V
Vonsalza
Guest
That’s cute.
I mean… it’s not accurate, and it’s not how the Church justifies its teachings. But it’s cute.
:clapping::clapping:
- Status
:clapping::clapping:
S
sudy
Guest
In your post #1 you concluded that polygamy is not sinful. You also placed two points of evidence to show that: 1) God facilitates polygamous relationships and 2) that he never punished them for adultery.
I disagree that Matthew 19:4-6 should be dismissed out of hand. Scripture may not explicitly state that polygamy is outlawed, but it does show God’s preference. God expects more from us as he has revealed more about himself. In the Old Testament, punishment was temporal and not eternal. In the New, this is no longer the case.
In the case of those in polygamous relationships, God does not want any of the ‘spouses’ to be overlooked. I’m not sure about divorce, although they would probably not be licitly married in any case as polygamy is illegal, at least in the US and the UK. They would still have a responsibility to those wives and children, though.
As Catholics, we follow the teachings of the Church regarding morals. As a non-Christian, I suppose you only feel obliged to follow the laws of the land, which have outlawed this practice.
Romans 13:1-2 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
“Love your neighbour as yourself.” This would include your spouse. Love isn’t selfish and self serving… it’s giving, it’s serving others.
For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. [1 Corinthians 7:4]
Galatians 3:27-28 For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
As someone happy with polygamy… are you also saying that you’d be happy with it being the other way around? One woman with several husbands? mixing fluids? ((shudders)) Could you feel happy if your wife wanted another husband? Would you feel any rivalry? envy? anger? etc. Would you feel rejected? Would you feel satisfied with life - knowing you’re tied to a woman who doesn’t really love you and one who hasn’t developed a deep bond with you …perhaps knowing you’re just a piece of meat to satisfy her appetite physically …perhaps feeling controlled …knowing you can’t unite with her when you need her, but only when it suits her, of if she ‘pencils you in’? etc. And let’s face it, she may not feel like it on your night
Looking for another potential spouse could bring its own difficulties in any case [Matthew 5:28]
Ephesians 5:31-33 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and his church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
My points come from what’s clearly stated in Genesis 29:30-33. I’ll cite where Genesis confirms each of my claims regarding Jacob and his wives.
Claim #1: God wanted Jacob to love TWO wives.
Biblical passage for claim#1: Genesis 29:31-32 31 When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren. 32 Leah conceived and bore a son, and she named him Reuben;[d] for she said, “Because the Lord has looked on my affliction; surely now my husband will love me.”
Conclusion: Clearly God saw a problem and showed concern, otherwise He would not have acted to try to FiX the problem. Please refer to what Leah (not ME) said at the very end there. She also knew that it was GOD’S doing and the text actually mentions that it was God’s doing.
Claim #2: God helped Rachel and Leah get pregnant by ONE man.
Biblical reference for claim #2: (Do I really need to post this for you being that it’s clearly stated?!)
I agree that the simple fact of people engaging in polygamy does not show that polygamy was moral. You’re really attacking a strawman at this point because I’ve been very clear in my argument. My claim is that God wanted people to engage in polygamy. What else would you call God wanting a man to love TWO women and impregnate them?!!
Adultery is part of the moral law and it’s part of the 10 commandments, i.e directly from God!. Based on its definition or how it was understood, it did not prohibit men from having additional women just as long as the women weren’t already married to other men. Having a definition that does not restrict men in the same way as women should by itself be a clue that God was wanting polygyny. And with biblical adultery not applying to polygynists, then there is no prohibition - it’s allowed.
In my argument, God didn’t “let” or “allow” anyone to get pregnant. My argument involves God directly causing the pregnancy of TWO women using the seed of ONE man.
Seeing how much you have misrepresented my argument, I’m really starting to question if you are open to examining your views logically, or if you just want to accept whatever your Church tells you regardless of if it stands up to logic/evidence.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Even Jewish sources deny your claim:
chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/558598/jewish/Does-Jewish-Law-Forbid-Polygamy.htm
The Torah does not forbid a man from having multiple wives. Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon are notable examples of biblical figures who wedded more than one wife.
A close reading, however, reveals that in virtually all cases where our forefathers took multiple wives, it was for a specific reason. Abraham married Hagar only after Sarah suggested that he do so because she and Abraham had no children together. Another classic example is Jacob. He married Leah only because he was tricked into it by Laban. Similarly, he took Bilhah and Zilpah at the advice of his first two wives, who wished to bear children through them.
Yet the Torah does not outlaw polygamy.
Approximately one thousand years ago, the noted German scholar Rabbi Gershom “the Light of the Diaspora” banned polygamy.1 This ban was accepted as law by all Ashkenazic Jews, but was not recognized by Sephardic and Yemenite communities.
Practically speaking, polygamy is almost nonexistent today even amongst Sephardic Jews, due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of them live in societies where polygamy is not legally and/or socially acceptable.
A number of reasons are given for Rabbi Gershom’s ban:
It was instituted to prevent people from taking advantage of their wives.2
It was intended to avoid potential infighting between rival wives,3 which may also lead to the transgression of a number of biblical violations.4
Rabbi Gershom was concerned lest the husband be unable to provide properly for all his wives (especially during the difficult times of exile).5
here is a concern that a man may marry two wives in different locations, which may lead to forbidden relationships between offspring.6
While it has been suggested that it was adopted from Christian practice and laws, to avoid Christian attacks against Jews who act otherwise,7 this argument has been assailed by many other halachic authorities.
As far as Jewish thought is concerned, it would seem that polygamy is not, and never was, an ideal state. The mystical works are replete with references to husband and wife being two halves of one whole. Interestingly, I’ve never encountered an episode in the Talmud or Midrash—which predate Rabbi Gershom’s ban on polygamy—which involves a polygamous family. While it is certainly possible that such stories do exist, it is quite apparent that polygamy was never the norm.
Practically speaking as well, polygamy is a big financial strain, as the husband is required to provide for all the needs of, as well as separate housing for, two households.
In all probability, polygamy was always considered a last-resort option for men who were married to barren women and who wished to have children without divorcing the wives they loved. Monarchs also routinely used polygamy to cement relationships with different tribal factions and families.
– Rabbi Silberberg
chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/558598/jewish/Does-Jewish-Law-Forbid-Polygamy.htm
The Torah does not forbid a man from having multiple wives. Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon are notable examples of biblical figures who wedded more than one wife.
A close reading, however, reveals that in virtually all cases where our forefathers took multiple wives, it was for a specific reason. Abraham married Hagar only after Sarah suggested that he do so because she and Abraham had no children together. Another classic example is Jacob. He married Leah only because he was tricked into it by Laban. Similarly, he took Bilhah and Zilpah at the advice of his first two wives, who wished to bear children through them.
Yet the Torah does not outlaw polygamy.
Approximately one thousand years ago, the noted German scholar Rabbi Gershom “the Light of the Diaspora” banned polygamy.1 This ban was accepted as law by all Ashkenazic Jews, but was not recognized by Sephardic and Yemenite communities.
Practically speaking, polygamy is almost nonexistent today even amongst Sephardic Jews, due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of them live in societies where polygamy is not legally and/or socially acceptable.
A number of reasons are given for Rabbi Gershom’s ban:
It was instituted to prevent people from taking advantage of their wives.2
It was intended to avoid potential infighting between rival wives,3 which may also lead to the transgression of a number of biblical violations.4
Rabbi Gershom was concerned lest the husband be unable to provide properly for all his wives (especially during the difficult times of exile).5
here is a concern that a man may marry two wives in different locations, which may lead to forbidden relationships between offspring.6
While it has been suggested that it was adopted from Christian practice and laws, to avoid Christian attacks against Jews who act otherwise,7 this argument has been assailed by many other halachic authorities.
As far as Jewish thought is concerned, it would seem that polygamy is not, and never was, an ideal state. The mystical works are replete with references to husband and wife being two halves of one whole. Interestingly, I’ve never encountered an episode in the Talmud or Midrash—which predate Rabbi Gershom’s ban on polygamy—which involves a polygamous family. While it is certainly possible that such stories do exist, it is quite apparent that polygamy was never the norm.
Practically speaking as well, polygamy is a big financial strain, as the husband is required to provide for all the needs of, as well as separate housing for, two households.
In all probability, polygamy was always considered a last-resort option for men who were married to barren women and who wished to have children without divorcing the wives they loved. Monarchs also routinely used polygamy to cement relationships with different tribal factions and families.
– Rabbi Silberberg
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
It is just a shortened, abbreviated version of what the church teaches. Since you prefer, I will give you the unabridged version. I kept the original text in a bolded, italicized format.That’s cute.
I mean… it’s not accurate, and it’s not how the Church justifies its teachings. But it’s cute.
Catholic: The church is infallible in the teachings of faith and morals.
Skeptic: How do we know that?
Catholic: We have three reasons: 1) the Bible, 2) the sacred tradition and 3) the magisterium.
Skeptic: Let’s start with the bible:
Catholic: the Bible is a collection of writs, created by unknown people at unknown times, unsubstantiated by external sources. <Observe the honesty of this Catholic. A very rare phenomenon!>
Skeptic: Who selected which texts will be included?
Catholic: The early members of the church collected the texts, and voted on which texts should be included, and which ones are apocryphal.
Skeptic: So the Bible is a human concoction, written and selected by humans.
Catholic: But the people were “inspired” by God.
Skeptic: And you know this, how? Did God actually brainwash these people and impose his version on them?
Catholic: The exact process is unknown, it is a mystery.
Skeptic: So you have no evidence for this “inspiration” business.
Catholic : Well we are not Sola Scriptura people, and the Bible is just one font of our faith.
Skeptic: Go on.
Catholic: We also have the “sacred tradition”.
Skeptic: What about it?
Catholic: The church has its history, maintained by the church. We call it “sacred tradition”.
Skeptic: So the church maintains that the tradition of the church is accurate. Why am I not surprised?
Catholic: Don’t forget the magisterium, the “teaching authority” of the church.
Skeptic: And the authority was given by whom?
Catholic: By Jesus, of course.
Skeptic: And how do you know that?
Catholic: Obvious. The Bible, the sacred tradition and the magisterium all prove it.
If we throw out all the "fluff", the end is the same:
Catholic: It is an infallible teaching of the church.
You have no external substantiation for your beliefs. They are summed up correctly as I did:
The church is infallible, because the church says so.
F
frobert
Guest
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
Well God and the Church are also bound by logic. In order to have a coherent view, which I assume is involved in the making of doctrine, you have to remain within the bounds of logic. If you have a doctrine filled with contradictions, inaccuracies, then it will not be true no matter what “authority” you have. Just being an “authority” does not lead to knowledge, so I imagine that the Catholic Church developed their views by first being literate so they can actually read the writings of the Jews, study the culture, the historical background, etc. I’m only here examining their thinking and I find that it doesn’t stand up to logic when it comes to polygamy.
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
Your point would only be right in some cases but not in all. For instance, if the standard is that God wants a man to have one wife, and I’m assuming that standard is correct, then just ONE instance of Him wanting a man to have two wives would constitute a contradiction. In other words, it would show that an all-good God does not legally nor morally prohibit a man from having more than one wife.
I should also say that I have multiple lines of evidence for my view, so even if one piece of evidence does not suffice, then surely I can draw in other evidence to make a cumulative case.
True, when discussing morality, intent is one factor but so is behavior. Jacob’s intent may’ve originally been to have one wife, but then he changed what he wanted when he continued to work for a second wife. God is also in the moral picture since his intent was mentioned, and He acted on it by helping TWO women to be more loved by ONE man. If God did this for 2 or 3 homosexuals in marriage, I doubt you’d be splitting hairs here. You’d simply accept that an all-good God would NOT have anything to do with progressing such relationships, at all!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.
As I mentioned many times before, God did not simply “allow” polygamy. He actually helped these relationships and blessed them. God never caused nor blessed a man for divorcing.
Secondly, God never made a concession for ‘adulterous’ acts which is what polygamy would be just as your Church would call it now if a married man slept with a woman other than his first wife. I go into this more later on in this post.
One key thing to factor in regarding idolatry, incest, divorce vs. polygamy is that in the first 3 acts, God never facilitated these acts and with the exception of divorce, he banned them by the time of Moses. Polygamy was never banned, but instead we have God directly facilitating polygamy (and I mean helping polygamous functions, like impregnating multiple women, wanting one man to love multiple women) and Moses added rules to regulate it so that it can be practiced more fairly.
In post #49, you explained adultery as a property crime with women being property and I agree with you there. However, you should also factor in that the rule of adultery came from God so it’s also morally binding and carries over into the new covenant just like all of the other moral Laws. So then the question is why would God make a rule that would fit a polygamous context (although I’d rather say to accommodate polygamy since both monogamy and polygamy were allowed)? The answer to this question is quite clear and it is simply that polygamy was never a sin and therefore never prohibited. This is in keeping not only when it comes to God not calling polygamists adulterers, but also in keeping with his perferctly moral actions to help facilitate polygamous functions (loving multiple women, impregnating multiple women, etc.) A concession for polygamy was never needed since it was never prohibited in the first place!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.
Of course, my claim about the Jews having a polygamous society during Jesus’s time is based on the fact that people practiced polygamy during that time and the people, especially the Jewish leadership condoned it. So again, I still maintain that the culture was still polygamous, and according to you, Jesus went against it by banning it so your point about God not wanting to go against cultural norms is clearly false.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I am amused by your penchant for substituting your internal monologues as stand-ins for evidence, credible sources and proper arguments.
Yet another example of your loose grasp on what passes for good rhetoric.
It’s almost like you actually expect people to read it with a serious effort…
V
Vonsalza
Guest
God is bound by nothing at all. The Church is “bound” by the Spirit of God.
Notably absent here is our personal understanding of what is or isn’t logical.
This isn’t an argument for the uselessness of logic. Only a suggestion that God isn’t somehow subject to my understanding of it. If he were, I’d worship my own grasp of what is and isn’t logical rather than worship God, as he must be beholden to it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
The fact that you have to write over 100 words of explanation in order to support your position REFUTES the fact that Scripture is clear.
Your position is that if you wrote “My car is red” that there is nothing further that needs to be said.
And if someone spent 100 words trying to argue a point of what that statement means…what would we conclude about your very basic statement?
We would conclude that…it’s not very clear what you were trying to say, right?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Are you also going to say that since God “impregnated” Arnold’s mistress that God endorses adultery?
P
PRmerger
Guest
God directly causes the pregnancy of ALL women, AB.
If the creation of a new human soul is purely accidental, then there is no God.
Where have I argued that I accept whatever my Church tells me regardless of whether it stands up to logic/evidence?
You’re begging the question here, AB.
First provide evidence for God’s command for polygamy, then we can chat.
Right now all done is provide evidence that someone got pregnant when she had sex.
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
I’m not sure if you’re objecting to my use of the word “bound”, but I meant it to say that logic is used (no contradictions, etc.) to form doctrines. The Bible itself would also have to be coherent in order for us to make sense of it. Imagine if the Bible said that the Church is the authority and in another place it said the opposite. Could you honestly claim any truth from that?
Now lets get on to addressing my claims about inconsistencies in the Church’s position when it comes to polygamy.
I wasn’t responding to you to say that Matthew 19:4-6 should be dismissed, but rather that it doesn’t deal with the points in my argument. I have my own view on Matthew 19 but I will get to that later and possibly even in another thread.
So then we both agree that God wanted one man to love TWO women. This is precisely why I use it as one piece of evidence in my moral argument for polygamy.
Your remaining points do not address the argument that I presented in post 1. Even if your points were correct, it would show that there’s a contradiction unless you can reconcile all of the relevant biblical information on this matter.
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
I’ll clarify one of my points regarding adultery in connection to polygamy.
The “sleeping with another’s spouse” would be adultery in a monogamy context and this would be the case whether it be sleeping with the husband or wife.
If that’s correct, then I agree with you that this expression would not work in the context of polygamy and that’s because the husband would then be charged with adultery. So the definition of adultery in the monogamy-context does apply to polygamy in that it makes it wrong.
So the point of my second argument involving adultery is that according to you, God wanted monogamy. But the problem is that He came up with a type of adultery that does not fit in with the monogamy context since it does not prohibit multiple women from sleeping with the husband. Your view would clearly lead to a contradiction.
Yes, the context - polygamy or monogamy, matters. However, God wanted monogamy and the rules of adultery came directly from Him via the 10 commandments. My point is that if He wanted monogamy only, then he would have made the terms of adultery to fit within the context of monogamy as I explained above.
Under the context of monogamy, which you said God wanted, polygamy would be an adulterous act. So for your view to hold any weight, you need to show that God not only made a concession for polygamy but also for adultery. And I’ve already provided logic and evidence that would discredit you on both fronts.
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
Good points, thanks for posting the references.
I tend to agree with your point which is one reason why citing “authority” in an argument that’s not about “authority” is fallacious reasoning, imho.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is how Catholic argue infallibility, not what was presented, AB.
We first understand that the Bible is reliable, as merely a historical document. Then we understand, based on this reliable Bible, that an infallible Church was founded. From that we take that this infallible Church determined that the Bible is inspired. And this inspired Bible proclaims that the Church is infallible.
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
If there was divine intervention involved in making Arnold’s mistress pregnant, then yes, God is endorsing for Arnold to have multiple women. In God’s eyes, Arnold did not commit adultery just as long as he’s willing to take on the responsibility of being a husband for his mistress and her kids.
Just as Gorgias and I have been discussing, the definition of adultery would vary based on if God and/or a society allows polygamy or not.
This clearly is not a reasonable rebuttal to my argument but I’ll answer it. God is not needed to cause a pregnancy if the natural biological process is working. In Leah and Rachel’s case, biology was not working for them since the two were barren. Then God stepped in to fix that problem.
Whether I say God “commands” polygamy or God “wants” polygamy, it all boils down to the same thing. God did not explicitly put it in the exact form that you’re expecting, but there is plenty of indication that He wanted polygamy based on the terms of adultery, based on his direct actions and judgements towards polygamists, etc.
I’ve already been through all of this and I’m noticing that the quality of the rebuttals are decreasing. It seems like some Christians here are just trying to muster up any explanation that they can come up with just to have any reason to not accept polygamy.
P
PRmerger
Guest
All things are divine intervention, AB.
Your error in logic is where you conclude: when someone gets pregnant after having sex this indicates God’s blessing on the sexual relationship.
Any sane person know this to be gaga, lala nonsnese.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Ah, so you accept the whole shebang, the literal six days, the tree, the talking serpent, the deluge covering the peak of the Mount Everest, and the rest of the OT as being historically correct. That is not what the Church teaches. Of course, maybe you just converted to a Sola Scriptura kind of a believer… what was your usual comment?
#scratchaPRmerger
#findafundamentalist
Whatever happens is the result of God’s explicit or implicit permission. A permission is either the sign of approval or the lack of disapproval. There is no difference. A double negative is a positive. Grammar is your friend.
- Status