Anything in the OT that bans polygamy?

[Benadam]

Is loving TWO women, which God wanted, a monogamous act?

For Jacob no. God’s willing a polygamous marriage isn’t indicated by wanting a mother to be loved

 

[Felayo]

Simple and direct. I love the reply

 

[Benadam]

with this logic is that it presumes that God had only one way (how he made things in the beginning) to show what he wanted.

How God made things is the most logical way to know what God wants. No presumption on our part.

God could’ve shown polygamy to be okay in multiple ways, like bringing it up later on,

Now this logic is entirely presumptive.

 

[Benadam]

God explicitly allowed Abraham to impregnate Sarah, despite her being his half sister.

What does that say about incest?

Good question to add. I think it is answered jdvani

Well God gave Adam a helper not helpers. And you can look at how the covenant between God and Abraham was for his son Isaac and not Ishmael too. I’ve heard this is because Sarah was his wife and not Hagai

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Just to add a potentially new argument to the mix re the pregnancies.

God explicitly allowed Abraham to impregnate Sarah, despite her being his half sister.

What does that say about incest?

I have no firm view on the matter but the best view that I’ve come across is that incest was allowed and moral at one time. It was banned by the time of the Mosaic Law. We can only speculate on why it was allowed (allowed for one reason or multiple reasons), but at least we have explicit verification that it was immoral at some point. We don’t have that verification for polygamy, but rather, we find more reinforcement and/or clarification for it in God’s law.

 

[Elf01]

I do think the pregnancy argument has been successfully refuted though.

Where else do you see God approving polygamy?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Why would a human’s will be God’s will to? God’s will should be revealed beforehand for us to know it is His will? that doesn’t indicate God wanted polygamy. That God permits it ok No not even that…God tolerated it, worked within it as faulty as it is.

I’m sure there was some pre-existing knowledge of right and wrong. The book of Genesis is silent on how much of the moral precepts were known, when they were known, and how they were known, but certain passages indicate that some knowledge was present.

Much of God’s morals are not known about until Moses comes along, but either way we could know God’s will through His perfectly moral actions and wants. And Genesis 29:30-33 shows that He wanted ONE man to love TWO women.

For Jacob no. God’s willing a polygamous marriage isn’t indicated by wanting a mother to be loved

Loving two women is not a monogamous act for Jacob. But my point in bringing in God is that God did not WANT monogamy. God’s want and actions was for non-monogamy.

 

[Benadam]

Loving two women is not a monogamous act for Jacob. But my point in bringing in God is that God did not WANT monogamy. God’s want and actions was for non-monogamy.

Elf01 posted a good question about incest. Your logic about understanding what God wants would necessarily include that God wants incest. He wanted Abraham to love Sarah. So God wants incest too.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I didn’t take your post as a rebuttal because you just asked me a question. But now, I assume your point about Sarah’s pregnancy is that it doesn’t show that God approved of incest? I disagree. Pregnancy is the end result and incest was the means to that end. God approved of that sexual act, (sex is for procreation) by blessing her with a child. He made the incestuous act successful. I also think it’s entirely possible that the moral status on incest changed, just as you believed the moral status on divorce changed. It started out moral, and then later became immoral. But I wonder, if Benadam would even admit that this was a clear case of incest?

To relate this back to my argument about polygamy, I would say that my example is stronger. Not only is it about pregnancies but also loving more than one woman.

 

[Benadam]

I assume your point about Sarah’s pregnancy is that it doesn’t show that God approved of incest? I disagree.

So it does show that incest is approved?

God approved of that sexual act, (sex is for procreation)

Ok then it’s not incest that is approved but the sex act. You agree then, the act is approved because of the end result (procreation) 'Be Fruitful and Multiply". Not because it is incest.

He made the incestuous act successful.

As He did the polygamous act. He approved of that sexual act because it’s primary purpose is “Be fruitful and multiply”.

Or do you mean that an incestuous sex act that God makes successful means God approves of incest?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

So it does show that incest is approved?

Yes, because God wanted Abraham and Sarah to have a kid which is caused by both of them having sex. One leads to the other - and it involved having sex with a relative.

Ok then it’s not incest that is approved but the sex act. You agree then, the act is approved because of the end result (procreation) 'Be Fruitful and Multiply". Not because it is incest.

Jeez, you’re beginning to argue more like a politician. Stop borrowing from Bill Clinton reasoning (it’s not ‘sex’)! Your nit-picking tactic here is flat out illogical. Lets try this again here.

Incest is sexual activity between relatives. I fail to fathom why or how you separate the “sex act” from “incest” in any meaningful way that can help you since incest is a sex act.

As He did the polygamous act. He approved of that sexual act because it’s primary purpose is “Be fruitful and multiply”.

Or do you mean that an incestuous sex act that God makes successful means God approves of incest?

There is no mention that God approved of polygamy for the reason you mentioned. So one obvious problem with your point is that it is unproven, pure speculation. Lets also play out your logic. Unmarried people can be “fruitful and multiply”, people in adultery can be “fruitful and multiply”, Polygamists today can still be “fruitful and multiply”. Does that justify these acts, as well?

YOur point here doesn’t even take away from my moral point which is that all of God’s actions are moral. In order for God to want a man to love two women and impregnate them, these acts must be moral.

 

[BlackFriar]

Um let me see. Is the CCC to be interpretted to be in accord with untrained AgBoy or by the clear teaching of Augustine and Aquinas, the greatest theologians of the Catholic Church?

Who do you believe you are exactly, I mean really.
Take care, I fear for my sanity by tolerating further “converse” with you. All done, question answered, over and out.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

A pattern I notice is that you post something, and when I disagree, you get frustrated and complain. You rarely if ever offer a counter-argument. If you’re here for rational discussion/debate, then please respond back with a logical rebuttal rather than with frustration and complaint .

 

[BlackFriar]

Christian moral law is not the same as the primary precepts of natural law. You disagree. There is nothing more to be said other than that I regard you as presently invincably ignorant of Catholic faith as the technical phrase goes. When you also have 6 years of theology qualifications under your belt do come back. Not frustrated, you have simply exhausted my desire to share my learning and help you. Pearls before pigs as someone once observed.

Over and out, the stage is again yours if you must have the last word…which you surely will.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I never said moral law was the same as natural law. I said the two can not conflict in Christianity. I elaborated on why.

You clearly dont want to debate, so you expect me to accept your response without questions or objections.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Ok then it’s not incest that is approved but the sex act. You agree then, the act is approved because of the end result (procreation) 'Be Fruitful and Multiply". Not because it is incest.

To add to my previous response, you’re basically saying that the ends can justify the means. In other words, it really doesn’t matter how (via incest, via polygamy) you get what you want as long as you get it. I find that to be illogical within Christian ethics, especially when God can do NO wrong. That means that both the MEANS and ends must be moral in order for God to be involved in an act.

Black friar and Benadam… please READ from your own Catholic Catechism:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

1760 "A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together. "

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

So God wanting people to be “fruitful and multiply” does NOT justify him to using evil means (polygamy and/or incest - assuming that both are immoral) to reach that end. And I’ve shown God did not simply “tolerate”, but He a hand in the situation (Genesis 29:30-33). Your God is a god with unlimited power and resources, there is NO excuse for him to do evil. You guys might lack faith!

Therefore, polygamy is a morally acceptable practice in God’s eyes!!

 

[Benadam]

So God wanting people to be “fruitful and multiply” does NOT justify him to using evil means

I never said God used polygamy for anything. .That’s what you say. I say polygamy happened and God worked within it to bring about His good.
It’s obvious you don’t understand my argument. It seems you project your perception of how God’s acts are known onto my argument. I’v been saying it over and over. There is no evidence that God acts caused polygamy to happen. God did not make Jacob marry two women. God doesn’t violate our freedom to choose as we please. God turns man’s evil acts in this story into His own good. That’s what God does. That’s how I believe God relates to man. You rely on a speculation to claim to know what God wants

Genesis 29:30-33 shows that He wanted ONE man to love TWO women.

on that you speculate that God also wants polygamy

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I never said God used polygamy for anything. .That’s what you say. I say polygamy happened and God worked within it to bring about His good.

Incorrect. Your logic is implied based on your comment on incest and you tried to connect that to my point about polygamy. Please refer to your comment below:

Ok then it’s not incest that is approved but the sex act. You agree then, the act is approved because of the end result (procreation) 'Be Fruitful and Multiply". Not because it is incest [as if incest is not a sex act].

My comment in the brackets!
AND another post from you trying to justify God working in polygamy:

Polygamy caused Suffering a poverty that he didn’t want at the foundation of his People. Apoverty of the heart. Would have taken generations to heal

Leah was impoverished , God was undoing the damage polygamy was causing. Imo

… continuing on to another part of your post…

There is no evidence that God acts caused polygamy to happen. God did not make Jacob marry two women.

You already agreed that loving TWO women was NOT monogamy. Who wanted Jacob to engage in the non-monogamous act of loving TWO women?

 

[Benadam]

I wasn’t even arguing my point in that post. My subject in that post was your use of words. I pointed out how they twisted the object of God’s approval from incest to the act of procreation. I figured it would be difficult to write, " Yes I believe God approved incest. And you didn’t, you could only imply it.

 

[Benadam]

.

You already agreed that loving TWO women was NOT monogamy. Who wanted Jacob to engage in the non-monogamous act of loving TWO women?

Do you read my posts? I rebutted that short and sweet I’ll rewrite it…

For Jacob it was not monogamy.