J
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
The only thing to understand is that it is heresy.
I
irenaeuslyons
Guest
God only tolerated polygamy. Jesus perfected the teaching on marriage and divorce to that which was the true will of God. As Jesus said,
“Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.”
Note the word two… not three four etc.
R
runningdude
Guest
Actually, while the website and perhaps the article as a whole is dubious, it accurately outlines Pauline Privilege* in the first half (I didn’t bother reading the gibberish logic of the second half).
Among the unbaptized, divorce is possible according to natural law. When baptized person is married to a non-baptized person, and the non-baptized spouse leaves, Saint Paul outlined the conditions under which the church could dissolve the marriage (when the “non-believing” spouse leaves). These conditions are known as the Pauline Privilege. Divorce when both spouses are baptized is impossible; baptism changed their human nature, uniting them permanently until death.
The article makes terribly unsound argument that the unbaptized man who leaves may remarry and thus have multiple wives. This is untrue, because the previous marriage would have been dissolved using the Pauline Privilege. He would be a single man once more, free to remarry.
*Link to the Diocese of Toledo’s guidelines for seeking the Pauline Privilege (toledodiocese.org/index.php/tribunal/pauline-privilege- )
Among the unbaptized, divorce is possible according to natural law. When baptized person is married to a non-baptized person, and the non-baptized spouse leaves, Saint Paul outlined the conditions under which the church could dissolve the marriage (when the “non-believing” spouse leaves). These conditions are known as the Pauline Privilege. Divorce when both spouses are baptized is impossible; baptism changed their human nature, uniting them permanently until death.
The article makes terribly unsound argument that the unbaptized man who leaves may remarry and thus have multiple wives. This is untrue, because the previous marriage would have been dissolved using the Pauline Privilege. He would be a single man once more, free to remarry.
*Link to the Diocese of Toledo’s guidelines for seeking the Pauline Privilege (toledodiocese.org/index.php/tribunal/pauline-privilege- )
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Absolute (no room for maybes?) command (imperative not subjunctive?)? The author of the article lacks English comprehension skills. They really belief Paul is saying something he isn’t saying.
Paul is saying to the unmarried, that considering the distressing times it is better not to marry (because of persecution of the church). But if you have a wife, don’t split (that is a wrong thing to do and God forbids), and if your marriage is annulled (loosed by the Catholic Church) and you are therefore in a position where your can marry, don’t seek a wife, because these days are dark.
The author is turning a situation of Church persecution into an excuse for an absolute command for polygamy?
One thing Jesus came to do was fix everything that was wrong. One thing that was wrong was polygamy, and the only reason it existed in the OT is because of wrong decision-making. From the beginning it was not meant to be like that. It was not Eve plus concubines.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.