-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is polygamy a sin?
- Thread starter npetreley
- Start date
T
TaterTot
Guest
Isnt "husband of one wife" really "one-woman man"?
No, thou shalt not commit polygamy is not in the 10 commandments, but we can see in every case of multiple women, trouble follows. Remember Hagar, Bathsheba, goodness...there are many. I think we can glean, however, that even when these guys got themselves in over their heads, that above all, orchestrating all, we can see our Sovereign God at work. Face it yall, He works through sinners. He works through denominations. We just plain miss the mark, but His purposes will still be accomplished.
You can use the same argument for slavery. The NT never comes out and says "Thou shalt not take unto thyself a slave". But if you find yourself in that position, then honor God through it. Its not that the Bible is silent on these issues, per se. We just need to read it with our "concept" glasses on. We see only in part.
No, thou shalt not commit polygamy is not in the 10 commandments, but we can see in every case of multiple women, trouble follows. Remember Hagar, Bathsheba, goodness...there are many. I think we can glean, however, that even when these guys got themselves in over their heads, that above all, orchestrating all, we can see our Sovereign God at work. Face it yall, He works through sinners. He works through denominations. We just plain miss the mark, but His purposes will still be accomplished.
You can use the same argument for slavery. The NT never comes out and says "Thou shalt not take unto thyself a slave". But if you find yourself in that position, then honor God through it. Its not that the Bible is silent on these issues, per se. We just need to read it with our "concept" glasses on. We see only in part.
Whew!! This thread is making me dizzy.
Ya'll can debate all you want about whether polygamy is immoral vs. illegal vs. banned vs. implied vs...........whatever.
All I know is that if I were married and my husband came home from said, "Baby, tomorrow when I come home from work, I'll be bringing home wife #2.......
Well, I would give him a sweet smile and pat his face and say to him, "Aww...honey, that's great! But you'll have to get her to cook your dinner because tomorrow and all of next week, I'm going to be on my honeymoon with husband #2...!!"
:type: HA!!
Ya'll can debate all you want about whether polygamy is immoral vs. illegal vs. banned vs. implied vs...........whatever.
All I know is that if I were married and my husband came home from said, "Baby, tomorrow when I come home from work, I'll be bringing home wife #2.......
Well, I would give him a sweet smile and pat his face and say to him, "Aww...honey, that's great! But you'll have to get her to cook your dinner because tomorrow and all of next week, I'm going to be on my honeymoon with husband #2...!!"
:type: HA!!
Karen said:
This is where the controversy about men vs. women comes in. Paul is citing an example from the law to illustrate a principle about death releasing us from bondage. The question is, does this particular regulation apply specifically to women, as the example implies? Or did Paul simply phrase it that way and assume the reader would understand that it applies to men, also? I can't answer that because I haven't checked the OT and my neck injury makes it hard to research it right now. But if someone else can answer it, that will tell you whether or not this contradicts polygamy (as in men having multiple wives, not wives having multiple husbands).
Scarlett O. said:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
I think a more appropriate response would be, "Well, honey, I'm afraid I can't make it to your wedding because I'll be busy attending your funeral."
I hope you realize this is purely an academic exercise. I shouldn't presume to speak for everyone, but I don't think anyone here actually wants multiple spouses.
Karen said:
Well...
It doesn't actually say anything about multiple wives--only multiple husbands. Nothing in the OT or NT can be construed to allow multiple husbands.
-----------------------
Mar 10:11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,
Mar 10:12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
-----------------------
This applies to both, but it does not have the option of not divorcing but marrying another and having plural marriage. Even so, I think that the scriptural evidence, while not explicitly denouncing polygamy, implies that polygamy is not a valid option.
npetreley said:
Just that definition alone makes should tell you what polygamy is all about and should answer the original question. :smilewinkgrin:
StefanM said:
Oh, I understand that....I was waiting to see who would be the first one to say it.
My response to you is the "pages of history" don't necessarily make something valid or even logical for that matter.....just historical.
I watched a documentary on polygamous relationships not to long ago.
The "familes" were Mormon, of course.
It was all so eye-opening. One of the men had four "wives". They call themselves "sister-wives" and apparently, that is the universal name for women in these situations.
The sister-wives, when discussing the plural marriage on camera, but away from the husband stated that their needs for companionship, affection (non-sexual), and all other emotional bonds were met by the other sister-wives. That's where their friendships were and their "relationships". That, they said, was the purpose of a sister-wife for the women.
The reporter asked them what they got from the husband. They said a roof over their head and children.
For the first time, I saw how degrading this type of lifestyle is to a man. If that is all they desire from their husband is just for him to be a bank account and a sperm donor then what a tragic figure he is indeed.
From the husband's point of view, when he was interviewed alone, it seem that this was a "power" trip to him. He wasn't arrogant or cruel, but he seemed to have a deep need for being a "boss". He said that he made all of the rules and his wives had to seek his approval on all household decisions.
There were other families interviewed, but this one stood out to me as having the only ones where all of them seemed "happy".
It was hard to fathom that people actually wanted to live like this.
The "familes" were Mormon, of course.
It was all so eye-opening. One of the men had four "wives". They call themselves "sister-wives" and apparently, that is the universal name for women in these situations.
The sister-wives, when discussing the plural marriage on camera, but away from the husband stated that their needs for companionship, affection (non-sexual), and all other emotional bonds were met by the other sister-wives. That's where their friendships were and their "relationships". That, they said, was the purpose of a sister-wife for the women.
The reporter asked them what they got from the husband. They said a roof over their head and children.
For the first time, I saw how degrading this type of lifestyle is to a man. If that is all they desire from their husband is just for him to be a bank account and a sperm donor then what a tragic figure he is indeed.
From the husband's point of view, when he was interviewed alone, it seem that this was a "power" trip to him. He wasn't arrogant or cruel, but he seemed to have a deep need for being a "boss". He said that he made all of the rules and his wives had to seek his approval on all household decisions.
There were other families interviewed, but this one stood out to me as having the only ones where all of them seemed "happy".
It was hard to fathom that people actually wanted to live like this.
Brother Bob
New Member
We are parts of the body and takes all to make up the whole body. There is but ONE bride. It says "adorned as a bride" singular, the Lamb's wife (singular). We getting into dangereous ground now to suggest that Christ has more than one bride. If you not careful you going to get into more than one church. Upon this Rock, I will build MY CHURCH. I will have no part of that.
I can't speak for webdog, but don't think he meant that.
Last edited by a moderator:
