Polygamy

[Accountable]

Where is the biblical ban against polygamy?

 

[Tim]

I'm not sure I have ever heard of one... why do you ask?

 

[Tim]

I just found this blurb on a religious site..

So what about polygamy?
We can start with how God defined marriage in Genesis 2:24
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." (NASB)
This is very clear. It says "wife" not wives. It says ONE man and ONE woman. That is the Biblical definition of marriage.

 

[CityGirl]

Where is the biblical ban against polygamy?

Self imposed ban as a result of the age of reason.

 

[doombug]

I don't know but I bet there is a YouTube video on the subject.....

 

[Kyle B]

I don't know but I bet there is a YouTube video on the subject.....

And we all know that everything from YouTube is true.

 

[doombug]

And we all know that everything from YouTube is true.

hehehe! my point exactly!

 

[Accountable]

I don't know but I bet there is a YouTube video on the subject.....

 

[Accountable]

I'm not sure I have ever heard of one... why do you ask?

I keep hearing it over and over again in arguments (can hardly call them debates) over gay marriage. "If we allow gay marriage what's next? Polygamy and bestiality??" As if it's a slippery slope, polygamy is worse than gay marriage, so bad that it is the equivalent to bestiality.

Opponents to polygamy either create a fictional link to abuse or pedophilia, or try to make a moral case, saying it goes against God.

I'd like to see the God-link.

 

[hart]

While I can't see myself in a polygamist marriage, myself, I hardly equate it to beastiality.....LOL

 

[doombug]

While I can't see myself in a polygamist marriage, myself, I hardly equate it to beastiality.....LOL

Not even if the animal enjoys it? :sarcasm (just kidding)

 

[CityGirl]

It is beastiality! How many times do you hear "Men are animals"?

LOL

 

[Accountable]

I am not an animal!!

 

[BornReady]

I think the bible says that deacons can only have one wife but I'm not sure.

 

[Accountable]

I think the bible says that deacons can only have one wife but I'm not sure.

Yup. Bishops and deacons. (I'm having this conversation on 3 different forums)

Actually I found it. Paul mandated it, not Jesus.

1Corinthians 7:

[SUP]1[/SUP] Now I will discuss the things you wrote me about. It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.[SUP]2[/SUP] But because sexual sin is a danger, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.[SUP]3[/SUP] The husband should give his wife all that he owes her as his wife. And the wife should give her husband all that she owes him as her husband.[SUP]4[/SUP] The wife does not have full rights over her own body; her husband shares them. And the husband does not have full rights over his own body; his wife shares them.[SUP]5[/SUP] Do not refuse to give your bodies to each other, unless you both agree to stay away from sexual relations for a time so you can give your time to prayer. Then come together again so Satan cannot tempt you because of a lack of self-control.[SUP]6[/SUP] I say this to give you permission to stay away from sexual relations for a time. It is not a command to do so.[SUP]7[/SUP] I wish that everyone were like me, but each person has his own gift from God. One has one gift, another has another gift.

 

[BornReady]

It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. But because sexual sin is a danger, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband ... Do not refuse to give your bodies to each other,

KJV translates "sexual sin" as fornication. So that verse could be interpreted as every one should have sex with their own spouse. It is assumed a person only has one spouse but polygamy is not specifically forbid.

I did some searching and found the verse I was thinking of.

I Timothy 3:12

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Since women weren't allowed to be deacons, I guess they could have more than one husband.

 

[Peter Parka]

Erm... many men in the bible who are reported favourably there in had multiple wives. If some religions are saying polygamy is bad it's yet another example of religious leaders twisting the bible to fit in with what is normal and acceptable today.

 

[Accountable]

Since women weren't allowed to be deacons, I guess they could have more than one husband.

AHAAAAaaaa! :cheerleader:

Erm... many men in the bible who are reported favourably there in had multiple wives. If some religions are saying polygamy is bad it's yet another example of religious leaders twisting the bible to fit in with what is normal and acceptable today.

That's where I'm coming from. :thumbup
I know this is going to piss off the crowd that thinks that Constantine knew exactly what should and shouldn't go into a book that's supposed to be the unerring Word of God, but Paul never knew Jesus, never met him, never sat at his feet (so far as I know). Yet Paul is elevated above all others to lay out rules to living life that Jesus never addressed beyond 'No, you can't possibly obey all the laws on your own; that's why you have to rely on the Grace of God to pull you through' or some such.

 

[doombug]

I know this is going to piss off the crowd that thinks that Constantine knew exactly what should and shouldn't go into a book that's supposed to be the unerring Word of God, but Paul never knew Jesus, never met him, never sat at his feet (so far as I know). Yet Paul is elevated above all others to lay out rules to living life that Jesus never addressed beyond 'No, you can't possibly obey all the laws on your own; that's why you have to rely on the Grace of God to pull you through' or some such.

Interesting. How do you know this?

 

[Accountable]

Interesting. How do you know this?

"This"? I need you to clarify your pronoun.

When I say "I know this is going to piss off the crowd that thinks that Constantine knew exactly what should and shouldn't go into a book that's supposed to be the unerring Word of God," it is based on my experience that when one speaks anything negative about the established Holy Bible the type of people I described tend to look on it as an attack, and get pissed off.

When I say "but Paul never knew Jesus, never met him, never sat at his feet," I base that on my research of the Bible that shows that the first time Paul (Saul) is mentioned is after the crucifixion. The "never met him" part is arguable, of course, since the Bright light that struck him blind identified itself as Jesus, but still Saul never laid eyes on him. Adding the caveat " (so far as I know)" acknowledges that there may very well be information I don't know about, so I'm guessing this isn't even what you were referring to. But that's just a guess. I don't know.

When I say "Yet Paul is elevated above all others to lay out rules to living life that Jesus never addressed beyond 'No, you can't possibly obey all the laws on your own; that's why you have to rely on the Grace of God to pull you through' or some such," I am referring to the lion's share of rules laid out in the New Testament came from letters Paul wrote to various people and churches.

hth