Trinitarian Baptism makes one a Christian, bound by the tenets of the Church. Polygamy is not allowed post baptism, even Christian-leaning Emperors waited until deathbed to avoid the stricter rules for the baptized.
Since we’re trying to interpret behavior, I think it would be unreasonable to state that “This” is exactly what “This” behavior means, as we may be potentially unaware of tangential, but more important concerns than the polygamous union - as would be Gorgias’ reasonable point.
Well, one thing you may need to remember when confronting the Catholic Church is that God-Incarnate gave it the power to “bind and loose” on spiritual matters. Also, it would appear that the “truth and accuracy” of the old texts mentioned in this discussion is obviously subject to some debate. Ergo the “truth and accuracy” of the texts may not stand as objectively, independently and authoritatively as one may wish on this matter.
I think you have yet to prove that God wanted Jacob to love TWO women.
Really?
Polygamy was practiced during the early period of Christianity. Josephus, 1st century historian writes about polygamy. Justin Martyr, 2nd century figure, talks about the Jews taking multiple wives in his day.
You need to offer examples of the Early Christian Fathers endorsing polygamy.
It is true that God did not start helping Jacob’s polygamous marriage until after Jacob had married his two wives. However, there are other points in time that God can intervene to show his support for polygamy. God wanting a man to love two women and helping Jacob impregnate them are just some examples. You failed to address those points.
I’m not just talking about just anyone doing actions but rather I’m referring to actions done by an all-GOOD God. In other words, all of God’s actions are morally good, so if it’s good for Him for a man to love TWO wives and impregnate them then I fail to see why or how that doesn’t translate into being a good for man to also do it. Hek, God’s actions involved Jacob doing a lot of the work, God just threw in some miracles and blessings to make it successful!
If polygamy was a sin, and men practiced it then sure, it was a sin for them to do so. However, when you have God directly involved in facilitating these relationships, then no sin is involved. God is all-good, so it stands to reason that polygamy is and was never a sin in the first place.
There’s enough data to conclude that God would not have judged anyone for polygamy and here are some reasons:
If any of these applied to polygamy then please present your case for when, why, and how. Hopefully you have some Scriptural basis for your claims, and I don’t mean Scripture in terms of just simple theology, but also in terms of a historical record/data. Last thing I want are claims without a shred of evidence behind it.
And there are ex-atheists who are now Catholic. Your point?
Sure. This is permissible on issues that have not been dogmatically, infallibly defined.
If I told you something that is clear, like my car is red, what is there to interpret? Usually information that is clear requires little to no interpretation, and that’s what we have with the passages that I’ve been using. The author clearly tells us what God was thinking and what He did in response to his thinking. If you continue reading the passage, you will see that both Rachel and Leah confirmed that they knew God was helping them out, and they took this to mean that their husband would love them more.
A lot of Catholics tend to bring up “authority” but this does not justify the reasons and evidence that the Church used to establish their views. I’m here to examine the reasons and evidence behind the Catholic view through the lens of logic and all available evidence just like the Bereans did to the apostle Paul. To resort to “authority” and ignore presenting or defending your reasons is a logical fallacy. Not to say that everyone does this, but a lot of people tend to bring up authority just to avoid getting into the reasons behind their view or they may do so when they have no answers to an objection to their view.
The point is that one does not need to subscribe to a particular point of view in order to have a proper criticism of it.
This alleged “infallibility” is self-asserted. A short dialog:
What you are doing is taking my statement, like “My car is red” and then declaring, "This clearly means that PR had an investment in the company that makes red paint. Otherwise, why would she buy a red car?
No. To make that claim, you betray a lack of understanding of Christian moral theology. Let’s take your argument to its logical extreme, in order to see it if holds up, ok? By your standard, if God approves of one war, then He approves of all wars. Looking at the Bible, we know that’s not true – so we already have a counter-example that disproves your assertion. Nevertheless, even on its face, your argument demonstrates its inherent weakness: a discussion of morality requires an understanding of the particular situation (e.g., ‘intent’ of the moral actor); therefore, the assertion that “one example holds for all cases” simply fails to hold.
You’re missing the example of Jesus’ discussion of divorce, which trumps your argument here. Jesus pointed out that, although it was God’s intention from the beginning that there be no divorce, He allowed a concession based on the hardness of His people’s hearts. Same thing holds here: He desired marriage to be a one-man-one-woman thing, but allowed a concession in a particular period of time, due to His people’s inability (in that time) to follow His will. He didn’t give up on it… just allowed it for a time. In other words: no “God breaks His own rules”… but rather, “God has mercy, and allows His people to develop.”
No, I would say that this isn’t what’s in play here. Rather, we see that – in an unjust situation – God comes to the aid of the person who is aggrieved. By that same standard, we see God approving (tacitly if not explicitly) those who resort to incest to correct an injustice (Tamar with Judah), allowing for mercy for those who resorted to idolatry (the soldiers of Judas Maccabeus), and allowing for the hardness of hearts of those who had embraced divorce (cf Matthew 19). In each of these cases, God isn’t “helping Jews sin”; He’s showing mercy in response to human weakness. That doesn’t “implicate God in the sin” – it implicates Him in the opportunity for mercy and forgiveness.
You’re still trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either we analyze under the ‘monogamy’ context, or the ‘polygamy’ context. We can’t attempt to make one context apply to the other. Sorry.
Anachronize much?
There are murders in the U.S.; are we a “murdering society”? There are kidnappings and rapes in the U.S.; are we a society that condones kidnapping and rape? Of course not. These things exist, but are not characteristic of the society. Same thing in the example you raise. To call the society of 1st century AD Palestine a “polygamist society” just doesn’t hold up. I mean… it’s a nice try, in order to rationalize your argument… but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
That’s cute.This alleged “infallibility” is self-asserted. A short dialog:
Catholic: The church is infallible in the teachings of faith and morals.
Skeptic: How do we know that?
Catholic: It is an infallible teaching of the church.
Better known as circular “reasoning”. Which is not convincing.
Yes, I believe that all of God’s moral laws would still be binding today, and that would include polygamy. This whole premise that polygamy was only allowed for a short time is unsubstantiated.
I actually believe that the main reason the Catholic laity don’t approve of it is because their Church leadership says it’s wrong. If the leadership declared it was moral, then polygamy would’ve been in widespread practice. This is why I try to address the moral issue, before moving on to the legal issue in society at large. I believe that governments should legalize polygamy that is practiced between consenting adults.
Matthew 19:4-6 is one piece of biblical information that relates to marriage but there are other pieces of info. as well. Your reference does not disprove nor even address the passages that I used in post #1 - it does not explain what adultery is, it does not explain why God wanted to get a man to love TWO women, etc. This is the information that I want to focus on before moving on to any other topic.
This is a separate topic. I have a response to this point and the “one flesh” point as well but that’s not my focus right now.
OT only
Sure. If that were a moral law.
Matthew 19:4-6 is one piece of biblical information that relates to marriage but there are other pieces of info. as well. Your reference does not disprove nor even address the passages that I used in post #1 - it does not explain what adultery is, it does not explain why God wanted to get a man to love TWO women, etc. This is the information that I want to focus on before moving on to any other topic.
This is a separate topic. I have a response to this point and the “one flesh” point as well but that’s not my focus right now.
Polygamy was allowed only during the Old Testament time period? I disagree. All of God’s moral laws are still binding even into the new covenant. Adultery is in the 10 commandments which came directly from God, and it did not restrict men and women in the same way. I elaborated on this more in post #55. If you understood the biblical concept of adultery, then you would’ve realized that there was no restriction on men taking additional wives (i.e. polygyny).
I think some of the objections you’re getting may stem from the idea that perhaps the interpretation your argument is based on is not as “clear” as your argument hopes.
All information requires interpretation. Now there may be some information out there that has few interpretive options, but that isn’t limited or determined by the author. It’s done by the reader. Oftentimes, a reader may have some bias present that would cause them to interpret in a particular way - perhaps a way different from the authorial intent.
Gorgias has done a fine job raising other interpretations of this particular text. No need for me to re-tread.
As God gave the Church the power to bind and loose doctrine, it sort of does. So we disagree here.
It’s only a logical fallacy when the authority involved is not actually authoritative (as a question of “soundness”).