Polygamy

[doombug]

I'm not disputing what is generally accepted, only pointing out that it all comes from one or two biased sources, making any definitive statement "half-baked."

BTW, any encyclopedia is not a primary source. Their information came from somewhere else, so it's always better to dig that source up if possible.

I guess someone could break it down to the "Nth" degree if they wanted but what is accepted by the mainstream is good enough for me. Anything contrary to that would have to be proven. Kind of like other conspiracy theories.

 

[BornReady]

In my understanding, no scriptures were changed by the Council of Nicea. The council's job was to decide which scriptures should be included in the bible and how those scriptures should be interpreted. Although, I agree with Accountable. No one really knows what happened there considering our source is Eusebius. Jacob Burckhardt called Eusebius the “first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.” But my guess is the council was involved in selecting and interpreting, not in rewriting. This is not to say the authors of scripture did not have their own interests in mind when they wrote them. To assume otherwise would be naive imo. The authors of the gospels were working with source material. They likely selected and modified it to fit their purpose. I expect the epistles were original. Although Bible scholars believe that comments which were written in the margins were later included in the text by scribes. So even the epistles underwent some modification.

I would even go so far as to say the Quran underwent some modification. Although most Muslims deny that passionately. I can believe it wasn't modified after it was compiled. But I suspect it was somewhat fluid before that.

 

[Accountable]

I'm satisfied that we have shown that polygamy - marriage of more than two consenting adults - is not immoral and does not go against the teachings of Jesus. Allowing, meaning de-criminalizing, polygamy as I defined, merely respects the liberty of adults to live as they choose without harming anyone else.

 

[Leananshee]

Thing is, though, who cares if the Bible condones it? That's not an end-all-be-all as to whether something's right or wrong. As it is practiced now, polygamy is effectively a license to abuse women. Why do these FLDS people need such elaborate security if they're not doing anything wrong?

Now if women have the power to do the same thing, take on as many men as they want, be a matriarch who makes the decisions while the men work, then I might be of a different opinion. But I promise you that practitioners of polygamy today would try to kill any woman attempting such an arrangement.

 

[Accountable]

Thing is, though, who cares if the Bible condones it? That's not an end-all-be-all as to whether something's right or wrong. As it is practiced now, polygamy is effectively a license to abuse women. Why do these FLDS people need such elaborate security if they're not doing anything wrong?

Because what they are doing is illegal. Sure, there are pedophiles in that group. Hell, the whole group might be pedophiles. That only speaks ill of pedophilia, not polygamy. Using your logic we should make Catholicism illegal because some priests have molested children.

Now if women have the power to do the same thing, take on as many men as they want, be a matriarch who makes the decisions while the men work, then I might be of a different opinion. But I promise you that practitioners of polygamy today would try to kill any woman attempting such an arrangement.

Women do have that power. Any number of people can live together without anyone being able to say a damn thing. BUT if they say that they are married (they apparently don't even need a license) then they face legal prosecution.

 

[Leananshee]

Because what they are doing is illegal. Sure, there are pedophiles in that group. Hell, the whole group might be pedophiles. That only speaks ill of pedophilia, not polygamy. Using your logic we should make Catholicism illegal because some priests have molested children.

I don't see how you can attribute that as my logic; it's not a direct corollary. And it's not just pedophilia, though that in and of itself is bad enough. These folks marry the first one then sire as many kids as they want with the others and put them on welfare. Your tax dollars pay for their choice of lifestyle. You misconstrue what I'm saying. I don't think polygamy should be illegal, I think it should be legalized to prevent just that kind of abuse of the system, and the other crimes committed should be just as vigorously prosecuted. I'll grant you that in theory polygamy is OK. In practice today I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an example where it really worked.

Women do have that power. Any number of people can live together without anyone being able to say a damn thing. BUT if they say that they are married (they apparently don't even need a license) then they face legal prosecution.

So let them. Haven't come across any polyamorous arrangements that lasted long term either. Let 'em figure that out for themselves. Government shouldn't be in the business of dictating that. But again, whether government prohibits or allows polygamy itself, in practice it leaves women and children wide open for abuse, and I do think that for that reason as it exists it's wrong. Show me where abuse is not the norm and I might change my mind.

 

[Accountable]

I don't see how you can attribute that as my logic; it's not a direct corollary. And it's not just pedophilia, though that in and of itself is bad enough. These folks marry the first one then sire as many kids as they want with the others and put them on welfare. Your tax dollars pay for their choice of lifestyle. You misconstrue what I'm saying. I don't think polygamy should be illegal, I think it should be legalized to prevent just that kind of abuse of the system, and the other crimes committed should be just as vigorously prosecuted. I'll grant you that in theory polygamy is OK. In practice today I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an example where it really worked.

You're right, I completely misunderstood you. Sorry.

So let them. Haven't come across any polyamorous arrangements that lasted long term either. Let 'em figure that out for themselves. Government shouldn't be in the business of dictating that. But again, whether government prohibits or allows polygamy itself, in practice it leaves women and children wide open for abuse, and I do think that for that reason as it exists it's wrong. Show me where abuse is not the norm and I might change my mind.

Yup, we're on the same page.

 

[Minor Axis]

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.

So to anyone- prove this was God's rule instead of some fervent religious guy who felt motivated to write on behalf of God.

 

[doombug]

So to anyone- prove this was God's rule instead of some fervent religious guy who felt motivated to write on behalf of God.

Oh come on AM. This is what the bible says and that is what they are discussing. geez...

 

[Accountable]

So to anyone- prove this was God's rule instead of some fervent religious guy who felt motivated to write on behalf of God.

Regardless of the author, the interpreter is obviously some fervent religious guy who felt motivated to write on behalf of God, because God laid heavy duty blessings on several polygamists post Gen 2:24. Now, I do think Paul is just such a guy, since he lays down a lot of rules Jesus never even hinted at.

 

[Codrus]

isnt polygamy really origami with multiple pieces....of paper? :willy_nilly:

 

[Leananshee]

:24: Repped.

 

[Minor Axis]

Oh come on AM. This is what the bible says and that is what they are discussing. geez...

Why bother to debate something as truth when there is no indication of that?

Regardless of the author, the interpreter is obviously some fervent religious guy who felt motivated to write on behalf of God, because God laid heavy duty blessings on several polygamists post Gen 2:24. Now, I do think Paul is just such a guy, since he lays down a lot of rules Jesus never even hinted at.

God blessed polygamists? Wow. I've got nothing against polygamy as long as it works for the individuals involved and none of them are minors or being coerced.

 

[Accountable]

God blessed polygamists? Wow. I've got nothing against polygamy as long as it works for the individuals involved and none of them are minors or being coerced.

Me either. God didn't bless polygamists as a group or anything like that (Thou shalt be a playa). God blessed people who were polygamists. Solomon, David ... they're peppered through the Old Testament.

 

[BornReady]

God blessed people who were polygamists. Solomon, David ... they're peppered through the Old Testament.

I don't know what to call Solomon but polygamist hardly seems to cover it. lol

 

[doombug]

Why bother to debate something as truth when there is no indication of that?

So let me get this straight. You think the bible isn't a book with words written in it? hmmm, interesting.

 

[Accountable]

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

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

1Corinthians 7:

Then again ...

Deuteronomy 21 (NIV):

The Right of the Firstborn
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

 

[doombug]

Then again ...

Deuteronomy 21 (NIV):

Good research Accountable. Have you found any verse that actually approves polygamy?

 

[Minor Axis]

So let me get this straight. You think the bible isn't a book with words written in it? hmmm, interesting.

Your confused as ever...

 

[doombug]

Your confused as ever...

Nah,I am just clarifying for you. Do you not understand what I am saying?