Muslim man having 86 wives.

[Analyzer]

Islam’s teachings on marriage that justify polygamy are sick.

**Father Abraham had how many wives?

What Paul actually said in the regard?

1 Cor. 7
8 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,

9 but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

10 To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband

11 - and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband - and a husband should not divorce his wife.

Suprisingly Paul (even from his own) did not say: Men (who have divorced their wives) too must remain single or become reconciled to their former divorced wives.

If men too were not allowed, then Paul may have forbidden men too. Are men allowed to marry virgins, then as per Paul?

There is an another dilemma in the same Chapter where Paul says:

36 13 14 If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.

37 The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well.

(1 Cor 7 )

This is an another passage of Paul which is not really clear even to the commentators of a new Catholic Bible (NAB): So they wrote:

13 [36-38] The passage is difficult to interpret, because it is unclear whether Paul is thinking of a father and his unmarried daughter (or slave), or of a couple engaged in a betrothal or spiritual marriage. The general principles already enunciated apply: there is no question of sin, even if they should marry, but staying as they are is “better” (for the reasons mentioned in ⇒ 1 Cor 7:28-35). Once again the charisma of ⇒ 1 Cor 7:7 which applies also to the unmarried (⇒ 1 Cor 7:8-9), is to be presupposed.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZC.HTM#$4BC

**​

 

[Analyzer]

Also, perhaps deliberately, you do not quote the verse that comes after the one you do quote. 1 Corinthians 7:9 says that those who would not be able to handle remaining in the unmarried state that Paul preaches for the faithful would be better to marry. This again has nothing to do with polygamy, since that is condemned elsewhere in the Bible.

Where is that elswhere in the Bible, polygamy is condemned?

 

[Pinkyyy]

**Yes indeed Islam is SUPERIOR to tha religion that is taught by Chruch by the name ‘Christianity’.

Because Christianity of Church is not really taught by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was a Muslim not a Christian.

So as per Paul, virginity is preferable to a married state, as he himself remained unmarried atleast up unitl when he wrote “But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.”**

Jesus…a MUSLIM? I am truly laughing about this one. It reminds me of how in China they only know what the governement wants them too - how brainwashed do you have to be to actually believe Jesus was a muslim? That is the stupidist thing I have EVER heard.

Jesus was a jew. Christians can admit that. The whole world admits this. I think you’ve been smoking too much ashish!

 

[dzheremi]

Where is that elswhere in the Bible, polygamy is condemned?

Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-9. Notice how in these verses, it says things like “the TWO become ONE” (not the three, four, or eighty-six become one!), and that a man be united to his WIFE (not wives).

 

[Analyzer]

Jesus…a MUSLIM? I am truly laughing about this one.

**Yes Jesus was a Muslim. No need to laugh, as you seem not really aware of the meaning of Muslim/Islam.

Any person can become a Muslim. Muslim means “the one who surrenders/submits his will to the Will of God”. And this surrendering/submitiing to the Will of God** is somethng that is counted by God.

Not even your kinship to Jesus or any prophet of God can give you Eternal life unless if you do the Will of God regardless of what community, race you belong to.

And the Will of God is those Laws and Commandments of God that were conveyed through His Messenger/Prophets from time to time for their respective nations. God sent prophets in every nation, not just to the Jews.

 

[Pinkyyy]

**Yes Jesus was a Muslim. No need to laugh, as you seem not really aware of the meaning of Muslim/Islam.

Any person can become a Muslim. Muslim means “the one who surrenders/submits his will to the Will of God”. And this surrendering/submitiing to the Will of God** is somethng that is counted by God.

Not even your kinship to Jesus or any prophet of God can give you Eternal life unless if you do the Will of God regardless of what community, race you belong to.

And the Will of God is those Laws and Commandments of God that were conveyed through His Messenger/Prophets from time to time for their respective nations. God sent prophets in every nation, not just to the Jews.

Jesus was Jewish. I submit to God. I am not Muslim. Jews and Christians submit to God, so why do Muslims attack Jews and Christians if by their definition they are their muslim brothers? Jesus fulfills the will of God because he IS God.

 

[Nepenthe]

Kindly now, kindly. One may simply mistaken without being ‘brainwashed.’ Heck, after hearing some of the anti Islam (and Hindu, and, nontheist, and well…it’s a long list of unkindliness and genuine mistakes, and I am being very careful to use nice words too, since I could have said ‘rabid ignorance and bigotry’ but I did not.)

Situations and cultures have vastly different problems and practices that an American Catholic Conservative, and whether you are ‘right’ or no, the opinions of a privileged few may not mean a hill of beans, especially where a hill of beans would mean more than a single word. My heart goes out to such people, and yes, I would do all in my power to help their suffering abate in this world too, and I try to! I am no Catholic, nor even a theist, but I am more than capable of kindness, and sheer humbleness in the face of such horror. And so, by creed, you are required to be. Please stop hating and accusing? It solves nothing.

For those already familiar with the various Western scriptures, is it not better simply to correct each others’ misperceptions (they ARE awfully long, and at times, less-than-crystal-clear), and discuss rather than to shout, threaten, or kill?

 

[Analyzer]

Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-9. Notice how in these verses, it says things like “the TWO become ONE” (not the three, four, or eighty-six become one!), and that a man be united to his WIFE (not wives).

**But where is the condemnation of Polygyny in those references?
Where does it say man should marry only woman?

As per Catholic Bible (NAB) commentators:

“Matthew removes Mark’s setting of this verse as spoken to the disciples alone “in the house” Mark 10:10) and also his extension of the divorce prohibition to the case of a woman’s divorcing her husband (Matthew 10:12), probably because in Palestine, unlike the places where Roman and Greek law prevailed, the woman was not allowed to initiate the divorce.”

This below passage requires a verification:

"Saint Augustine saw a conflict between Roman civil law and Old Testament polygyny. He did not consider it in violation of scripture. He wrote in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15): Augustinus redirects here. …
[although it] was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.
Augustine noted that polygamy was not in keeping with Roman custom or law. In chapter 7, he wrote:
Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living.
“But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom…The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.”**

nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Polygamy#Christianity

​

 

[Angelos]

But where is the condemnation of Polygyny in those references?
Where does it say man should marry only woman?

As per Catholic Bible (NAB) commentators:

“Matthew removes Mark’s setting of this verse as spoken to the disciples alone “in the house” Mark 10:10) and also his extension of the divorce prohibition to the case of a woman’s divorcing her husband (Matthew 10:12), probably because in Palestine, unlike the places where Roman and Greek law prevailed, the woman was not allowed to initiate the divorce.”

You must have difficulty understanding basic statements and arithmetics:

THE TWO shall become ONE: UNITY of ONE Couple! So simple. I hope your math teacher was a patient person.

BTW your reference to the Catholic commentary is irrelevant to your point as it talks of the divorce, not marriage.