Why is polygamy wrong?

[PRmerger]

The Decalogue is universally valid and part of the New Covenant according to the Catholic Church? De acuerdo!

Universally valid? What do you mean here?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I doubt that the children of Adam and Eve inter-married since I believe the story about Adam and Eve to be just that, merely a story, a myth, not a real historical event. In Genesis 4:17-22 it says:

So according to this story in Genesis, the first city was built by Adam’s son, Cain. Only 7 generations later, we have the first bronze and iron tools:

Adam
Cain (built first city)
Enoch
Irad
Mehujael
Methusael
Lamech
Tubal-cain (made bronze and iron tools)

Since the first cities probably emerged during the 4th millennium BC and the Mesopotamian bronze age began about 2900 BC (the iron age began about 1700 years later), that places the first humans, Adam and Eve, less than six thousand years ago. That hardly seems believable to me. So to me, Adam and Eve as presented in Genesis are just a myth.

You make a very good point. While I think some of the Genesis information is myth, especially the Creation story down to the Adam and Eve event (900 year old people?), but I think some of it was based on real history and was subsequently exaggerated with myth for whatever purposes.

An English teacher explains this type of genre better than I:
A genre in literature, historical fiction is a work of writing that reconstructs the past. Often inspired by history, writers of this genre will incorporate past events or people into their fictitious stories. In order to do this successfully, the story’s details need to feel authentic.

• Bryanna Licciardi

Source: study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-historical-fiction-definition-characteristics-books-authors.html

Just to add: In my mind, I would still say that it’s up to debate just how much myth or fact is involved in the Creation story and in Genesis.

 

[Rau]

I doubt that the children of Adam and Eve inter-married since I believe the story about Adam and Eve to be just that, merely a story, a myth, not a real historical event.

Ahhh…I didn’t realise you reject Adam as Eve as the (literal) first parents of us all. Then of course the point I made marriage in the collateral line may have no relevance for you.

 

[Rau]

I am not speaking from the perspective of Jacob but rather from the perspective of God. God is also a moral being, that is, he abides by a set of moral rules and that’s by nature or definition…

A set of rules for “judging” God is rather beyond my pay-grade! What is the source of those rules? Surely you’re not suggesting we just view God - the author of life - like any other guy?

Contrary to you shifting my position, I am indeed debating on whether or not God sinned following your logic.

I didn’t shift it - it never occurred to me that the sinfulness of otherwise of God was on the table!! Maybe that’s one for the Philosophy forum!

But if God can not sin, then it stands to reason that polygamy is morally good according to Genesis 29:30 to Genesis 30:23. As I previously mentioned, there were rules for marriage in Genesis that were expected to be followed. Polygamy would be adultery, and if God did not want the book of Genesis characters to commit adultery (Genesis 12:17-19) then He shouldn’t engage in it nor promote it based on His according to His all-good nature.

What sin - what immoral act - do you imagine that God might conceivably have committed. No, don’t bother answering that - the question makes no sense to me anyway! I’m not aware that God actually encouraged persons to enter polygamous relationships - I don’t know. But as we’ve agreed (I think) that it may well be the case that polygamy is not intrinsically evil, and thus the morality or otherwise is a function of intentions and circumstances.

If incest and polygamy were only allowed for a time so that the population could increase (this is YOUR reasoning), then why was incest banned later on in the Law and not polygamy? Surely Moses did not add this Law because polygamous practices by a wide variety of population (native Americans, Sumerians, etc.) predates Moses.

It was more my speculation than my reasoning - God permitted polygamy for a time and for purposes, ultimately unknown to all of us. Perhaps the Israelites were low on men due to wars - perhaps the survival of the Israelites was at stake? Perhaps it was permitted due to “the hardness of heart”? We can’t claim to know the mind of God. And the same goes for the progressive timing of the revelation of the Divine Law. I presume when you say “Law”, you refer particularly to the old Law eg. Leviticus? Christ was quite clear about God’s model for marriage (though you refuse to accept that).

Using the word “things” was a poor word choice on my part. I meant to say human acts. So when you say in reference to polygamy, that it is not “always and everywhere immoral”, this means that at one point it was not only allowed or tolerated but it was also not a sin? “Not a sin” meaning it was morally good at one point? The problem is I have not been able to find a clear consensus on this matter from Catholics. There may in fact be no Catholic position

Not quite - if polygamy is not “intrinsically evil”, then the act of taking a 2nd wife may be moral, subject to intentions and circumstances. I am not aware of a Catholic position on this however, other than the clear statement that polygamy is contrary to the Gospel, which re-iterates God’s plan for marriage.

In which sense did God allowed polygamy?

1. God can allow a sin but not hold any of us accountable for it (Romans 5:13, Acts 17:29-30) but nonetheless it is still a sin.

1. Or rules can be added or taken away just like incest and divorce, in which case, and there is no sin involved under those current terms.

There may in fact be no fixed Catholic position on this My inclination is that polygamy was allowed by God for a time, and thus polygamy per se was not sinful. As to the Catholic position, I would add:

• it is likely more accurate to say that God allowed polygamy rather than he approved it. * would have given a kick-start to our multiplication, and perhaps have avoided sibling marriage. We know the law (Moses) allowed dissolution and we are given a reason - “your hardness of heart”. How exactly God viewed those pursuing dissolution - I can’t say for sure, but we know Jesus reflected upon it as objectively unsatisfactory. [The state of a person’s soul is never something we are capable of judging - only God can.] Was God’s allowance of polygamy in some ways analogous to this? God seems later to warn against it: Deut 17:17 - which refers to the leaders (Kings). And clearly the Gospels re-assert the one man and one woman model.

One amusing aspect of so many of the Bible stories of polygamous marriages (at least the ones treated in some depth) is they so often seem to be full of conflicts and tragedies. Jacob we’ve covered. Gideon is another horror story - so many brothers with little regard for each other, linked to loyalty to their distinct mothers. King David, Solomon. The list goes on. One has to wonder whether these hair raising stories are teaching us something about the potential pitfalls of polygamous relationships. Of course, family tragedy can happen without polygamy, but it plays a strong role in these stories.*

 

[AgnosticBoy]

A set of rules for “judging” God is rather beyond my pay-grade! What is the source of those rules? Surely you’re not suggesting we just view God - the author of life - like any other guy?

God must follow his own moral law, which some philosophers say stem from his character, when it comes to every action that’s directed towards us. God is a moral being, a perfect one at that. According to Genesis 18:20-25, Abraham expected God to be righteous. According to Deuteronomy 32:4, God is perfect and does not sin. God can not lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery in thought/desire, he does not tempt us with evil, etc.

I didn’t shift it - it never occurred to me that the sinfulness of otherwise of God was on the table!! Maybe that’s one for the Philosophy forum!

God’s morality should be on the table if we are to call him all-good or righteous. I would’ve thought throughout history that God’s goodness was one of the important reasons why people would have a relationship with such a being, as opposed to following weak and immoral gods, like some of the Greek gods, etc.

What sin - what immoral act - do you imagine that God might conceivably have committed. No, don’t bother answering that - the question makes no sense to me anyway! I’m not aware that God actually encouraged persons to enter polygamous relationships - I don’t know.

I don’t have any examples that he encouraged people to enter into polygamy, but He did encourage its continuance. In one example, God promoted polygamy by helping TWO women become impregnated by ONE man. One man impregnating two women is a DISTINCT function of a polygamous relationship.

But as we’ve agreed (I think) that it may well be the case that polygamy is not intrinsically evil, and thus the morality or otherwise is a function of intentions and circumstances.

I was only speaking theoretically and presuming that polygamy is a sin or that it was simply tolerated it for a time. Either viewpoint makes absolutely no sense to me. If polygamy were a sin it would be adultery and to my knowledge, adultery is wrong in all circumstances and even in intent. In fact, polygamists are worse, because they actually make a commitment to adultery when they claim to be married to their additional women while their FIRST and rightful wife stands there watching the whole thing.

It was more my speculation than my reasoning - God permitted polygamy for a time and for purposes, ultimately unknown to all of us. Perhaps the Israelites were low on men due to wars - perhaps the survival of the Israelites was at stake? Perhaps it was permitted due to “the hardness of heart”? We can’t claim to know the mind of God. And the same goes for the progressive timing of the revelation of the Divine Law.

I appreciate your statement here. The Catholic Church and some early Christians have made their reasoning known as far as why they pick out polygamy to begin with as opposed considering that bestiality was a temporary sin or tolerated, or same-sex acts being a temporary sin or tolerated. The start of their reasoning begins with Matthew 19:3-9. The problem that I tend to find is that no one to my knowledge addressed the OT points (beyond the book of Genesis) about polygamy which is suspect.

I presume when you say “Law”, you refer particularly to the old Law eg. Leviticus?

Yes. All the Laws that aren’t civil or ceremonial.

Christ was quite clear about God’s model for marriage (though you refuse to accept that).

My viewpoint factors in Christ teaching on the matter and there’s no conflict. I’ve already explained how polygamy does not conflict with Christ teachings. Although, I would say that Christ teachings should not conflict with God’s moral law so we really should be factoring in both and not one or the other.

Not quite - if polygamy is not “intrinsically evil”, then the act of taking a 2nd wife may be moral, subject to intentions and circumstances. I am not aware of a Catholic position on this however, other than the clear statement that polygamy is contrary to the Gospel, which re-iterates God’s plan for marriage.

This is a clever view (I mean that in a good way) but there are some problems. Polygamy is the sin of adultery, and as I explained earlier, it is wrong in all circumstances. Secondly, the Catholic Church talks about monogamy as being restored by Jesus and therefore that is the standard now. That leaves little room for circumstance-based polygamy because the circumstances can arise in the future.

And last, I’ve yet to come across a logical and/or evidenced explanation of a circumstance that can account for why God allowed polygamy even beyond the time-frame of Genesis. I emphasize logic and evidence because you must first prove what circumstance God allows polygamy and then most importantly, you must prove that there needs to be a circumstance… for instance why can’t polygamy be right in all circumstances just like monogamy is? So the Church will then say Matthew 19 and monogamy is how it’s been since the beginning. That claim needs to be supported also!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Part 2 of 2

There may in fact be no fixed Catholic position on this My inclination is that polygamy was allowed by God for a time, and thus polygamy per se was not sinful.

Don’t forget there are also Catholics who actually agree that polygamy was not a sin. Saint Augustine is one that I can remember.

As to the Catholic position, I would add:

• it is likely more accurate to say that God allowed polygamy rather than he approved it. *
  Being that polygamy is adultery, the all-good God can watch but he should not promote, encourage, proclaim it to be righteous, bless it, etc. God did all of this for Jacob and more.

- God’s model of marriage seems fairly clearly to be one man and one woman in a bond that cannot be dissolved. Adam was given only a single wife, Eve, though multiple wives [and here I speculate…]
would have given a kick-start to our multiplication, and perhaps have avoided sibling marriage.

Genesis 2:24 shows one man and one woman in a marriage but it does not mention how many marriages someone can have. In other words it does not say that you can only have one marriage. This leaves room for a form of polygamy that can be practiced by having multiple marriages at the same time, with one wife in each marriage. You see I’m not even sure that many Catholics understand that today or even earlier on in Church history. Some may’ve just assumed that it’s three people in one marriage when that is not necessary for polygamy at all.

One amusing aspect of so many of the Bible stories of polygamous marriages (at least the ones treated in some depth) is they so often seem to be full of conflicts and tragedies. Jacob we’ve covered. Gideon is another horror story - so many brothers with little regard for each other, linked to loyalty to their distinct mothers. King David, Solomon. The list goes on. One has to wonder whether these hair raising stories are teaching us something about the potential pitfalls of polygamous relationships. Of course, family tragedy can happen without polygamy, but it plays a strong role in these stories.

The Bible mentions some of the problems that polygamous couples had but that doesn’t mean that all monogamous marriages were blissful at the time, even if the authors did not focus on those. The problem I find with not just polygamy but all forms of marriages in the Bible and world at that time was that much of them were built on a form of patriarchy where women had little to no say. Women were often arranged into or bought for marriage and then were suppressed. These conditions would’ve had a negative impact on any form of marriage.

 

[Tomdstone]

Being that polygamy is adultery, the all-good God can watch but he should not promote, encourage, proclaim it to be righteous, bless it, etc. God did all of this for Jacob and more…

The only reasonable conclusion is that polygamy is not intrinsically immoral by the natural law or the law of God.

 

[Rau]

The only reasonable conclusion is that polygamy is not intrinsically immoral by the natural law or the law of God.

“Intrinsically immoral” is the key expression here (though AB tends to bypass this specificity in proposing that “polygamy is moral”). And in so far as natural marriage is concerned, I lean to your view, though nothing AB offered persuades to that conclusion. As to the Divine Law - he draws a long bow in his interpretation of the story of Jacob (where no endorsement or approval is offered by God, rather God works with what man has done) - far longer than logic permits IMO. And yet he draws nothing from Deut 17:17. And the conclusion that the New Testament sits comfortably with multiple parallel marriages (with a common husband) is IMHO fanciful.

As to the Natural Law - some analysis by others finds that polygamy is not contrary to the First Precepts of the Natural Law, but is to the second. Polygamy could become acceptable when the Secondary precepts need to be sacrificed in order to deliver on the first. This is rational reasoning though - it is not the definitive explanation of why God allowed it for a time. But it is consistent with the paragraph above.

 

[PRmerger]

The only reasonable conclusion is that polygamy is not intrinsically immoral by the natural law or the law of God.

This is correct.

It’s not intrinsically immoral.