of adultery and punished (as in the case of Bathsheba) when he took other wives? I will tell you why, because it is not sinful in any way for a man to take more than one wife. Read Leviticus chapter 18, it defines sexual sins. You will find 7 instances where a man is instructed to not take the wife of another man, yet you will not find one instance where a man taking more than one wife is indicated to be sinful much less even prohibited.

It is those who deny the biblical truths that are in error. Monogamy and polygyny are both biblical forms of marriage. The same word "wife" also means "wives" the word is used interchangeably in the New and Old Testaments. But unless a person is willing to approach the subject with an open mind to the Word of God it is impossible for them to see beyond the doctrine that they have been taught, and they read what they have been taught into the scriptures like good little sheeple.

Should you wish to actually approach this topic from a scholarly perspective, start by researching the biblical definition of adultery. What you will find is that adultery only happens when a married woman sleeps with someone other than her husband, never when a man takes more than one wife. Once you realize that the church has been lying to you about adultery and teaching you a false doctrine you will then begin to realize that the monogamy doctrine taught by the church is based on their false adultery doctrine, soon you will realize that the problems that we have today in the church are not from bad people, but rather bad doctrine. If the church was teaching correctly on marriage, divorce, adultery, fornication, and many other related topics we would be an example to society, not a mockery of it. In February 2010 a new study found that teen sexual activity, premarital sex, and marital infidelity were all higher within the "Christian" community than in the heathen community...and you wonder why they laugh at you when you say you are a "Christian"? They have every right to, because you along with millions and millions of others have been duped into believing what the "Church" wants you to believe, not the actual Word of God.

You've just contradicted yourself.  You say that only women can be guilty of adultery, only you also talk about David and his adultery.  David committed adultery.  Your position is based on biblical silence, therefore it is based on nothing.  There is no biblical prohibition against child molesting either, does that mean it's ok?

We have very clear scripture on this subject and those who wish to have more than one wife simply to satisfy their own flesh-based lust ignore that scripture.  Genesis gives us a prototype for marriage.  One man, one woman.  Not two men, not two women, not one man and four women.  There is absolutely no need for any man to have more than one wife and in every single case in the Bible where man goes outside God's prototype for marriage it results in nothing but problems.  Any man in the bible who had more than one wife had problems.  Does that tell you anything?

[davidmac]

A very good argument against polygyny is simply that it is illegal here. It does not matter what the historic origin of the law is.The law is the law and there is not scriptural warrant for anyone to take more than one wife simply because King David and Solomon were permitted to do so. As already pointed out there are a number of things permitted in the scriptures that are illegal today such as slavery.This really is a dead dead issue.Those who keep harping on something that at present is illegal show that their perspective is warped.What a strange hobbyhorse to ride.

[Scarecrow]

"You've just contradicted yourself.  You say that only women can be guilty of adultery, only you also talk about David and his adultery.  David committed adultery."

Actually it seems that you completely misunderstood me, and considering that you follow the doctrine of monogamy that isn't surprising. I stated that adultery only occurs when a married woman is involved...the marital status of the man is irrelevant, and both parties are committing adultery. I am the one that pointed out that David WAS guilty of adultery, but ONLY with Bathsheba! He was not guilty of adultery or fornication with the other women that were his wives...which is exactly my point...it is not sinful for a man to have more than one wife.

"Your position is based on biblical silence, therefore it is based on nothing.  There is no biblical prohibition against child molesting either, does that mean it's ok?"

If you actually believe that the scriptures are silent on child molesting then you really have a limited view and understanding of the scriptures. Just a couple of verses that come to mind...

Matthew 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Matthew 18:10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

Have you actually read your Bible, I mean with the intent to understand it? My bet is you go to church to have someone spoon feed you  a doctrine to follow...just a blind sheeple following a blind and deceived shepherd.

The Bible is silent on drinking soda pop...does that mean that we cannot drink soda pop? What about chewing gum? The scriptures clearly spell out what is and is not considered sexual sin. If having more than one wife was sinful it would have been addressed in Genesis when the first example is given to us. If not there were a multitude of opportunities for God to point out that the practice was sinful yet He didn't. When men call something sinful that God has not they are the ones that should be considering their state of mind and the sin of adding to the scriptures. Paul warned against men like this, and I am leery of them as well...there are a multitude of them.

"We have very clear scripture on this subject and those who wish to have more than one wife simply to satisfy their own flesh-based lust ignore that scripture."

Actually we do not have "very clear scripture" to establish monogamy as you insinuate, rather we have numerous passages showing us the practice of polygyny and guidelines for doing so. Those wishing to defend the false doctrine of monogamy do so because of a lack of understanding the scriptures. you have demonstrated this very thing by misinterpreting/misunderstanding what I clarified at the beginning of this post about adultery. Every individual I know that has taken upon themselves to study the Word of God and learn what God says is and is not adultery also became aware of the legitimate practice of polygyny. Unfortunately the vast majority wish to remain ignorant and have an incredible fear of challenging their beliefs; they are anything but Bereans.

Why do people assume that polygyny is born of "flesh-based lust"? Again I can only imagine that this is from the incorrect doctrine of adultery taught in the churches. Are the individuals that make these statements so devoid of love that they are incapable of understanding that a man can love more than one woman? To make these assumptions seems to me to only show the ignorance of any individual that would make such a statement.

"Genesis gives us a prototype for marriage. One man, one woman."

You will get no argument from me here, I agree completely. A marriage covenant is between a man and a woman. As I have shown a woman is limited to one covenant with one man (otherwise she commits adultery against her first husband), however a man does not have the same limitation placed on him by God. He can have a covenant with one woman and enter another covenant with another woman, this is clearly demonstrated for us in the scriptures, and with God's approval:

2 Chronicles 24:2-3 And Joash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest. Jehoiada got for him two wives, and he had sons and daughters.

If you are able to comprehend the preceding scripture and understand that Joash had two wives AND did what was right in the sight of the Lord; then I hope it leads you into the study of adultery I have been challenging you to take.

"Not two men, not two women, not one man and four women."

Please provide for me the verse that states that it is sinful for a man to have more than one wife. (David would surely take exception to any argument that he was sinning with his wives)

I would also be interested in any verse where God states that a man with more than one wife only has one legitimate wife. (The 12 tribes if Israel might argue with anything you say about this)

I have read five different translations in studying the Word of God, and have been unable to find either of the examples I have requested above...I hope that your thorough studies of the scriptures will allow you to expose me to verses that I somehow managed to miss in five passes through them.

"There is absolutely no need for any man to have more than one wife"

What if a man wanted to have children from his own body but it turns out his wife cannot have children? I suppose you would demand that he divorce his wife so he could marry another and have children by her, or do some weird surrogate thing - how heathen. There are many reasons a man might choose to take more than one wife, and IT IS ACTUALLY NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS IF HE CHOOSES TO DO SO!!!

"in every single case in the Bible where man goes outside God's prototype for marriage it results in nothing but problems.  Any man in the bible who had more than one wife had problems."

There were numerous men mentioned that had multiple wives and there is no mention of any problems other than a few of them. Your statement is a blatant lie. We are all sinners and do sinful things (for example you have proven yourself a liar); are you expecting individuals in a plural marriage family to be free of their sinful nature? We are told that Hagar lorded her ability to give Abraham a child over Sarah, does this sound like a kind and godly thing to do? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that a display of pride wouldn't cause problems in any other type of relationship. David didn't discipline his children, are you going to tell me that never happens in monogamous marriages? You are nothing but an ignorant hypocrite. Let me ask you this; was it not a monogamous couple that plunged all of mankind into sin? Are there any men with plural marriages that wreaked that kind of havoc on mankind?

"Does that tell you anything?" It tells me that you do not read your Bible, and that you have learned to follow the monogamy doctrine "just because" some gray haired guy in a funny suit told you so...well guess what, if that's the case then it is likely that you believe that Colonel Sanders created the chicken.

[Scarecrow]

"A very good argument against polygyny is simply that it is illegal here. It does not matter what the historic origin of the law is.The law is the law and there is not scriptural warrant for anyone to take more than one wife simply because King David and Solomon were permitted to do so."

We are permitted to do things that are not sinful. When men force their false doctrine on other men using the law to do so it does not make their efforts legitimate. As you are probably already aware the bigamy laws will be challenged this spring in Texas and likely be overturned, if not from the initial trial from an appeal. Your point will no longer exist very soon. Interestingly enough 78% of the world's cultures currently practice polygamy, it is the false monogamy doctrine that the Christian and Catholics have forced on societies that they have a majority in that are not allowed to legally take responsibility for their wives.

"As already pointed out there are a number of things permitted in the scriptures that are illegal today such as slavery."

Apparently you have not read the earlier posts on this..."man stealing" is a crime punishable by death according to scriptures. "Slavery" as described in biblical times is roughly the equivalent of employment today. Last time I checked employment was a current practice.

"This really is a dead dead issue.Those who keep harping on something that at present is illegal show that their perspective is warped.What a strange hobbyhorse to ride."

It is anything but a dead issue. In fact this spring there is a trial in Texas that will likely overturn the bigamy laws. You consider that a dead issue? The reason I am here is to express to those ignorant of the truths from scripture that polygyny is not sinful. You think it is warped; interesting, I think those who have been riding the hobbyhorse of monogamy are warped (actually just ignorant).

In Canada it is hate speech to preach from the scriptures against homosexuality...men made it illegal to state those things, but I guess that makes it ok according to your logic because it is a law. I guess in your bible there are a couple of passages missing from mine..."Thou shalt not take more than one wife for it is a sin to do so" and "Thou must preach the condemnation of the homosexuals that will burn in hell".

[chosenone]

I tell you what.  Lets define our terms and I'll answer your question.  Deal? 

I don't deal with predators. My question was direct.

There's only one reason you would refuse to answer.

Its VERY concerning that he refuses to answer such a simple question.

I just thank God that Christian women and men in general obey the law and the Bible. I feel sorry for the very few women who would even think of living in sin with a man when he is married to another lady. I expect they have had it drummed into them that it is 'Gods will', and that it isnt unfaithfullness. As for the poor wife, to have to have another woman in the house who is having sinful sex with her husband is appalling. Very sad. Fortunately 99.9% of women know that this is wrong and would never accept it.

[JMT]

 Your position is based on biblical silence, therefore it is based on nothing.  There is no biblical prohibition against child molesting either, does that mean it's ok?

We have very clear scripture on this subject and those who wish to have more than one wife simply to satisfy their own flesh-based lust ignore that scripture.  Genesis gives us a prototype for marriage.  One man, one woman.  Not two men, not two women, not one man and four women.  There is absolutely no need for any man to have more than one wife and in every single case in the Bible where man goes outside God's prototype for marriage it results in nothing but problems.  Any man in the bible who had more than one wife had problems.  Does that tell you anything?

And manna to you! 

[chosenone]

Your position is based on biblical silence, therefore it is based on nothing.  There is no biblical prohibition against child molesting either, does that mean it's ok?

We have very clear scripture on this subject and those who wish to have more than one wife simply to satisfy their own flesh-based lust ignore that scripture.  Genesis gives us a prototype for marriage.  One man, one woman.  Not two men, not two women, not one man and four women.  There is absolutely no need for any man to have more than one wife and in every single case in the Bible where man goes outside God's prototype for marriage it results in nothing but problems.  Any man in the bible who had more than one wife had problems.  Does that tell you anything?

And manna to you! 

ditto

[Cobalt1959]

"You've just contradicted yourself.  You say that only women can be guilty of adultery, only you also talk about David and his adultery.  David committed adultery."

Actually it seems that you completely misunderstood me, and considering that you follow the doctrine of monogamy that isn't surprising. I stated that adultery only occurs when a married woman is involved...the marital status of the man is irrelevant, and both parties are committing adultery. I am the one that pointed out that David WAS guilty of adultery, but ONLY with Bathsheba! He was not guilty of adultery or fornication with the other women that were his wives...which is exactly my point...it is not sinful for a man to have more than one wife.

"Your position is based on biblical silence, therefore it is based on nothing.  There is no biblical prohibition against child molesting either, does that mean it's ok?"

If you actually believe that the scriptures are silent on child molesting then you really have a limited view and understanding of the scriptures. Just a couple of verses that come to mind...

Matthew 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Matthew 18:10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

Have you actually read your Bible, I mean with the intent to understand it? My bet is you go to church to have someone spoon feed you  a doctrine to follow...just a blind sheeple following a blind and deceived shepherd.

The Bible is silent on drinking soda pop...does that mean that we cannot drink soda pop? What about chewing gum? The scriptures clearly spell out what is and is not considered sexual sin. If having more than one wife was sinful it would have been addressed in Genesis when the first example is given to us. If not there were a multitude of opportunities for God to point out that the practice was sinful yet He didn't. When men call something sinful that God has not they are the ones that should be considering their state of mind and the sin of adding to the scriptures. Paul warned against men like this, and I am leery of them as well...there are a multitude of them.

"We have very clear scripture on this subject and those who wish to have more than one wife simply to satisfy their own flesh-based lust ignore that scripture."

Actually we do not have "very clear scripture" to establish monogamy as you insinuate, rather we have numerous passages showing us the practice of polygyny and guidelines for doing so. Those wishing to defend the false doctrine of monogamy do so because of a lack of understanding the scriptures. you have demonstrated this very thing by misinterpreting/misunderstanding what I clarified at the beginning of this post about adultery. Every individual I know that has taken upon themselves to study the Word of God and learn what God says is and is not adultery also became aware of the legitimate practice of polygyny. Unfortunately the vast majority wish to remain ignorant and have an incredible fear of challenging their beliefs; they are anything but Bereans.

Why do people assume that polygyny is born of "flesh-based lust"? Again I can only imagine that this is from the incorrect doctrine of adultery taught in the churches. Are the individuals that make these statements so devoid of love that they are incapable of understanding that a man can love more than one woman? To make these assumptions seems to me to only show the ignorance of any individual that would make such a statement.

"Genesis gives us a prototype for marriage. One man, one woman."

You will get no argument from me here, I agree completely. A marriage covenant is between a man and a woman. As I have shown a woman is limited to one covenant with one man (otherwise she commits adultery against her first husband), however a man does not have the same limitation placed on him by God. He can have a covenant with one woman and enter another covenant with another woman, this is clearly demonstrated for us in the scriptures, and with God's approval:

2 Chronicles 24:2-3 And Joash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest. Jehoiada got for him two wives, and he had sons and daughters.

If you are able to comprehend the preceding scripture and understand that Joash had two wives AND did what was right in the sight of the Lord; then I hope it leads you into the study of adultery I have been challenging you to take.

"Not two men, not two women, not one man and four women."

Please provide for me the verse that states that it is sinful for a man to have more than one wife. (David would surely take exception to any argument that he was sinning with his wives)

I would also be interested in any verse where God states that a man with more than one wife only has one legitimate wife. (The 12 tribes if Israel might argue with anything you say about this)

I have read five different translations in studying the Word of God, and have been unable to find either of the examples I have requested above...I hope that your thorough studies of the scriptures will allow you to expose me to verses that I somehow managed to miss in five passes through them.

"There is absolutely no need for any man to have more than one wife"

What if a man wanted to have children from his own body but it turns out his wife cannot have children? I suppose you would demand that he divorce his wife so he could marry another and have children by her, or do some weird surrogate thing - how heathen. There are many reasons a man might choose to take more than one wife, and IT IS ACTUALLY NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS IF HE CHOOSES TO DO SO!!!

"in every single case in the Bible where man goes outside God's prototype for marriage it results in nothing but problems.  Any man in the bible who had more than one wife had problems."

There were numerous men mentioned that had multiple wives and there is no mention of any problems other than a few of them. Your statement is a blatant lie. We are all sinners and do sinful things (for example you have proven yourself a liar); are you expecting individuals in a plural marriage family to be free of their sinful nature? We are told that Hagar lorded her ability to give Abraham a child over Sarah, does this sound like a kind and godly thing to do? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that a display of pride wouldn't cause problems in any other type of relationship. David didn't discipline his children, are you going to tell me that never happens in monogamous marriages? You are nothing but an ignorant hypocrite. Let me ask you this; was it not a monogamous couple that plunged all of mankind into sin? Are there any men with plural marriages that wreaked that kind of havoc on mankind?

"Does that tell you anything?" It tells me that you do not read your Bible, and that you have learned to follow the monogamy doctrine "just because" some gray haired guy in a funny suit told you so...well guess what, if that's the case then it is likely that you believe that Colonel Sanders created the chicken.

Gee, not only condescending, but insulting as well.  Do you really hope to sway people over to your way of thinking by debating in this manner?  Is this how you live out 1 Peter 3:15 or 2 Timothy 2:25?  Perhaps you could start using Memphis Dwight's charming term and start calling all of us 'monogamites.'  Priceless.

Perhaps you could explain to all of us exactly how David and Solomon's multiple marriages were beneficial to them?  In David's case, it resulted in the sword never leaving his family and all kinds of messed-up kids, and in Solomon's case, it lead directly to idol worship by the entire nation of Israel.  What kind of problems did it cause for Isaac?  Just because God allowed it does not means it's something we should emulate in our own lives.

There is no other reason to desire more than one wife than to satisfy lust of the flesh.  You can explain it any other way but no one who believes in plural marriages is going to come right out and admit it's because he'd like to have more than one woman to choose from when it comes to fulfilling his sexual urges.  Of course, in your scenario, this is acceptable only for a man, but not for a woman.  Interesting.

As for my credentials, what would be the point?  I could give them, but that would simply result in more insults and condescension on your part, and perhaps an accusation that I was now not the one being spoon-fed, but the one doing the spoon feeding.  You would display a bit more wisdom if you held on to your baseless observations until you actually got to know someone.  You are a real hoot.

[Scarecrow]

"Gee, not only condescending, but insulting as well.  Do you really hope to sway people over to your way of thinking by debating in this manner? Is this how you live out 1 Peter 3:15 or 2 Timothy 2:25?  Perhaps you could start using Memphis Dwight's charming term and start calling all of us 'monogamites.'  Priceless."

If the shoe fits (it actually makes me laugh when I see him do that)...I personally wouldn't use the term. I do admit though that at times it is frustrating stating the same arguments over and over again...and my flesh does come out to play from time to time. My intent is to make others think.

"Perhaps you could explain to all of us exactly how David and Solomon's multiple marriages were beneficial to them?  In David's case, it resulted in the sword never leaving his family and all kinds of messed-up kids, and in Solomon's case, it lead directly to idol worship by the entire nation of Israel.  What kind of problems did it cause for Isaac?  Just because God allowed it does not means it's something we should emulate in our own lives."

Well a little further down you intimate that you may have some type of credentials that would impress someone (other than me). Unfortunately your "credentials" apparently did not provide wisdom. The sword did not leave David's house as part of a curse on David due to his adultery with Bathsheba and had nothing whatsoever to do with his having multiple wives. You also insinuate that polygyny causes men to not discipline their children - you have never seen that in a monogamous marriage? David's unwillingness to discipline his children had nothing to do with polygyny and everything to do with a character flaw. Your tactics here are no different than associating homosexuality and adultery with polygyny and causes me to very seriously question your credibility and your "credentials". Hundreds of years before Israel ever thought about having a King God stated that a king should not multiply gold, wives or horses to himself. The word used indicates a considerable abundance of which Solomon did all three. We are also told by God that the purpose that a king should not have a great abundance of wives was that they would lead his heart away from God. David was a king with many wives but his heart was not led astray by his wives. It wasn't due to polygyny that his heart was lead astray, but rather a great abundance of wives.

"There is no other reason to desire more than one wife than to satisfy lust of the flesh.  You can explain it any other way but no one who believes in plural marriages is going to come right out and admit it's because he'd like to have more than one woman to choose from when it comes to fulfilling his sexual urges.  Of course, in your scenario, this is acceptable only for a man, but not for a woman. Interesting."

You completely ignore my statements and any other considerations other than your own perverted reasoning further demonstrating your ignorance when it comes to polygyny. The primary reason a man would take more than one wife would be to build his family. Another reason might be that he has met a single mother and wishes to husband her because he feels led to. There are other reasons as well, but it is unlikely that you would understand since you have not been able to understand even the basic information I have given you. Again I am convinced that you have not taken the time to research the true biblical definition of adultery. It is the scriptures that do not allow a woman to have more than one husband, again calling your "credentials" into question.

"As for my credentials, what would be the point?  I could give them, but that would simply result in more insults and condescension on your part, and perhaps an accusation that I was now not the one being spoon-fed, but the one doing the spoon feeding.  You would display a bit more wisdom if you held on to your baseless observations until you actually got to know someone.  You are a real hoot."

Well now at least I know that my insults were justified. If indeed you are a teacher of the Word you will be held to a higher standard than the rest, and are expected to actually study the Word to seek the truth. For your sake I implore you to do an actual study of adultery through the Bible. You will find that it always includes a married woman, and the marital status of the man is irrelevant. Once you realize this you will understand that it is not sinful for a man to take more than one wife. This will lead you to discover other false teachings within the church.

[Scarecrow]

OK...fine...here you go:

Adultery is NEVER found in the scriptures when a man (married or otherwise) takes an unmarried woman to be his wife.

na'aph is consistently used throughout the Old Testament as the word we translate into Adultery. Listed below are all the passages using the word na'aph:

Strong's No. 5003: na'aph, naw-af; a prim. root; to commit adultery; fig. to apostasize:- adulterer (-ess), commit (-ing) adultery, woman that breaketh wedlock.
adulterer
Lev 20:10, Job 24:15, Isa 57:3
adulterers
Psa 50:18, Jer 9:2, Jer 23:10, Hos 7:4, Mal 3:5
adulteress
Lev 20:10, Hos 3:1
adulteresses
Eze 23:45, Eze 23:45
adulterous
Prov 30:20
adultery
Exo 20:14, Lev 20:10, Lev 20:10, Deu 5:18, Prov 6:32, Jer 3:8, Jer 3:9, Jer 5:7, Jer 7:9, Jer 23:14, Jer 29:23, Eze 16:32, Eze 23:37, Eze 23:37, Hos 4:2, Hos 4:13, Hos 4:14
wedlock
Eze 16:38

The Greek words used in the New Testament simply mean "adultery

[Cobalt1959]

"Gee, not only condescending, but insulting as well.  Do you really hope to sway people over to your way of thinking by debating in this manner? Is this how you live out 1 Peter 3:15 or 2 Timothy 2:25?  Perhaps you could start using Memphis Dwight's charming term and start calling all of us 'monogamites.'  Priceless."

If the shoe fits (it actually makes me laugh when I see him do that)...I personally wouldn't use the term. I do admit though that at times it is frustrating stating the same arguments over and over again...and my flesh does come out to play from time to time. My intent is to make others think.

"Perhaps you could explain to all of us exactly how David and Solomon's multiple marriages were beneficial to them?  In David's case, it resulted in the sword never leaving his family and all kinds of messed-up kids, and in Solomon's case, it lead directly to idol worship by the entire nation of Israel.  What kind of problems did it cause for Isaac?  Just because God allowed it does not means it's something we should emulate in our own lives."

Well a little further down you intimate that you may have some type of credentials that would impress someone (other than me). Unfortunately your "credentials" apparently did not provide wisdom. The sword did not leave David's house as part of a curse on David due to his adultery with Bathsheba and had nothing whatsoever to do with his having multiple wives. You also insinuate that polygyny causes men to not discipline their children - you have never seen that in a monogamous marriage? David's unwillingness to discipline his children had nothing to do with polygyny and everything to do with a character flaw. Your tactics here are no different than associating homosexuality and adultery with polygyny and causes me to very seriously question your credibility and your "credentials". Hundreds of years before Israel ever thought about having a King God stated that a king should not multiply gold, wives or horses to himself. The word used indicates a considerable abundance of which Solomon did all three. We are also told by God that the purpose that a king should not have a great abundance of wives was that they would lead his heart away from God. David was a king with many wives but his heart was not led astray by his wives. It wasn't due to polygyny that his heart was lead astray, but rather a great abundance of wives.

"There is no other reason to desire more than one wife than to satisfy lust of the flesh.  You can explain it any other way but no one who believes in plural marriages is going to come right out and admit it's because he'd like to have more than one woman to choose from when it comes to fulfilling his sexual urges.  Of course, in your scenario, this is acceptable only for a man, but not for a woman. Interesting."

You completely ignore my statements and any other considerations other than your own perverted reasoning further demonstrating your ignorance when it comes to polygyny. The primary reason a man would take more than one wife would be to build his family. Another reason might be that he has met a single mother and wishes to husband her because he feels led to. There are other reasons as well, but it is unlikely that you would understand since you have not been able to understand even the basic information I have given you. Again I am convinced that you have not taken the time to research the true biblical definition of adultery. It is the scriptures that do not allow a woman to have more than one husband, again calling your "credentials" into question.

"As for my credentials, what would be the point?  I could give them, but that would simply result in more insults and condescension on your part, and perhaps an accusation that I was now not the one being spoon-fed, but the one doing the spoon feeding.  You would display a bit more wisdom if you held on to your baseless observations until you actually got to know someone.  You are a real hoot."

Well now at least I know that my insults were justified. If indeed you are a teacher of the Word you will be held to a higher standard than the rest, and are expected to actually study the Word to seek the truth. For your sake I implore you to do an actual study of adultery through the Bible. You will find that it always includes a married woman, and the marital status of the man is irrelevant. Once you realize this you will understand that it is not sinful for a man to take more than one wife. This will lead you to discover other false teachings within the church.

More insults!  Goody!  Sport, you really need to take a break and get out more.  More accusations and assumptions about someone you don't even know, insults, belittling, all the while claiming to be seasoned Christian, well-versed in the Bible.  You know what it says about slander, and false witness, right?  About treating others with love, gentleness and respect?   Seasoned with salt?  Anything ringing a bell here?  Or do the directives within scripture on how to deal with other Christian brothers and sisters somehow not apply to you?  Or perhaps, as you seem to feel about adultery and marriage scripture, they don't mean what they plainly say they mean. . .

[Scarecrow]

The harshest criticism you will find in the scriptures is for the Pharisees and false teachers. Why? Because they imposed false doctrines on other men. If I am harsh and critical it is for very good reasons, and I noticed that your theology didn't prevent you from acting in like fashion.

[davidmac]

Howdy Scarecrow-
I noted at the bottom of some of your posts-

"You are required to believe and to preach what the Bible says is true, not what you would like it to say.

[Scarecrow]

I sent RC Sproul a 16 page exegesis that I did on the subject. His reply to me was that he was ignorant of the topic and suggested a book by another teacher. I was disappointed by his response...and yes, I actually have a copy of that book. RC Sproul has simply not studied the topic in depth.

[Scarecrow]

"Polygamy was in fact a flagrant disregard of the design for marriage that God set forth in Creation"

I find it interesting that RC Sproul considers it "a flagrant disregard of the design of marriage", but somehow God Himself failed to indicate that He felt that way about it. If RC Sproul is right, then how come God never addressed the situation as such (having numerous opportunities)? I tend to agree with RC Sproul on virtually everything I have heard him say, however in this case I seriously question the basis for his statement.

In any case...to all those out there that promote monogamy, including RC Sproul...

Have you been able to find the verse stating that a man with more than one wife is committing adultery?

Have you been able to find the verse stating that a man is sinning in any way by taking more than one wife?

Have you been able to find the verse that states that any woman a man takes to be his wife beyond his first wife is not legitimate?

Have you been able to find the verse where it states that any children from marriages beyond the first marriage are illegitimate?

Have you been able to find the verse stating that a man is sinning by taking more than one wife?

Have you found the verse where a man repents for having more than one wife as if it were sinful?

Here...how about God stating that a man (and a king of Israel at that) with more than one wife did what was right in his sight?

2 Chronicles 24:2 And Joash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest. Jehoiada got for him two wives, and he had sons and daughters.

I am not saying that every man should take more than one wife; in fact even with polygamy legal I think it will likely run in the 3 to 5 % range of men that do have more than one wife. My complaint is that it is not forbidden by God, and that men have used the government to promote the false doctrine of monogamy.

The monogamy doctrine enforced by the churches and its members is a lie, and the laws enforcing this false doctrine will be overturned.

[davidmac]

My complaint is that it is not forbidden by God, and that men have used the government to promote the false doctrine of monogamy.

The monogamy doctrine enforced by the churches and its members is a lie, and the laws enforcing this false doctrine will be overturned.

??
What monogamy doctrine? Where in any statement of faith, creed or confession for any Christian denomination, or non-denominational assembly do you even find any mention at all about monogamy versus polygyny? These are actually practices not teachings.The bible merely mentions polygamy-but does not teach or command it. If and when polygamy becomes legal here you are free to take another wife-but not at present.Can we agree to that?

[Scarecrow]

"These are actually practices not teachings."

Try going to any church and ask them to marry you to your second wife. You will find them vehemently defending their "monogamy doctrine" out of ignorance. Doctrine is an ingrained belief...monogamy qualifies.

"The bible merely mentions polygamy-but does not teach or command it."

Actually it does both:

Exodus 21:10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.

This is instruction (teaching) that a man is to maintain his first wife if he chooses to take another.

Deuteronomy 25:5 "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her."

This is a command albeit one our society deplores. The marital status of the man is irrelevant.

There are a number of other examples as well, but this is sufficient to prove my point.

If we are to use the Jewish calendar today is the 15th of Kislev, 5771. The bigamy laws went into affect about 150 years ago. So for 5621 years polygyny was perfectly "legal" on the North American continent (and actually practiced by the natives who considered it normal). Then comes along a bunch of misled individuals that feel the need to impose their religious beliefs and doctrines upon an entire society and country by using their government and legal system to do so.

Men made polygyny "illegal" to force their doctrine upon other men; this is tyranny, and anything but biblical. So no, I do not recognize the "laws" that men have enacted to suppress other men any more than I would support any law specifying how I am to worship or what I can teach from scriptures. I find it interesting that most authorities will not prosecute polygamy unless other crimes are involved, that in itself speaks volumes.

[zoonance]

My complaint is that it is not forbidden by God, and that men have used the government to promote the false doctrine of monogamy.

The monogamy doctrine enforced by the churches and its members is a lie, and the laws enforcing this false doctrine will be overturned.

??
What monogamy doctrine? Where in any statement of faith, creed or confession for any Christian denomination, or non-denominational assembly do you even find any mention at all about monogamy versus polygyny? These are actually practices not teachings.The bible merely mentions polygamy-but does not teach or command it. If and when polygamy becomes legal here you are free to take another wife-but not at present.Can we agree to that?

I would be nicknamed Bobbit before that ever happened.

[Cobalt1959]

The harshest criticism you will find in the scriptures is for the Pharisees and false teachers. Why? Because they imposed false doctrines on other men. If I am harsh and critical it is for very good reasons, and I noticed that your theology didn't prevent you from acting in like fashion.

You have elevated yourself above anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.  You portrait yourself as knowing more than anyone else on the subject.  You paint anyone who believes in biblical monogamy as being some kind of low-grade moron.  "I sent R. C. Sproul a 16 page exegesis."  I guess he should have felt blessed to receive it from you.  I did not insult you, I pointed out your poor behavior.  But of course, as with anyone of your cloth, you recognize bad behavior in others, but can't seem to admit it resides within you as well and that you bring a good deal of like behavior on yourself.  If you are going to treat people with open contempt, don't be surprised when some of that contempt turns around and bites you back.  I won't handle anyone who treats me with contempt with kid gloves.  It cracks me up every time I see someone come on a Christian forum, claim to be a Christian, treat people like crap and then try to make excuses as to why it's ok for them to behave that way.  But no one else should treat them that way back.  Oh look, it's a double standard!  Do you have a coupon for that?

The fact is, you can type up as many 16 page exegesis's on polygamy as you want.  Send them to whoever you want.  Doesn't change much.  Polygamy is not normative.  The biblical norm for marriage is one man and one woman.  The biblical prototype for marriage is one man and one woman.  No 16 page exegesis you could dream up will change that.  Make it 32 pages.  Take it all the way up to 64.  There is absolutely no biblical reason that a man would require more than one wife.  There is no biblical mandate for a man to have more than one wife.  There are no instructions within scripture on how to treat your "wive's."  There is no scripture saying that the 4 will become one flesh.  As for your articles, you do realize that, even if your asssertion that having more than one wife is allowable, (which it isn't) you cannot be a leader or teacher within the church, right?  So by sending articles to church leaders, you are assuming a position which you cannot hold and you are violating more scripture.  Or do the clear guidelines in Timothy and Titus as to who can and cannot be leaders and teachers not mean what it clearly says either?  It seems to me that for your system to work, you need to re-work or ignore a good deal of scripture on these subjects.  Theoretically, if you have a church composed entirely of polygamists, there can be absolutely no leaders within it of any kind.  No pastors and no deacons.  No teachers.  You guys are going to get awfully bored and confused.

[Scarecrow]

"You have elevated yourself above anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.  You portrait yourself as knowing more than anyone else on the subject.  You paint anyone who believes in biblical monogamy as being some kind of low-grade moron."

No, wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Take it as personal as you want, but it applies to everyone including myself. Those with minds like steel traps rusted shut unwilling to examine the scriptures for themselves and be Bereans are exactly what they are, ignorant, and will remain that way. Most people like to be comfortable in their little safe world and are fodder for those with false doctrines such as the church is teaching.

"I sent R. C. Sproul a 16 page exegesis."  I guess he should have felt blessed to receive it from you.  I did not insult you, I pointed out your poor behavior.  But of course, as with anyone of your cloth, you recognize bad behavior in others, but can't seem to admit it resides within you as well and that you bring a good deal of like behavior on yourself.  If you are going to treat people with open contempt, don't be surprised when some of that contempt turns around and bites you back.  I won't handle anyone who treats me with contempt with kid gloves."

Actually he did thank me for writing to him. You see he knows me. I took my first wife on a cruise with him and his ministry team for our 20th anniversary.

I don't expect you to treat me gently, in fact I have found that often the only way to cut through the "politically correct" shell most people wear is to rough them up a bit and see what comes out. So far so good, I actually like you (although I won't admit it : ) as it would defeat the purpose).

"It cracks me up every time I see someone come on a Christian forum, claim to be a Christian, treat people like crap and then try to make excuses as to why it's ok for them to behave that way.  But no one else should treat them that way back.  Oh look, it's a double standard!  Do you have a coupon for that?"

When did I say that I wouldn't hear of it from anyone else? I hear it frequently as I stated above, I do it intentionally to see what the other individual is made of.

"The fact is, you can type up as many 16 page exegesis's on polygamy as you want.  Send them to whoever you want.  Doesn't change much.  Polygamy is not normative."

It is practiced in 78% of the cultures of the world, it seems to me that forced monogamy is what is not normative.

"The biblical norm for marriage is one man and one woman.  The biblical prototype for marriage is one man and one woman.  No 16 page exegesis you could dream up will change that.  Make it 32 pages.  Take it all the way up to 64."

I prefer to keep it as short as possible while still making my points. The marriage covenant is between one man and one woman, and a woman is limited to one such covenant, and man is not.

"There is absolutely no biblical reason that a man would require more than one wife.  There is no biblical mandate for a man to have more than one wife."

Both untrue. It is commanded in certain circumstances (which our society ignores and therefore sins). And you continue to ignore the examples I have given which there are more of.

"There are no instructions within scripture on how to treat your "wive's."

Incorrect again. (thought I would be nice and not call you a liar although it is)

"There is no scripture saying that the 4 will become one flesh."

Actually a man becomes one flesh with a woman when he sleeps with her. The Apostle Paul made that perfectly clear (maybe if he had written a 16 page exegesis you might pay attention to that).

"As for your articles, you do realize that, even if your asssertion that having more than one wife is allowable, (which it isn't) you cannot be a leader or teacher within the church, right?"

My God doesn't change. If it wasn't sinful then it isn't sinful now. The most accurate translation of those verses is that an Elder, Deacon, or Bishop should be married, so it would not disqualify me.

"So by sending articles to church leaders, you are assuming a position which you cannot hold and you are violating more scripture."

This is simply an ignorant and illogical statement. My purpose for sending numerous religious leaders information was to see if they could refute what I had come to understand from the scriptures, not based on errant church doctrine or opinion. Not one of them could.

"Or do the clear guidelines in Timothy and Titus as to who can and cannot be leaders and teachers not mean what it clearly says either?"

Covered that earlier...

"It seems to me that for your system to work, you need to re-work or ignore a good deal of scripture on these subjects.  Theoretically, if you have a church composed entirely of polygamists, there can be absolutely no leaders within it of any kind.  No pastors and no deacons.  No teachers.  You guys are going to get awfully bored and confused."

First of all only a small percentage of individuals currently practice polygyny, so that assumption is incorrect (we are not prejudice against those that wish to practice monogamy, only those that wish to force their incorrect theology upon others). Second, I already explained the "one wife" falsehood as well, although if you wish to teach that in your church you are welcome to - you will have to answer for it not me.

It is not necessary to ignore or rework anything; it is the monogamy doctrine that has ignored and reworked the scriptures to fit it's intended purpose (deception).

It is only women that are prohibited from teaching men, they are allowed to teach adult and juvenile women and juvenile males.

[chosenone]

"These are actually practices not teachings."

Try going to any church and ask them to marry you to your second wife. You will find them vehemently defending their "monogamy doctrine" out of ignorance. Doctrine is an ingrained belief...monogamy qualifies.

"The bible merely mentions polygamy-but does not teach or command it."

Actually it does both:

Exodus 21:10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.

This is instruction (teaching) that a man is to maintain his first wife if he chooses to take another.

Deuteronomy 25:5 "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her."

This is a command albeit one our society deplores. The marital status of the man is irrelevant.

There are a number of other examples as well, but this is sufficient to prove my point.

If we are to use the Jewish calendar today is the 15th of Kislev, 5771. The bigamy laws went into affect about 150 years ago. So for 5621 years polygyny was perfectly "legal" on the North American continent (and actually practiced by the natives who considered it normal). Then comes along a bunch of misled individuals that feel the need to impose their religious beliefs and doctrines upon an entire society and country by using their government and legal system to do so.

Men made polygyny "illegal" to force their doctrine upon other men; this is tyranny, and anything but biblical. So no, I do not recognize the "laws" that men have enacted to suppress other men any more than I would support any law specifying how I am to worship or what I can teach from scriptures. I find it interesting that most authorities will not prosecute polygamy unless other crimes are involved, that in itself speaks volumes.

  Not out of ignorance, but out of obedience to God and obeying the laws of the country.

Still I guess people will try to justify anything if they want it enough. Even though Gods marriage plan always was one man and one woman, I guess you know better then God dont you. The godly thing to do would be to actually be faithful to the wife of your youth(now there's a novel thought), but maybe that is too hard for you? You want to be unfaithful, but even worse you desperately try to make it be what God wants, when it clearly isnt. Oh well, you will find out one day.

[Scarecrow]

"the laws of the country"

Again...what is the purpose of a law? Is it not to protect the individual and or the state? So then, how are the bigamy laws protecting anyone or the state if three consenting adults wish to consider themselves married, one family? The real problem is that these laws were adopted by self-righteous "Christians" to persecute the Mormon church. These laws are also about to be overturned by a Judicial system that understands them for what they are; errant Christian and Catholic doctrine imposed on the public. If you want to practice monogamy go right ahead, nobody is going to stop you. But you do not have the right to use the government and legal system to impose your false doctrine upon others.

"Still I guess people will try to justify anything if they want it enough."

Look in the mirror when you say that...or just read the next two sentences...

"Even though Gods marriage plan always was one man and one woman, I guess you know better then God dont you. The godly thing to do would be to actually be faithful to the wife of your youth(now there's a novel thought), but maybe that is too hard for you?"

Again I agree, marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. Acording to the scriptures a woman is limited to one covenant with one man, however that restriction doe not exist for a man. Being faithful to the wife of your youth means to continue to provide food, clothing, and her marital (sexual) rights even in the event that a man were to take another wife. There is nothing unfaithful in taking another wife. Again I challenge you to provide me with a verse from scripture stating that if a man takes another wife he is being unfaithful to the wife of his youth, or that a man that takes more than one wife is being sinful. I got bad news for you neither of them exist or the folks in the monogamy crowd would be using them left and right. Here is the command telling us how to be faithful to the wife of our youth:

Exodus 21:10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.

"You want to be unfaithful, but even worse you desperately try to make it be what God wants, when it clearly isnt. Oh well, you will find out one day."

Again, show me the verse that says taking an additional wife is being unfaithful to your first wife...I have only asked you to do this about 10 times and never once received even a remotely intelligent rebuttal much less a verse from scripture (that actually applies).

I guess the inspired word of God is wrong and you are right:

2 Chronicles 24:2-3 And Joash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest. Jehoiada got for him two wives, and he had sons and daughters.

I will be sure to tell God in my prayers tonight that He screwed up in these verses; I'm sure He will get right on it and cause a miraculous transition of all the texts so they don't show his approval of this horrible, devious, perverted, disgusting, twisted, sick, and unfaithful situation. : )

[chosenone]

He doesn't approve of unfaithfulness to the wife of your youth, nor of breaking the laws of your country. You can go to jail here for bigamy and rightly so.
It is sheer arrogance for only 2 men here to think that they know better then millions of other Christisns who know that faithfulness to their wife is Gods highest will and desire for marriage. All because you want to have sex with several women, Honestly, it isn't worth it, and you will find that out one day. No one in their right mind would 'marry' you to 2 women, because they are disobeying God and the law of the land.
It amazes me that you try so hard to justify it when your wife is the one you should be thinking of. The intimacy with you together is precious and special and should never be ruined by bring in a live in lover and her illegitimate children.